TIMBER IN EGMONT PARK

Taranaki Daily News, 18 September 1934, Page 9

TIMBER IN EGMONT PARK

CONTROVERSY OVER CUTTING DEFENCE OF EAST COMMITTEE. CHARGES OF EXAGGERATION. VIEWS OF A CORRESPONDENT. (To the Editor.) Sir,—There has been a great hue and cry regarding the timber-cutting operations in the Egmont mountain reserve, and I think the public should be enlightened in view of some of the greatly exaggerated statements which have been made in the daily Press to date. The term “wholesale devastation” has been applied to the operations of a handful of men who have been engaged in the splitting of wood in the York Road area, in close proximity to the road. From some of these reports it would appear that magnificent ratas and totaras have been felled promiscuously, leaving a trail of desolation in the course of their brief excursion to mother earth. Nothing could be further from the truth. No responsible person would hold with the cutting of green timber in a public reserve. It appears from the statements already made that three trees that could be so classified have been felled unknown to and without the authority of the East Committee, which sanctioned the clearing of dead timber in this area. That is something to be deplored. The committee has rightly promised an inquiry into the circumstances attached to the cutting of these trees. But surely it is wrong to condemn the policy of a committee which has had as its objective the clearing of dead and fallen timber in certain accessible portions of the reserve, because one or two workmen who may have exceeded their instructions. Anyone with a knowledge of the bush knows that the clearing of dead and fallen timber from the ground encourages growth, and that in the course of time pew trees will spring up in its stead. Of course the effect is not immediate, and on viewing the spot where a log has been split up no indication of the ultimate effect of its removal can be obtained. But visit the same spot a year or two later, and in place of an unsightly and decayed log 'one will find the genesis of a new forest. Those who criticise the removal of dead and fallen timber are surely ignorant of this tendency of Nature to assert itself where given an opportunity. There is another point. A standing dead tree felled .by experienced bushmen is not as likely to create damage as one left standing, awaiting the day when it must inevitably bow to old age and crash through the surrounding foliage regardless of aesthetic considerations. As one who is familiar with the locality, I am still convinced that the policy of the East Committee in clearing the dead fallen timber was a sound one. Because instructions may have been exceded, it surely does not follow that operations as a whole should be condemned and an end put to the work. As a result of the Park Board’s precipitate resolution several men have been deprived of their livelihood in an equally precipitate manner. In view of the extent of unemployment in the district I would like to ask which was the greater offence—the cutting of one or two trees or the resolution which has deprived these men of the means of earning a living? But possibly that did not occur to those who have made such, exaggerated statements regarding the extent of the “despoilation” that has taken place.—l am, etc., ANTI-HUMBUG. Stratford, Sept. 17. FARM LABOUR. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Has it appeared to any who have read the recent letters in your newspaper on the above subject of farm labour that most of the writers so far have strayed slightly from the original point in question? The question was asked by Mr. H. E. Blyde, I believe, why there was such a shortage of good labour for the farmers of Taranaki nowadays. Surely the obvious answer to this Is a comparison between farm labour conditions, town job conditions and, nowadays, relief camps. What really good man will work from daylight till ..dark in all weathers six days a week (and most of the seventh day, too), get one day a month holiday if he is lucky and few public holidays, and then only two or three hours off on his one day a month, and receive small reward for, doing, all this, if he can secure a position in town at two or three times the wage (even allowing for board and lodging), have half a day a week, all Sunday and public holidays as days off, and work eight hours a day, thus giving him time to himself for recreation, etc., which latter is practically impossible for the country worker, I have found? Failing ability to obtain situations in town, he is better off in relief camps, where he works usually with a happy crowd eight hours a day with time for recreation, etc., at practically the same wage as he would get on the farm. This does not mean that the good man necessarily prefers the “soft” jobs, but when comparisons differ so widely surely he would not be a good man if he stuck to the land in these conditions nowadays. And therein, I think, lies the answer to Mr. Blyde’s question.—l am, etc.,

COMMONSENSE.

Stratford, Sept. 17.