The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18. 1888. THE PASTORAL PESTS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1700, 18 February 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18. 1888. THE PASTORAL PESTS.

Between the Hessian fly, the Californian thistle, and the Otago silvergrey rabbit, the two great industries before which we are asked to bend the knee in profound admiration stand in great danger of being ruined. The Hessian fly is a recent arrival; it has not, we believe, been properly acclimatised yet, but so far it promises to become a most undesirable settler. Wbat steps ought to be taken to lessen its evil influences we know not, but this we may safely say, that it is in its beginning every disease is easiest to cure, and whatever can be done ought to be done at once. Public attention has now been called to the Californian thistle, and as most farmers know it by this time they will doubtless eradicate it wherever it appears, root and branch. As regards the two pests referred to we cannot blame ourselves for their introduction; they have come uninvited, but with tb® rabbit it is different. We paid his passage; we petted and caressed him on his arrival, and he has proved a most troublesome neighbor ever since. It would have been better for us a thousand times to have imported a shipload of French

recidivistes, of whom we profess to be so much in dread, than a brace of rabbits. They are the most dangerous and the most troublesome of all, and it looks very much as if they were only in the beginning of their mischievousness.

South Canterbury is, it appears, to be fenced in from them. Mr Richardson has been over the ground now, and has come to the conclusion of erecting the fence, and by this means it is hoped that the Mackenzie Country will be protected against them. Why Mr Richardson delayed the fence so long is a mystery, unless it was that he wanted a trip through the country. He, will have his two guineas a day and his travelling expenses while inspecting the place, and when ha has pocketed it he will doubtless insist that he has done it in the interest of retrenchment. The worst feature of the whole thing, however, is that some people appear to have no great faith in the fence. A writer in the Farmers’ Cooperative Journal, who appears to know what he is taking about, takes a very gloomy view of it. He says

“ Speaking from a tolerably accurate knowledge of the country, we are strongly of opinion that the fence as proposed will not accomplish the intended object. The principle adopted is to fence up to the foot of the Southern Alps, and trust to that as a boundary. This, as we have already shown, would be do boundary at all. The fence, in fact, would simply serve to conduct the rabbits to a breeding ground, where they would be practically unassailable, end where they would be able to,establish colonies covering more than a million acres (1), from which they could at any time descend upon the low country. In our opinion it would have been better to make a virtue of necessity, and, abandoning the upper part of the Tasman Talley, which is mostly shingle bed, linked by inaccessible mountains, to have made the proposed boundary cross the Tasman River oppositeßurnett’s old station, at the mouth of the .Tollie River, thence continuing along the foot of the ranges far enough to avoid all risk of the rabbits getting round it for some years to come. This would effectually protect the Mackenzie Country and the whole of Canterbury by confining the rabbits to the Alpine ranges, where, in any case, they are bound to establish themselves in force.”

The thorough knowledge of the country the writer evidently possesses entitles his remarks to great weight. His views on the whole question, however, are so “ pessimistic ” that one cannot help doubting whether his judgment is altogether sound. He takes up M. Pasteur’s method, and expresses great doubt* as to its efficacy for reasons which are not altogether grounded on logical foundations. His doubts as regards the efficacy of M. Pasteur’s remedy arise from the fact that he has found that ■ the plague which _ has frequently attacked human beings did not completely destroy the species; the rhinderpest did not destroy all cattle, and though most domestic animals have experienced epidemical diseases at one time or another, yet not one domestic animal has become extinct. From this fact he concludes that though M. Pasteur’s method may possibly destroy an immense number of rabbits for a time, bye-and-bye they will get used to it, and it will not have so severe an effect on them as at first.

The argument indeed is very plausible, but our friend omits to take notice of one great fact which we think will outweigh his assertions. The plague and the rhinderpest were not epidemics promoted by science; they were the outcome of some violation of natural laws, and science did its best to prevent their spread. On the other hand the chicken cholera, with which M, Pasteur proposes to decimate the rabbits, is a disease deliberately invented to kill, and science will look on and smile while it is performing its work. Ihis makes a great difference between plagues, rhinderpest, etc., and M. Pasteur’s rabbit disease. All the skill, all the ingenuity, and all the inventive genius of science were enlisted to war against the former, while they will give additional help, if necessary, to the latter.

For oar own part we see no hope in anything except in M. Pasteur’s method. If that does not do the rabbit will still flourish in spite of fences, poison, stoats and weasels, and our children’s children will find them more troublesome than they are at present. But the fact that that very <B«inent scientist has said that it will be effectual gives us confidence in it, and we shall not lose all faith in it until it has been thoroughly tried and found wanting.