The Rabbit Question. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2284, 9 December 1897, Page 21

The Rabbit Question. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— Some months ago I wrote giving my views on the rabbit destruction question. In my letter I reviewed the various methods adopted aad advocated for that puvpoue, and maintained that the natural enemy was the most practical, economical, reliable, natural, and permanent method for dealing with bunny ; poisoning coming second as an effective but troublesome and expensive method of keeping them under, and only to be adopted as a temporary expedient, all other methods being objectionable iv many ways. Trapping I pointed out to be absolutely incompatible with the natural enemy, the former being racnonaiblQ for the failure of the latter. Since I

wrote my position lias been fully justified by the report (given in "Drover's" notes of , Septembaj 23) of a resident in the Marlborough district where the natural enemy has been giveu a Bhow, and has, in conjunction with poisoning, proved an eminent success. The Marlborough resident, after stating that the rabbits had been so far reduced that a visitor from Otago "in the course of two or three days' journeying was enabled to see one^ rabbit only," goes on to say : " I cannot but think that the present state of things has been brought about here by good and sybtematic work on the part of the land-owner*, aided most materially by the natural enemies — the stoat, weasel, ferrot, and cat— and by the discontinuing of the harmful and perniciout means of trapping, which has had the effect of closing factories for rabbit-tinning, which a .few years back flourished here. I have no hesitation in saying that satisfactory progress can never be made in the reduction of the rabbit pest where trapping is resorted to and fac'ories. running for the conservation of the pest. Trapping, as you are well aware, is most destructive to the natural enemy." I was pleated to meet with such an emphatic confirmation of my position from such a source, as though my views nwy posßibly be looked upon as those of a theorist, the above is the result of actual experience. During the debate on the. second reading of the " Rabbit Nuisance Bill 1890," a petition from owners and occupiers of land in the provincial district, of Otago to the Minister for Lands was read, in which the petitioners asked that the system of trapping (which has proved so .destructive to the natural enemies ' of the. rabbits) be absolutely, prohibited. During: the same debate Mr A* S-randers, member foe Lincoln, said-: "The evil with which this bill wr.s to deal was very iiagerfectly understood, *and there were very many- fallacious representations made with regard to it." He alluded to the danger of iraportingiftoats and weasels. "He was born within a quarte'ro'f a mile of. a wood which was a preserve, and in which weasels, stoats, and polecats abounded. They, were kept down .occa-. sionally when tbe "wood was in posse <sion of a sportsman, and then the farmers in the neighbourhood felt the injury, that was done them bj the destruction of these animals. He himself was a poultry fancier ia thoHe d<ys, and a rather eivthuniattic one, and he found that the deatruction of the weasels and ttoats and polecats did great harm to him, because the rats were far more destructive to poultry than these other animals. Ho was swrc that in this country, if they wanted to get rid of the stoats and weasels, they could very easily do it, for no animals were more easily trapped than they were ; but be did not thick they would ever want to get rid of- them, for it would be betted to keep them to destroy mice and rats, even if there were but few rabbits. "Whilst he knew that, he knew also how careless we had been in the introduction of birds and animal?: which h\d been extremely injurious to the country. The stoats and weasels would be a benefit to the country, and the more there were of them the hotter."

I think it is high time we came tosomedefini^ Conclusiou as to what our future policy is to bs with regard to the rabbits. Aye we going to look upon them as an industry and a source of profit, •or as a pest and a nuisanco to be reduced to n minimum or exterminated altogether if possible 1 With regard to the former, in the debate above referred to the Hon. T. Fergus, member for Wakatipu, said : "The rabbit pesb lost to the colony at least a million a year." If that waß and is so, then it would be. interesting to know how much of that Idas hap been recouped to us by tl)« late eminently successful rabbit-trapping season, and as-nearly tho whole of the loss falls on tho occupiers of the land, how much has been their share of thsjr«fnnd. If the latter is to be our policy, then it becomes absolutely necessary that trapping should be discontinued and poisoning and the natural enemy solely relied on ; and th« sooner the farmers ,pf Otago "and Southland come to that coricl union, and cease to- occupy^ the, anomalous, v'aoiliutiog, and discord_aut. position which they have hitherto occupied.the better Jt will be for them. The w^ant otunanimity on the part of the farmers on this and every other question in. which they are directly interested is to be greatly deplored, and their policy of " every ma.n for himself and the de'il take the hindermo&t" is one which is calculated to bring them as a class into costeiupt and to make them a byword iv the community. Instead of the farmers being compelled reluctantly to comply with the policy of the Itabbit tfepartmen*-, they should look upon that department as in their service and employed by them to c«rry out the policy which they had decided was most conducive to their interest?. By the way, it is curious to notice that Mr Seddon voted against the " Rabbit Nuisance Bill 1890," and said he " considered that the powers given to inspectors; would interfere with the liberty of the subject in_a worse manner than tho game Jaws of the old countiy, and he should never be found supporting such a piinciple as that." Mr Seddou mu'.t surely have meant " hardly ever." I wisfc to thank' your contributor "Drover" for hif kindly criticism of my former communication ou this subject, and trust that this may induce him to withdraw the exceptions to entire approval which he then exju'esßed. — I am, etc., December 4. Southland Farmer.