NOXIOUS WEEDS PROBLEM

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1785, 22 July 1926, Page 2

NOXIOUS WEEDS PROBLEM

FARMERS OWN RESPONSIBILITY. LAW TO BE ENFORCED. (Contributed.) “If I had half a million pounds to spend every year,” said the Minister of Agriculture, “it could not produce the desired result. There is a wrong feeling among our farmers, and I am afraid there are large numbers of very dirty arid careless farmers in the country. This feeling should not prevail. The Government intends to help the inspectors to force the farmers io clear their farms."” The Minister (the iHon. 0. J. Hawken) was, when he spoke these words, addressing himself to members of the House of Representatives, who suggested that noxious weeds boards on the lines of existing rabbit boards should be set up to deal with the question of dirty and weed-infested farms. The noxious weeds problem is certainly no mean one. The gravity of the situation is not brought so clearly before us in' the winter months, but the spring months, with their vigorous growth, will soon show how deadly is the grip of certain weedis in certain ■districts. We do not think any farmer needs to be told how serious the position is. Most of them notice the glaring ragwort bloom or the picturesque Californian thistle more especially, of course, when they 'are away from home. Things are as bad in the districts whence they come. The fact remains, though we resent any reminder of it, that noxious weeds have a very ■firm grip on a lot of country' in New Zealand. The Government, however, has taken a firm stand in the matter in making public its intention to adopt the only possible method of coping with a problem that grows the more serious the longer it is left alone. Compulsion should go far to clean the country. Of course the incorrigible few will always be with us—that few that always has to be pushed and pushed again and again.

It has been stated that it would not be fair to ask a man With a clean farm to shoulder the responsibility of a noxious weed board levy because his more dilatory neighbour refuses to save himself from waste and worry. But there is another side of the question which has been overlooked. Though his own farm may be as clean as a whistle, in contributing to the expense of a board, provided it was an effective body, he would be insuring his own land, from subsequent infec 1 - tion from the infested acres of his neighbour. 'Still this can be done in a different manner equally as effectively. Compelling the farmer to put his own house in order is the best and surest method of getting the work done, given energetic and competent inspection, who will now be afforded greater assistance from the Government.

It is in this means of eradication that the holder of clean land can find another insurance against infection from his careless neighbour. He can

do almost as much as the inspector in persuading his neighbour to undertake the cleaning of his farm., and if such a principle were adopted on a wholesale manner the effect would be much more general.

A community boycott of the irresponsibles who not only care nothing for their own property, but less for that of their fellows, would go a long way towards shaming many into doing the work.

It is a hopeless task, to begin. In badly infected areas one does not know where to begin, and once having made a start, hours and hours of work seem to have little impression on the quickly-growing crop of weeds. Those who find themselves faced with this problem might find coll ictive work much more effective than the spasmodic attempts of individuals. A working bee of farmers with dirty properties would soon clear out a lot of the pest.

But, however, the thing is to be accomplished, on© fact of interest to farmers should not be lost sight of. The farmer is to be left to clean his own land without the assistance of weed

boards. And if he does-not do so, he must pay the piper. One is tempted to feel sorry for some landholders whose farms in summer and autumn are a blaze of colour, growing a far better crop of weeds l han grass. Still, in too many cases negligence has brought them to such a pass, and now, having sown the wind, they must reap the whirlwind.” One ventures to hope now tnat, having issued such an edict: on behalf of the Government, the .Minister will see to it that State property is also cleaned. In many parts of the Dominion there are railway and other State properties as disgraceful in respect of weeds as any private holding, and the work of cleaning seems to be going ahead not one whit faster than that on the farms in the districts. The problem presents many difficulties, an important one of which is that so many farmers do not realise what a serious thing it is to allow their farms to beco’me ovt rrun. It is not fair to themselves, to their neighbours or to the country in general. Then, again, those who are themselves immune do not take a serious enough view of the other fellow’s neglect. If he would it might .have some effect. As the Minister says, he could spend £500,000 through weed boards and similar agencies, and the position Svoukl be improved only slightly. The more responsibility he removed from the shoulders of the landholder the more the landholder would seek to throw off. A wrong attitude to the whole problem prevailed in New Zealand. and- until a realization of the gravity of such neglect came to every farmer in the land there would always be trouble.