THE STOCK EMBARGO

Southland Times, Issue 22813, 12 February 1936, Page 3

THE STOCK EMBARGO

EXPECTATIONS OF NEW GOVERNMENT. BRITISH BREEDERS HAVE HOPES. A suggestion that the new Labour Government in New Zealand might consider removing the embargo on livestock import’, was made by Mr Alec Hobson, secretary of the National Pig Breeders’ Association, in a letter which appeared in the London “Times” recently. He said .hat it was the hope of many British livestock breeders that the new regime would allow animals to enter the Dominion for breeding purposes. Members of his association had had orders for boars and sows from New Zealand, he stated, but were unable to fulfil them because of the embargo. The grounds for the refusal to remove the embargo, he continues, are supposed to be the risk of introducing foot-and-mouth disease, and he goes on to point out that, from the opening of the quarantine station, 3479 animals have passed through it, and not a single case of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred amongst these animals after their arrival overseas. Further, for at least 50 years before the embargo was imposed British breeders were sending stock to New Zealand, anu he was not aware of any case of foot-and-mouth disease. Mr Hobson quotes from a recent letter from a New Zealand Government statement that their technical advisers consider it perfectly safe to import from Great Britain. The correspondent goes on to say that within the next few weeks 40 head of stock will be landed in New Zealand from U.S.A, and Canada, valued at least at £lO,OOO. “All this money should, and probably would, have been spent in Great Britain if there had been no embargo. America gets very little from us, and Great Britain is by far our best customer. Quite independent of the embargo precautions, there is ample evidence that we were quite safe before the embargo was thought of. Not a single case of foot-and-mouth disease reached here.” Conflicting Interests. Under the heading “The New Zealand Embargo,” the Farmer and Stockbreeder comments editorially on the subject as follows:—We not only respect but applaud the policy of any live stock country that insists on measures that are necessary for the protection of its flocks and herds against "the importation of disease. The ostensible reason for the embargo that New Zealand has placed on the importation of live stock from the United Kingdom is the danger of introducing foot-and-mouth; but on what grounds is the risk based? As pointed out by Mr A. Hobson, none of the animals that have passed through the London quarantine station has ever taken the disease to an overseas country. And, as is attested by a New Zealand correspondent, on no occasion in the many years during which exports were sent from this country has there been a single exception. There are differences of opinion in New Zealand regarding her need for imports, and there are conflicting interests, but the need seems to be acknowledged as she has allowed imports, and from countries with which she has little reciprocal trade. On the other hand, her trade with the United Kingdom is the life-blood of her pastoral industry. Without its market in this country that industry would be crippled to the point of collapse. As we have said, there are conflicting interests in the Dominion, but there are breeders there who would buy animals from tliis country if they '■ould, and it is hardly in keeping with

New Zealand’s indebtedness to our markets that our breeders should be denied such help as this demand might give them. If the practical risk of the importation of disease had any foundation in fact—New Zealand Government experts deny that it lias—the case would be different. It is each New Zealand breeder’s own concern whether he works on his present material or introduces fresh blood, but a policy that denies him the choice and arbitrarily closes a possible market to our own breeders must be considered in the light of the desirability of counterproposals.