AFFORESTATION AT OHAI.

Southland Times, Issue 22486, 22 January 1935, Page 6

AFFORESTATION AT OHAI.

To the Editor.

Sir,—On Saturday you published in your leading article a suggestion that the politician (and this I it includes the gentlemen on public bodies) should keep themselves abreast with modern developments in science and industry. In the same issue in the report of the Wallace County I read that Mr McGregor urged the council to support a forestry scheme which niter consideration was condemned by the expert officers who had to report on it. He even said that fencing, was not necessary and a railway with its fire risk was an advantage. A forestry proposition demands cheap land and the lowest charges possible for fencing and other improvements because the crop takes a long time to give a return and interest charges are heavy. The smaller the area the greater the cost for fencing. Railways and public roads greatly increase fencing costs and fire risks. Fire is the main enemy of exotic forests. If you do not net for rabbits there would be a great loss of trees and a large expenditure for replacement. I netted a small area in Otatara and in it grew a number of native trees, when about two feet high the netting was removed, and within 18 months there was not one left alive. A friend of mine with about 2000 pines and eucalyptus found the loss so great that he was compelled to rabbit net before he could continue planting. The Forestry experts know all the facts, yet a public man will, relying on his own judgment undertake to say. that these experts are wrong in his opinion. This is a sample of what can be seen quite frequently—the tendency for public men to yield to pressure in advocating schemes which are foredoomed to failure and eventually have to be paid for. —I am, etc., “A TAXPAYER.”