SOLVING THE RABBIT QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2242, 18 February 1897, Page 14

SOLVING THE RABBIT QUESTION.

Scene : Smoking room, Grand Hotel, Dunedio. ■Jfear, 19W. Time, 9.30 a,m. PeraoDS pregent : Secretary for Agriculture and Manchester Co-opstKfcive Delegate. Secretary : Anything startling in the Times this morniDg ? Delegate : Only that as rabbits are thought; to hkve been seen in the bosh near Owaka the residents inteud petitioning thab tbe block between Hunt's roftd and the township bo declared a rabbit distriot under the act. By the way, when I vu here ia 1896 the whole island was rabbit infested. How have you managed to wipe them orts ? Becrefcary : An entirely new act was pawed In 1900 which has -practically exterminated the pest. There »ro now only four rabbit-infested districts left, covering an srea of barely 16,000 acres, and even theso we expost will be clean before tbis time next; year. Delegate i I see you export half as muoh wool Bgain as formerly, and tbab owing to freedom from rabbits the Crown rnn§ have doubled tfceir value. What were the terms oi so thoroughly efficient an «ot ? Secretary t The whole system was altered. Each oouoty was divided into a certain nuruher of rabbit district*, averaging from 3000 to 6COO acres. For e»oh of these dl.fcriots a rabbiter was employed, whose duties were confined to the block under his oharge. He obtained a Very handsome bonus as soon as his district was 'declared clean. Delegate ! And how was this man'i wages Bnd any incidental espensfs defrayed ? Secretary : An account of tbe total expense incurred in rabbiting each sobdivielon was kept, and to meet fcMs a yewtly rate was levied over all tbe properties iv that district. Delegate i Was not the cost very high ? Secretary t In a few exceptional cases the cost rose to close upon £3 per 100 acres. But this was only during tbe first year or two. Delegate i Did not fche rabbiters conserve the rabbits co bb to m~&ke a little extra during tho Winter months ? Secretary : They would bave gained nothing by doing so. Any skins taken or rabbits sold went to defray the expense of rabbiting that block. Delegate : Owners whose land was very clear of rabbit cover must have greatly objected to ! being rated alike nifch the adjoining properties. Seoret»ry : In the first divisica of rabbifc districts each block was arranged where possible go that -tbe country within its area ehould have the same characteristics from a rabbitei's point of riew. Except in email settlements, one owner would often have a block or several blocks to himself. The boundaries of properties wen almost invariably taken as the limits of rabbit districts. Then again tho act provided that money should be lent to nny individual or individuals who cared to rabbitproof fence their country, only the wires bad to be of such a strength as to be very permanent, As far is I can remember, section iof the act reads thus :—": — " Any owner whose I property is securely wire-netted so an to bo rabbit-proof is exempt frcm the rating clauses of this act so long as bii land is tree from j rabbits." , Delegate : If any rabbit district as a whole Were to be cleaned from rabbits, how did the farmers witbin .its boundaries free themselves from the rate P i Secretary : Much as a single owner acted. They borrowed from tbe Gorernment sufficient money to fence th&t district. Section 5 reads : "Any rabbit district which shall be whx-net.ted BO as to be permanently rabbffc-proof shall be exempt from rating under tbis act so long as it - Bhall be free from rabbits." Delegate : I see, the whole system of summoning was abolished ; but did not this cause you to have difficulty in finding what farms were vruif c than others P Secretary : Certainly not. Whether tbe rabbits were killed or not each farmer knew he bad' to pay his yearly rate, and he therefore naturally endeavoured to get his full share of the rabbiter's time. Delegate : How did he act if dissatisfied P Secretary : By sendiDg written notice to the itock inspector, who was bound to see that satisfactory work was done. But instead of complaining re bis neighbours, which caused such unpleasantness under the old act, he now almost invariably wrote to point out gome part of his own property as having escsped the vigilance of the rabbiter. Delegate : I am afraid some farmers must have endeavoured to keep the rabbiters on their own properties to the detriment of others. Secretary : No. They knew that such a course would only increase the rate, as more men would have to be employed. Their object was naturally to keep the cost as low as possiole, and so they gave every assistance to tbe rebbiter. home rabbit districts were fenced within 12 months of the act coming into force, Bnd all tbe=e w«re declared free from rabbits witbin one to four years. Delegate: When here 20 years »go there was great talk of clearing out rabbits by means of " outlfciriag '* the pest and giving a Government bouus. Secret ay : Oh, yes. That was a thoroughly unworkable «heme. We unfortunately gave it n. three-yearo' trial. Not only did it cost the count* y mi lions for bonus but ib would soon exterminated our merino flocks. Delegate": How was that ? Secrctarr : Well, no owner could stop a going on to his country, not even during the Um^iug sea«on. As a resnlt m»rirtos «vere always being lo^t in boggy creeks aod bad guiliep. Boys who were accountable to no one would rush through the flocks with a pack of yelping dog*, thinking only of catching rabbits, and caring nothing what damage was done to the phf ep. Dr-legatp : At any rat? it did away with the etork inspectors, and that would be a great fcavii g. Secretary > Oh, dear, no) That Waa only a

J catch to popularise the Bcheme among the uqj initiated. Even now, when we have hardly a j rabbit, tfcere are still one same number of stock i inspectors. Their time is fully taken up with I fche inspection of efcook for diseafce. We regui larly diagnose for tuberculosis' with tuberculin. Without them it would be impossible to keep our flocks free From lica or to check fche sheep tax and registration of brands. Besides, there are a number of other important agricultural interests wbich depend on their oversight. Tbe only body of men whom this ftcbeme c&shered were fche rabbifc agents, whose wages cost the country perhaps £6000 per annum — a mere bagatelle *8 oompartd with even the monthly bonua for iabbitskins. Delegate ; I suppose the act was greatly disliked at first. Secretary : Not by property owners ; but of • course professional trapper?, storekeepers who ' could no 1 ; see before them, and those who were interested in rabbit factories fought it very bitterly. Delegate : At any rate, lam glad you have been eventually, successful. Wnat do you say— hop beer, I suppose ? Confound national prohibition, say I.