RABBIT BOARDS.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17493, 29 August 1928, Page 9

RABBIT BOARDS.

ARE AREAS TOO LARGE. MINISTER'S REPLY TO REQUEST. The Rabbit Nuisance Bill now before Parliament proposes to make the minimum area for subsidised rabbit boards 20,000 acres. This provision has been criticised by interested people on the ground that it puts some of the smaller landowners at a disadvantage. A protest was sent to the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. O. J. Hawken, recently by Mr J. G- Wynyard, of Te Awamutu on behalf of the Hairini Rabbit Board. The Minister has replied defending the proposal in the interests of economy. His letter states: ” I duty received your letter of the 6th. instant conveying a resolution of the Hairini Rabbit Board in favour of the provision in the Rabbit Nuisance Bill now before Parliament being altered to make the minimum area for subsidised Rabbit Boards formed after the Bill comes into operation 12,000 acres instead of 20,000, and may say that this matter was fully considered when the Bill was being drafted, and 20,000 acres was decided upon for the following reasons: — “ it is found in practice that although Boards with smaller areas than 20,000 acres have undoubtedly done valuable work in bringing rabbits under control in their districts and in pioneering the establishment of Boards with areas much smaller than the 200,000 acres required'before the passing of the 1918 Amendment Act, yet nevertheless their operations are upon a scale that is too small to allow of the most economical and effective work.

“ i feel, therefore, that in the present circumstances, and in view of the experience already gained, there is no need for the formation of further subsidised Boards, for areas of Jess than 20,000 acres, hut rather for the addition of further lands to the areas of existing Boards, for the making of which additions the Bill makes suitable provision.

“Another important feature of the matter is the fact that, while the formation of Boards for districts of 20,000 acres or more is a substantial relief (o the expense of inspection by Government officers, and thus gives a quid pro quo for the subsidy paid by the Government, the operations of smaller Boards do not make any appreciable difference in the cost of Government inspection, and therefore result in the subsidy becoming an additional charge upon the general taxpayer.—O. Ilawken, Minister of Agriculture.