THE RABBIT PEST

Otago Witness, Issue 3524, 27 September 1921, Page 11

THE RABBIT PEST

VISIT OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS., On Friday afternoon the delegates to the Farmers’ Gnron Uijjiference, who had been addrcs3cd in the morn in" 1 by Mr Poison and Captain Col beck on the subject of coope rati on, held a further meeting* to discuss with Dr C. J. Rcakes, Direct or of Agriculture, the proposed amendments to the Rabbit Act. Mr J. A. Macpherson, provincial president of the union, occupied the chair, and in opening the proceedings he expressed the thanks of the union to the Minister of Agriculture for sending his chief officer to address them. Had it not been for the fact that Parliament had opened on the previous day, the Minister would no doubt, have been present- himself. They wanted, if possible, to make suggestions that would do helpful to the Government and that would enable the anomalies and hardships on the people of Otago and Southland to be removed. Mr Leary (Lawrence) said the present method of trying to cdpe with the rabbit pest had been in opei'ation for the last SO years or so, and very little had been achieved. They had met that day to devise some means for controlling the rabbit nuisance, and it seemed to him that it was all a question of money. Mr Brough (Gatlins) said his branch ■wag of opinion that one law would not meet the case for the whole of the dominion, but that different methods should be used io meet the conditions in different parts of the country. It was considered that trapping should be allowed in the bush districts, because it was easily the most effective method, and could only be assisted by netting in certain oases. Mr Pilbrow said ho thought the First condition to be observed before they could cope with the pest successfully was that the land should be divided into areas and boards of control appointed. Mr R. Skinner (Greenfield) said lie believed that although the rabbits had always been with them there were fewer rabbits to-day than there were formerly. This was due to a variety of causes, hut he was inclined to give the greatest credit to the natural enemy of the rabbit. Trapping was an evil in many respects, but it was necessary. It seemed to him that a good idea would be to offer a big bounty for spring and summer does, and thus encourage the trappers and others to exterminate them. The pest could undoubtedly be killed out, and, he believed, some method devised whereby that could be done. Mr Craig (Greenfield) said ho had gono thoroughly into the matter with respect to his own place, but the cost was prohibitive. Many of the farmer* could undoubtedly have done more towards the extermination of the rabbit than they had done, but there were certain features of the Act that should be amended. l"or one thing, notices should not be sent out to the farmers until an inspection had been made. If the union wanted to help the Government to get rid of the rabbits it should ask the inspector to attend their meetings and discuss the matter with him. He did not like clause 2 of the Act, but he did not believe that there was any hope of getting it remedied. Mr John Christie (Clutha) said they must first agree whether the rabbit was a pest or not. They set up a labbit canning factory in Central Otago, and there was no doubt people there began to lean to rabbit farming. When the price went down, however, the looked at it differently, and now they were talking of turning the factory into a dairy factory. The rabbit would always go to the property which had the best feed to offer. He wanted to know whether the conference was prepared to declare rabbits a pest and go out after them all the time. Ho detailed the success of his experience with fencing and ferrets, stoats, cats, and other natural enemies of the rabbit. He thought there could be a good deal of co-operation between the farmers and the department. If a man was a persistent offender he should lie compelled to fence with netting so that he kept his rabbits to himself. His branch was opposed to trapping, except occasionally m older to save a crop. Trapping simply culled the rabbits and increased the trouble. Major F. Waite (Clinton) said that in their district they recognised the rabbit as a pest, and had no sympathy with the rabbit farmer. Ho was firmly convinced that the country would have to be divided up into suitable areas and thoroughly cleaned up block by block. If there were places in which the rabbit could not he dealt with that land should bo thoroughly fenced off

