The Rabbit Question. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2258, 10 June 1897, Page 14

The Rabbit Question. TO THE EDITOR.

Sic, — In my last letter I promised to give my views on the various methods used for coping with the rabbit pest. (1) Hunting with dogs, guns, &c— This method has been tried and proved utterly inadequate. ■ Besides, it has the objection of being very harassing to stock, and cannot be carried out on the farms in the summer. So I think we may set that method aside. as having been "weighed in tbe balance and found wanting," otherwise than as supplementary to seme other method. (2) Wire-netting. — This I consider the most costly, unreliable, and altogether Utopian method yet advocated. It can't be relied on to keep rabbit* either in or out. It requires constant and minute attention, is very liible to be damaged by stock, and would require entire renewal periodically. Besides all this, the expense would be enormous. Of course those who advocate this plan have no intention to pay for it. Oh, no, the Government will do that. Si mo people seem to .consider it of no consequence how, or how mucb, money is expended bo long as the Government doe 3 it, being apparently oblivious of the fact that "the taxpayers have to payHt some time. The wire-netting method may be suitable to someof the other colonies, but I am quite satisfied that it is not co to our circumstances in New Zealand. (3) Bonus on skins. — If my memory dots not deceive me, this method was tried in the early days of the rabbit trouble. I consider it about the most objectionable in every way that has been yeb suggested. Indeed I think I need scarcely do more than refer to it. Ib would bs a direct premium and encouragement to rabbit f&rming, an enormous and constant drain on the treasury, and would probably entirely fail to effect any permanent good. Besides I question whether those persons in other parts of the colony who are not directly interested in rabbit destruction in Otago and Southland would willingly submit to such a heavy drain on their purses for such a purpose. Any serious proposal to adopt this method could only emanate from the professional rabbiter, bub I think tbe general taxpayer may be relied on to prevent its being tried again. (4) Trapping. — The chief points in favour of this method are that it is the ono most suitable for securing the rabbit in the fittest state for export, and that 'it can be adopted by anyone, with but small preliminary expense. The objections to ib are — («) That ifc ia absolutely incompatible with tbe natural enemy method ; bub *as that is a thing of fcbe past there is now no present objection on that ground, (b) Ib cannot be relied on to keep the rabbits down to anything like a reasonable minimum, experience indicating rather that they increase under ifc. I was reading some time ago an account in your columns of a meeting in Victoria between the settlers and an agenfc of the Government export department, his object being to induce them to trap for export. But they would have none of him or his business, the consensus of opinion being that wherever trapping for export was ' adopted the rabbits rapidly increased. The rft.raon for this. I think, is that trappers only

