SHEARING WET SHEEP.

Otago Witness, Issue 2086, 15 February 1894, Page 11

SHEARING WET SHEEP.

A SHEARER'S VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT.

The following interesting letter on the wet sheep controversy brings out many points which have not received the consideration they deserve : — TO THE EDITOR. Sib, — In your issue of the Ist inst. there appears an extract from a paper by "Merino" in the Pastoralists' Review on the vexed question, " Who is to decide when sheep are fit to shear ? " By the tone of " Merino's" remarks in the extract under notice, I take it that he is against the shearers having any say on the question of whether the work they have to perform is work that may or may not, through its repulsive and injurious nature, send the shearer to an early grave. To my mind the shearer?, and the shearers alone, are the proper parties to judge as to whether sheep are web or dry. I may be thought an extremist on this question, but those of my fellow shearers who know me can testify to the fact that I am what shearers call a " tiger" in a shed, and it is a well- known fact that whenever the question of wet sheep has been submitted to a vote of the shearers I have invariably voted that the sheep were dry. Thus it will be seen that my remarks are actuated by what I thiDk is just. However, to return to the subject. " Merino" inferi that the Bhearers have constituted themselves sole judges. I am not aware that this is the case in Austra'ia; I am sure it is not the case in New Zealand, as witness the objectionable clause in the Benmore agreement. However, were it the case that shearers had constituted themselves sole judges in the matter, " Merino " is altogether wrong when he says they ignore the opinions of professional woolclasser3 and shed managers. This is not and never was so. Usually when the question of wet sheep crops up the manager or the classer is at once informed, and without exception their "professional experience " leads them to say the sheep are dry. Tbe shearers then go on shearing until the perspiration pours off them and their clothes are wet through. They then throw the professional attributes of the classer and J manager to the dickens, and consider their practical experience sufficiently reliable to warrant them in putting on the stopper, " Merino" iufers that sheepowners and woolclasserß " have no interest in shearing wet sheep." Here again he is wrong. The classer is paid by the 1000 sheep shorn. His iuterests are, therefore, manifest, inasmuch as it is to his interest to get the sheep shorn as quickly as possible. I will not dwell on the manager's interests, as they are apparent to a blind man. But now again " Merino" adds insult to injury when he asserts that shearers declare sheep are wet for the purpose of getting a spell. The idea is ridiculous in the extreme, and not to be entertained by any sane person, I ask, is it

reasonable to suppose that a body of men would say that sheep were wet for no other purpose than that of getting "a spell," and by so doing lose the opportunity of earning from 10s to £1 per day P Here it will be seen tint to knock off through wet sheep is money out of the shearer's pocket ; but health is preferred to money, aad as shearing does not last all the year, it is not at all likely that shearers would leave their work for the sake of having a game of " follow the leader," as " Merino " infers. I have said above that I vote as a rale for dry sheep. This is because Ido not consider myself competent to judge by the feel of the wool, and I have had ample proof that managers are equally incompetent to judge, by merely feeling the wool, whether ib is web or dry. The only means by which sheep can be declared wet is as stated above — when the shearer finds himself wet through. This is my test, and not the concentrated professional experience of all the managers in Australasia would alter my opinion once I have decided by this test that sheep are wet. — I am, &c, Stephen Boreham.

Clayton Station, Mackenzie Country, February 5.