from tlfe rest of the country that could be cleared. Mr Reid (Berwick) epoke in defence of trapping in certain <'i{u>>es of country, adjoining bush or scrub, for instance. He did not think it would be advisable to prohibit trapping on such land. Mr A. Robertson (Lawrence) said the farmers in his district were against the prohibition of trapping. liis branch recommended ihat poison should be compulsory twice a year. He did not agree with that personally, as he thought too much reliance was placed on poison. Poison and the natural enemy advocated by Mr Christie Would not clear out the rabbits in his district. 'Every district must, adopt the system it found suitable in its own locality, if the Government paid a fair price all the year round, his branch thought that there would be no inducement for anyone to nurse rabbits. Mr f». Greer (Manioioto) said that, there was not a rabbit farmer in Central Otago—with the exception of one man he could think of who held a mining license over 25 acres. Every farmer would be only too glad to get. rid of the rabbits. Trapping was necessary in certain localities. Where the rabbits would not take poison a trapper in a comparatively short time could get two-thirds to three-quarters of them. He thought every method by which they could kill rabbits should be at, their disposal all the time. Farmers in his district thought, that more work should be done against the rabbits in the spring. He thought (ho only way to do that-apart from netting, which was not. always practicable—was for the department to take action and insist on it being done. Of course, in the spring rabbits were scarce, and every man at this time of the year whose farm was not netted in required a reminder even without inspection. Hi- branch was strongly in favour of • Janse 2 being amended. If the magistrate bad been more reasonable there would not have heeji .«o much friction, hut clause 2 had something to do with it too. If rah bit.* were made valueless in autumn it would he disastrous, and if they were to he made valueless at all it should be, in spring, with due notice. Mr I>. •!. Ross (Palmerston) said he did not think the farmers were altogether sincere. Why did they not meet together and arrange among* themselves to cooperate in combating the rabbi! pest? He agreed that trapping was- necessary on w-cash ns, but trappers often let the little ones fio. When th< v paid as nun h for the lit tie ones as the* did for the big it made a great difference Mr d. Ciark (Milton) advocated the use cf wire t • ttinp. and ► .»ge;osted that the Ooverr.nn >.l shotfV >ub v idi*e it pound for

pound. To isolate the rabbits in small blocks was half the battle. Mr J. Law (Central Otago) said it was clear that there was no special method that, was always, applicable. They had the Minister’s assurance that clause 2 would be made like any other British clause, and that would be put right. But it showed how necessary it was to watch the legislation brought forward. The great division was between the policy of coercion and the policy of co-operation. He held that coercion had proved a failure, and that cooperation should be tried. When a man was unable to keep down rabbits the department should come in and help him at his own expense He should at least have to bear part of the expense. Mr Stewart. (Middlernarch) said there was no friction in his district. Most speakers had spoken from the agricultural farmer’s point of view. On small runs it would be almost impossible to go in for netting. The natural enemies of rabbits required a good deal of water, and they were not a success on dry country. He was certain there was no rabbit farming in Ids district. Mr Robertson recalled the fact that in the first place the Government iiad protected the rabbit, but after they had begun to multiply the Government had quietly unloaded the responsibility for their destruction on to the farmers. —-(Laughter.) The Government should do its share, and iCif was right to use the public funds for the destruction of the kea surely it should do the same with regard to the rabbits The Chairman, in rounding off the discussion, commented oh the restrained nature of the discussion, but said that for the benefit of Dr Rentes he would like to emphasise the point that the farmers had a very solid and serious grievance which they desired to have remedied. There was nothing ui.reasonable in their request, and they were hopeful that the Government would give the whole matter earnest, and sympa t lietic consideration. DR R LAKE'S REPLY. Dr Reakes, in reply, said the moderate tone of tli»‘ discvwsioii had given him very great pleasure because he realised that there liar! been a. great deal of irritation over what, had happened in regard to the rabbits in .Yew Zealand. He appreciated the opportunity of having a talk with a representative gathering of farmers and of hearing their views on the question. fie realised very fully that, if good work were going to be done in conne-tion wilh the rabbits or any other braneh of the administration of the Act, the department, had to have the full co-operation of the farmers.— (“ .I [ear, hear.”) In regard to the rabbit pest they were somewhat further fotward than they were n few rears ago,