operate where rabbits are sufficiently numerous |to make it profitable. The trapping frightens I them from their favourite localities and spreads them far and wide, giving them a "roving propensity, so that a large number are left for breeding. Mr M'Queeu advocates after-poison-ing, but I wish to point out that trapping makes efficient poisoning much more difficult. Rabbits take poison best where they are most numerous, and will scarcely take it at all where they are thinly scattered and- the "feed plentiful. Rabbits are given -to settling down in favoured localities and have regular feeding. I grounds, and poison when laid there is readily I taken, the trouble and expense beiDg small; but when they become scattered over a. wide j area the expense of laying the poison is greatly increased and the probability 'of their taking it? ' greatly decreased, (c) Trapping for export is dead against the farmer, who breeds and feeds the rabbit ; but the other fellow comes along and takes possession, whereas if he bred and fed sheep instead ho could drive them to market I himself. It has been urged that the trapping j gi ve s employment to a number of men who would j otherwise go unemployed, butfrom an economical i point of viefar this is a worse way oE employing the unemployed than the method of contributing ■ to the revenue by the consumption of alcoholic liquors, where you have to waste £3 in order to contribute £1 to the revenue. The money expended in trapping rabbits is absolutely wasted when viewed from the standpoint of rabbits versus sheep, because it is not paid for the production of the rabbits, but entirely for making them available for export. So that ifc would ba much better economy on the farmer's part to grow mutton and wool and expend the money it would have coat to catch the rabbits in employing men to drain and improve his land, (d) Trapping is only partial in it 3 application, cannot be carried out on high and rough country nor in the summer season, and I think I have said enough ab jut it to make it evident that as an ultimate solution of the rabbit problem it must be " ruled out of courb." (5) Poisoning. — Phosphorus poisoning, as I have shown, proved the salvation of Southland from the rabbits. As' an ail-round means of reduqing and keeping the rabbits at a reasonable minimum it has proved a success if properly and generally applied. It is comparatively cheap, and can be laid anywhere and at all seasons. Its chitf drawback is that few of the skins can be recovered, as the rabbits usually die in their burrows. Where it is desired to get skins, strychnine should be used instead oE , phosphorus. No doubt the phosphorus cauiesa painful aud lingering death, but whether the suffering is greater in (she aggregate than being held several hours by thß leg in a trap or being hunted to the death by a bloodthirsty and ferocious enemy would be difficult to decide. Necessity, however, knows no law ; even the laws o£ humanity have to give way to it. Our very existence- as a colony depends upon the destruction of the rabbits, and that we have to do the cruel and dirty work ourselves is the penalty we haveto pay for refusing and neglecting to relegate it to more willing but less retponeible agents. My conclusion with regard to the poisoning i« that ib is the cheapest, the most; reliable, and the most effective agent we have at present available. It is e«3Bntiaily a farmer's and ruoholder's method. No man who carefully and persistently lays poiion on his land will ever have the rabbits sufficiently numerous to do him a ierious injury. But as a permanent resource it still leaves much to be desired. (6) Chicken Cholera.— So far as New Zealand is concerned this ie only a proposed method. If it has been tried in other colonies I am nob aware with what results. In any case, the initial experiment should be carried out on an island, or on a carefully enclosed piece of land, and before being further applied it should be satisfactorily proved that it is capable of entirely exterminating the rabbits, and that the probability of its extending to other animals is most remote. I am afraid Mr M 'Queen's violent condemnation of this method savours somewhat of the kind of sentiment I have already referred- to. (7) The Natural Enemy.— This. I look upon as by far the-besfc method of copiog with the rabbits, because ib is natural, cheap, reliable, safe, effective, and permanent, and would relieve u» ' of all the demoralising influences of the present . methods of rabbit destruction. The only objection I have ever heard made to ib is that the animals (i c , stoats, weasels, and ferrets) would become bo numerous that they would be a worse peat than the rabbits, and Bcarcely anything would escape their depredations ; but as I have said before, this is pure sentiment and conjecture, and has no foundation whatever, either in faob o- experience. About seven yeais »go ferreti were very plentiful everywhere. In my locality they were so numerous tbafc in laying traps for rate you were more likely to catch a ferret than a rat, but I never heard of any serious harm done by them in any way. An escaped tame one may have killed a law chicke, but I never hf ard of a wild one doing even tb.it. My land and homestead swarmed with them, and tbe consequence was that it became quite difficult to get a rabbit if you wanted one. There was not more than one where there are ten now. Bub the trapping, soon put a set on the ferrets. The attitude of the rabbitere towards the ferrets was similar to that of the tradesmen of Ephesus towards the Apostle Paul. Their craft was in danger, and therefore a deadly enmity existed. I look upon it as nothing less than a criminal tolly that the ferrets were not given a fair chance to show what they could do againsb the rabbits. Then with regard to the stoats and weasels, which are the chief natural enemies of the rabbits ia England, everyone who knows anything about them is aware that they can be depended upon to absolutely exterminate the rabbits i£ allowed to have a free band. It is only by careful protection and the merciless destruction of their enemies that the rabbits have any chanc9 of becoming numerous. I have bad some experience of rabbits and their enemies in England, which I could give in detail, only that I do nob wish to occupy your space with matter which would partake largely of the character of personal reminiscence. As to the weasels, fee, increasing so as to become a nuisance, it is evident that the limit of the increase of any animal, if unmolested, is tho limit of its natural food. The natural food of the weasels, &c, H flesh and blood, in the form of rabbits, xwu

mice, &3., and the extinction of these would mean the extinction of them. Reason and experience point to the conclusion that their increase or decrease would be in proportion to that of their natural food. It is quite possible that fche paDga of hunger might lead them occasionally to prey on poultry, &c., left uncsred for, but this could be eaeily prevented by enclosing them by night in a properly fenced home. I do not know whether the natural enemy method is ever likely fco be reverted to, but I am quite satisfied that the problem will never be satisfactorily solved till it; is, as no artificial method i 3 ever likely to prove so entirely satisfactory. — I am, &c, May 27. Southland Fabmer.