The Babbit Question.

Otago Witness, Issue 2057, 27 July 1893, Page 22

The Babbit Question.

TO THE EDITOB.

Sin,— ln jour issue of July 13 appears a letter signed " Sheepfarmer," following up and commenting on one from "A. H. T.," on the subject of the rabbit pest. The writer seems to be in perfect accord with "A. H. T." so far as that gentleman has yet touched on the matter, but if I am not mistaken in his identity "A. H. T." will have something further to say about rabbits and how to deal with them, which will not fit in quite so well with "Sheepf armor's" ideas on the subject. "While agreeing with the general drift 01 his argument, I would like to call " Sheepfarmer a attention to several weak points in the argument, which to my mind prove that he has still a lot to learn about rabbits and how to deal with them. In the first place he deals with the peat solely from a coastal farmer's point of viow, but I maintain that no man, be he farmer, stock inspector, or anything else, can possibly understand the whole bearings of this question from coastal experience alone. To thoroughly grasp the subject ; it is essential he should also have a few years ex- | perience of sheep or other farming on this awe the "garden wall." . „_ The next weak point I come to is the difference between coastal and interior experience as to the effect of spring and summer rabbiting, the trend | of public opinion here being all in favour of spring work especially, thus killing in the breeding season and preventing the rabbits increasing in their millions, and in the autumn denudingthe country of almost all grass and vegetation, for the want of which grass and vegetation— eaten, as I say, by the millions of rabbits bred in the spring and summer months— most of the stock in the interior has to suffer an annual winter period of semistarvation and famine, to the serious loss of stockfarmers and the country at large. Then " Sheepfarmer" Bays— "Broadly sneaking, all run land may be divided into two claflses, rabbity and nonrabbity" ; and he proceeds to give an instance of the harmful effects of summer work. But, Sir, this classification and the instance quoted cannot in the least apply to the circumstances of Central Otago. Following on the meanderings of his argument, we come next to what he styles the greater and the lesser harm, by which I take mm to mean the spreading of the peßt by spring and summer work over otherwise clean country. This again, Sir, cannot possibly apply to our case, all the harm that can be done in Central Otago by disturbance having been accomplished years ago, in support of which assertion I fearlessly maintain that there is not a run or farm in these districts which, if left undisturbed during thespring and summer months, could in the month of May be declared to be non-rabbity. Therefore, Sir, the only harm, and what I should call the greatest harm we can do by disturbance, is to hunt the pest over the border into Canterbury, which in spite of Government, so-called rabbit-proof fencing, stock inspectors, rabbit agents, caretakers, and all other safeguards, is without doubt at all seasons being done— vide, the press of North and South Canterbury. Next we come to "Sheepfarmer's" reveries on the present Ministry, the Stock department and its inspectors, the rabbit agents and their peculiarly pleasant and popular work of worrying the overladen squatter, which I will pass for what it is worth. But, per contra, I would ask what about the overladen farmer, miner, and small settlers generally, who from the tone of " Sheepfarmer's" remarks one would imagine to be left without any worrying at all? With all due respect to " Sheepfarmer," I maintain that they get not only their full share of worrying from the department, but far more than their fair share from the rabbits bred in the spring and summer months on the squatters' runs and the abandoned farms and other waste lands of the Crown. These same farms have had to be revalued, and a great proportion of them abandoned from this very cause, a statement in which I. think I shall be well supported by the settlers generally, in these parts at all events. Following on, welcome to rabbit factories and their effects, which for the present I will pass, as I am afraid this letter will be getting too long. Mixed up with factories, however, we have " Sheepfarmer's" first remedial suggestion— viz., " Kauways to carry all rabbits to town or factory free of charge." I would like to ask how this sugges- j tion affects the settlers in the smiling hills, valleys, and plains of Central Otago— a tract of country, not speaking by the book, of more than 100 miles square— which, after giving the first great impetus to the prosperity of New Zealand 30 years ago, and thus making possible the building of most of the railways, harbours, and other public works at present existing in New Zealand, is still left to languish in partial ruin and decay for the want of its fair share of those same railways and pnblic works— a share for which the money has been voted in Parliament, borrowed, and been specially ear- marked (vide l the last Three Million I Loan Act), and of which it has been robbed, earmark and all. But to return to our subject, which, at the point where I ran off the line, was free carriage on railways. This suggestion is | made, of course, solely from a coastal and factory point of view, and reminds me of # nothing so much as seeing a surgeon cutting and carving among the leaders and strings of a cancer while leaving the root and kernel cf the disease or pest untouched. The root and kernel of this cancer or pest of which we are treating lies embedded in the 10,000 or more square miles of Central Otago, of which the railways are only just beginning to touch the fringe, and the unforbunate settlers in which, after helping to build railways which so far have been a positive disadvantage to them, by ,drawing away to the coast their population and means, are to be further asked to help to provide the, money to run these same railways "free, gratis, and for nothing," for the further sole benefit of the coastal population, farmers, and factories. No, no ! " Sheepfarmer," it is too thin ; and the knife must and will be driven deeper and nearer the root of this cancerous pest. Hoping, Sir, that you will find space for this contribution to the discussion of a difficult problem, and that this discussion will end in the evolving of some plan of dealing with the pest, which will result in its being reduced to a minimum, a result to which I shall be prepared, after the subject has received a little more ventilation, to give my mite by suggesting a plan which if carried out to its logical conclusion must have the effect of making the rabbit pest in New Zealand a thing of the past in a very few years.— l am, &C, . Charles Holdenj Queensbury, July 17. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— With reference to a letter appearing in your ißSue of the 6th inst. by "A.H,T,"and the complaint made therein as to the extremely pajnful and lingering death rabbits are subjected to by the process of poisoning with.phosphorised grain, we wish to draw attention to the fact that that .was one of the main objects sought to be overcome by us in perfecting the preparation of. "toxa." The use of this poison, which -is taken! greedily by rabbits at any time jof the year, is almost immediate death, tho heartof ,the victim being paralysed in a few seconds, as is evidenced by the fact of the dead rabbits being :fou'nd within three or four yards of the bait. • ' - In the Witness of the 13th inst. " Skeepfarmer" 1 writes from Oamaru on the folly: of disturbing small patches or colonies of rabbits on otherwise clean ground. We entirely agree with the views of "Sheepfarmer," but would point out that the use of "toxa" would not necessitate such a disturbance, as one visit from a shepherd would be sufficient to lay enougb in a few minutes to kill the small colonies of rabbits referred tft without hunting or desturbing them in anyway. It has been said in certain quarters that putting "toxa" on the land in any quantity would be dangerous to human life. This is an absurd nuibble— it is in fact not nearly so dangerous as phosphorus. It gives off no fumes, and, provided it is used in a common-sense manner, is absolutely, safe to handle and use. Even if set close to watercourses the poison would if heavy ram came on be absorbed into the earth. No sane person would, however, think of setting this or any other poison close to water that was used for drinking or other household purposes.— We are, &c, Toxa Manufacturing Company. 1 Moray place, July 26.