but in this connection he asked them to realise that one of the most difficult jobs in the country was that or a rabbit inspector. He would like them to believe that in all that had been done everyone had been trying to do his duty. In regard to the discussion Mr Christie had made a sound point when he had said that the rabbit was a pest, and nothing but a. pest. What the department and everyone else wanted was to cope with this pest in the most effective manner possible so that the burden would not be passed on to posterity. He did not propose to discuss in detail the various methods suggested for the destruction of the rabbit. The speakers had spoken from a practical experience of the problem, and lie had heard some very divergent opinions as to the best course to adopt, but there was no doubt, as one speaker had said, that the methods had to he suited to the conditions prevailing in particular localities. r lhe main essential was to get the rabbits killed. Regarding rabbit-netting, lie believed in its value, and considered that when properly used it was most effective. The Minister realised that also, and the department had been keeping in touch with the market so that when the netting reached a reasonable price arrangements would be made w hereby the farmers could obtain supplies at a minimum price compatible with the current market conditions. The department was quite prepared to take action on those lines, but before doing so he would be quite prepared to discuss the scheme with representatives of the Farmers’ Union. In fact, he was very rmicf) fn favour or a greater degree of co-operation, realising that mutual benefits would result both to the department and to the farmers. In what, he had said about netting, added Dr Reakes. lie was speaking with the authority of the Minister. Continuing, the speaker said he had heard a good deal about trapping, bo far as his experience went, opinion on that matter was very divergent, and all the department, could do was to go into the matter very carefully and then arrive at what seemed to tie the soundest conclusion. If the Minister decided to take any action in the direction of making regulations, as lie had power to do under the Act, no steps would he taken to make these regulations operative until they had been submitted to representatives of the Otago Farmers’ Union for an expression of opinion. By doing so the union would have the opportunity of saying whether the operation of the regulations would be beneficial or not. and any representations made on that point would receive the fullest consideration.——(Applause.) Touching on the establishment of rabbit boards, Dr Reak.es said that, in hie

opinion, tnese Doaxrrn constituted a Tamable and effective means of dealing with the rabbits where the conditions w’ere suitable for their operations. There was this further advantage connected with the rabbit boards, that the people immediately concerned —the farmers themselves—had a say in controlling whatever action was taken i in their particular territory. In the North j Island, wherever these boards had been ; established, they were carrying out an 1 effective defensive compaign against the rabbits. lie was of opinion that where the conditions were suitable it would be a wise step to form these boards, and the department would be pleased to facilitate their establishment. Proceeding, Dr Reakes said that when the Minister was in Otago he made a promise winch he meant to stick to. At the present time lie was making arrangements to amend the Act on lines that would give ! the farmer an opportunity to put his case fully before the court, and so that the magistrate could use his discretion in deI eiding the rights and wrongs of a particular case on the evidence. The Minister was going forward with that amendment, and when it was drafted it was also to be forwarded to the executive of the union. Regarding the laying of poison, there appeared to him to be no doubt that, the greater degree of uniformity there was in any one district the better were the results that would be obtained. At anyrate that had been bis experience in the North Island. in closing, Dr Reakes said he wished them clearly to understand that the department was very much in earnest as to the necessity for getting rid of the rabbits, and if the farmers would assist the department he believed it could be done with complete amity and effectiveness. So long as he was in his present position he was going to carry out his responsibilities, not on the lines of making trouble for anyone, but so as to clear the country of rabbits so far as it was reasonably possible to do so. —(Applause.) repot;ttions proposed. Mr Hughes (Tokorahi) submitted the following resolutions:—“That after hearing the Director of Agriculture, this meeting is of opinion that the existing position will be met by the removal of the words ‘to the satisfaction of the inspector’ and the words ‘m the opinion of the inspector’ from section 2 of the Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Act, 1918; that on ispection, the inspector leave with or post to the occupier a duplicate of the entry made in his book regarding his inspection. On a second inspection to do likewise with an addition to instruct iri writing detailing what steps | the occupier is to take to satisfy the in- | spec-tor; and that where property is an j agricultural or a mixed agricultural and i pastoral one, the inspector be instructed | to adjust his work to prevent the harrassing | practice of insisting on owners clearing the ! kind when shearing and harvesting operations are being carried our and labour is unprocurable; also that this meeting is of | opinion that the administration of this Act as so amended should be strictly enforced. seeing that the defendant will then have the full right to call evidence on his own behalf.” Mr Craig seconded the resolution. Mr A. 11. Chapman (Kmow) traversed some of Dr Reakes' remarks and spoke of the freedom of large areas of country from rabbits. This he attributed to the gradual increase of stoats and weasels and poisoning at the right time. Dr Reakes said he quite realised that the farmers had done a great deal of work in getting- rid of rabbits, bit they had a long way to go yet. Speaking of the resolution ! proposed he said that the first clause dealt directly with the Act, and the last three j were matters of administration with which the department could deal. He was prepared to say right out that the last three paragraphs would be carried out. Mr J. Begg said these proposals would remove causes of friction, but they left the rabbits just where they were. He thought Otago had been backward in not taking advantage of rite provision for constituting Rabbit Boards. It was both futile j and foolisli to approach the Government j for bonuses. The big blocks in Otago had j 'so far been cleared much mre effectively | than the farms had been. The department to be effective must to some extent be coercive. The chairman said that opinion in the North Island differed materially from opinions here because conditions were different. They had not the sympathy from the I North Island farmer that they had a right to expect, and he hoped that in future they would have more co-operation from the northern farmers who might soon have the same problems to face. He asked them unanimously to pass this resolution. If all these irritating elements were removed they would make a great step forward. The vote was carried unanimously. Mr Poison, dominion president of the Farmers’ Union, said the discussion had opened bis eyes considerably to the difficulties farmers were up against down here, and he assured them he would exercise a j different vote at next year's conference | from the one he had exercised last year. I A very hearty vote of thanks was aci corded to Dr Reakes and the members of his staff. CANTERBURY CHAIN AND PRODUCE MARKET. (Lyttelton Times. September 23). Snplies of fowl wheat are being brought from Austral a, but it is not likely that any ! will be put on the local market at present, i Any that is brought to Lyttelton will prep- ! ably be at the order of manufacturers of | various brands of fowl food. There is still | a certain amount of locally grown fowl wheat available in Canterbury, and even if this supply is exhausted there will probably not be much of a demand for the Australian product, as poultry farmers have got into the habit of depending on substitutes. Biifdness in Gnrtoti oats lias eased considerably this week, and although prices are still about the same. 3s per bushel on trucks j at country stations is now the outside limit j to which merchants are prepared to go. j Last week the dry spell was beginning to ) have n serious effect in the Auckland dis j trict. and farmers were luting in stocks of feed. Accordingly, oats were in keen de- j maud in Auckland, but since the recent- j rains, which did an immense amount of j good to the pastures, this demand has eased j considerably. The same remarks apply to ] chaff. Last week chaff was being bought j up freely in Auckland, most of it being Mnriborongli-grown, and even Christchurch I merchants were receiving inquiries for good j quality chaff. A little was shipped to j Auckland from Lyttelton, but now the in- ; quiries have ceased. Still the local chaff j

