Babbits and Rabbiters. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2104, 21 June 1894, Page 12

Babbits and Rabbiters. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— Having something to say regarding rabbiters and rabbits I beg you to insert the following. Some short time ago I read a report in the Witness, taken by you from the Tapanui Courier, asserting that a rabbiter on Earnscleugh station got 12,800 rabbits in nine weeks. Having made inquiries I pan the facts. Three rabbiters having a large scope of country got the above-mentioned number in- 11 week?, and worked on an average .17 hours daily, Sunday excepted, and on that day they worked five hours, making a total of 107 hours per week. The price given was 12s 6d per 300, which makes the total cheque £80, divided between three. It comes to about 48s 6d per week per man, or at the rate of s^d per hour. When expenses are taken off this wonderful cheque would look very small indeed.

I have been rabbiting for a considerable number of years and may inform the public that it is a hard-working, unprofitable occupation. In this district I can pick from 40 to 70 really good trappers who did not average 20s per week taking the trapping season right through. Wliat is the cause? The cause is that men are not getting sufficient payment for work douo. The employer only looks at the amount of the cheque, and naturally fancies it; very large for so many weeks or -so many months, as the case may be, but he never takes into consideration the amount of labour or the many extra hours daily that man has done to make that money. Five years ago the price was 203 per hundred ; now it is only 12s 6d perhuudred — a big difference. Auother consideration, men trapping have to work 16 or 17 hours daily or they would not make salt.

It has been asserted on many occasions that rabbits are on the increase, aad one of the skin merchants mentioned that the number of bales had increased within a few years from 5000 to 10,000. The cause of this is not the increase of bunny bub the increase of rabbiters, which tends to show that the administrative power of the Rabbit Act is more efficiently carried out than it was under a previous Government. I give my mite of praise to the inspectors in this district, knowing that they do their duty without fear or favour. I go further, and can mention stations that employ over double the rabbiters they did five years ago. This speaks volumes for the work done by the Rabbifc department.

Your correspondent Mr Stuart made a statement to the effect that rabbiters were in the habit of killing ferrets. All I say to that- is he must have been in very bad company, and the old adage tells us : " Show me your company and I'll tell you what you are." For the iaforniation of anyone interested about ferrets, I may state that it is very difficult to preserve them. I shall enumerate reasons. (1) They will not live on high, cold ground. (2) Wherever poison is laid the first part the ferret will eat is the entrails ; therefore they are poisoned. (3) In the spring they are inclined to get mange and footrot, this killing many. I may state I have had considerable experience breeding ferrets, having lived on a station where there were a considerable number of ferrets bred annually. The management went to considerable trouble to make it a success, but failed owing to many occurrences of an epidemic that swept then! away in hundreds, and I believe the only practicable use they are is by men working them with nets.

A correspondent, writing from Clinton, wants the Government to saddle themselves with the burden of this pest. He seems to think they

would make a profit out of the skins and give a I larger price than runholders. If such were the case, how comes it that runholders lose money by the transaction, and getting the work done at the lowest possible price at that? We all know that private businesses are better j managed and more profitably carried on than can be done by any Government. The outcome of his scheme would be a serious loss of money to the country, more taxation on an overburthened public, and, last but not least, taxing the many for the few. It must be also understood that rabbit inspectors have other duties to perform as well as keeping down the rabbit pest, and I understand that, regardless of rabbits, it would take over half the present staff to efficiently look after those other selfsame duties. In conclusion, I may say I fancy there ib a better way of working country infested with rabbits — a better way both for the employer and employee. That is, let the runholder give a man he knows to be a genuine rabbiter what he considers a fair block of ground for 12 months; the rabbits to be kept down to the satisfaction of the inspector ; the employer to give the employee traps and poison ; the employed to keep all skins, both winter and summer, and sell them when and how he likes. — I am, &c, t Clyde, June 14. Forthadbr.