| market has received a bit of a fillup and i the price has finned by about 5s per ton. Another increase has taken place in the price of potatoes, due mainly to the fact that farmers are holding their potatoes evidently in expectation of a further improvement in price. Merchants are therej fore finding it difficult to secure sufficient to fill orders and they have increased their offers to farmers to Pjl 5s per tori. Meantime, however, Auckland is offering only 60s to 65s per ton, f.0.b.. s.i., and at these prices there is not much in potatoes for local merchants. There has been little change in seeds, the market being still quiet with late rates ruling in all lines. Hie following are quotations for produce to be paid to farmers at country stations, free of commission, sacks extra, except where otherwise stated; Milling Wheat.—According to Government prices: Tuscan, 7s 93d f.o.b. : Hunters, £s 03d; Pearl, 8s 3Jd. flats. Gartons. 2s 9d to 3s; Algerians, 2s 2d to 2s 4d. Chaff.—£3 £d. Perennial Ryegrass.—3s 6d to 4s 3d. Italian Ryegrass—3s 6d to 4s. Cocksfoot.—6d to Bd. Barley.—3s to 3s 6rl. Cape Barley. -2s 6d. Red Clover.—ls to Is 2d. M lute Clover.—ls to Is 4d ! Potatoes.—£2 to £2 sd. Peas.—Partridge, 7s to 7s 6d. f.inseed.- £ls £l6. j Flour.—According to Government price*: I -Ail per ton, f.0.b., Lyttelton, Timaru, and Oainaru. Bran. According to Government prices: £6 to £6 10s, according to packing, f.o.b. southern ports. Pollard.—According to Government prices: £9 to £9 10s, according to packing, f.0.b., southern ports.