I.—ll

30

rience is that they are difficult animals to rear, and die of distemper. We hope that the stoat and weasel will be hardier, and form a better natural enemy than the ferret. Still, we believe the ferret has done good work in our neighbourhood; but they are too delicate, and as an instance of that I may state that ac our breeding-establishment five hundred died off in a few weeks of distemper. 497. The Government are stopping the breeding of ferrets. They were paying 7s. per head lor breeding them : do you think stopping it is wise or unwise ?—I believe ferrets have, as I said before, done good work, and I think their breeding should be encouraged. 498. Mr. Buchanan.} You have mentioned that the rabbits increased considerably last year from certain causes. But, take the case of some of the settlers who, despite the increase, had very few, because of the efforts they used in keeping them down. Now, had the Inspector endeavoured to make the owners of the other properties where the rabbits were plentiful carry out his instructions, do you think the increase would not have been checked?—l think the Inspectors, so far as I %,m aware, have acted with wise discretion. For myself, I know of no instance where they have neglected their duty. Had they compelled persons to follow any hard-and-fast rules many might have been ruined. Inspectors might have compelled owners to put on large packs of dogs to fight against the increase, but it would have been so much money thrown away. I think, therefore, for many reasons, the Inspectors acted wisely in letting them alone. 499. So that the runholder whom I will suppose cleared down his rabbits has to submit to be inundated from his neighbour's place: that would be the result, would it not?— That is quite true. But the question is : had the Inspector sent a large number of men on the infested property, and told him to put on a hundred dogs to kill the rabbits, and finding that did not do told him to put on a thousand, and so on, the man might be ruined. The question is a very difficult one to solve. I believe the only solution to the difficulty in such a case is the erection of a wire fence. One man holding a piece of rich open country without much scrub might keep the rabbits down easily enough, while his neighbour may have a poor scrubby country which will become a rabbitwarren in spite of him. I think, under such circumstances, the man holding the good land should fence it off; it would pay him. to do so ; that is my opinion. 500. You know Mr. Eiddiford?—Yes. 501. And you are acquainted with his property?— Yes. 502. In his evidence before this Committee two or three days ago he mentioned a case where he determined to poison in the summer time. He did so, and it was very successful, and the rabbits were cleared right off. Now, could not the Inspectors have arranged that poisoning throughout the district should have gone on this way, and so put down a part of the rabbits ?—Well, I am not prepared to dispute that. The Inspector may have made an error of judgment. I know they had a notice in the papers to the effect that simultaneous poisoning should take place in June. This, from our experience this year, and also previous years, was a mistake. Our poisoning commenced early in April, and was very successful ; far more so than the one in June. The Inspectors, no doubt, when they issued this notice did it for the best, and acted on previous experience. In some instances when you poison in the summer time the rabbits only get sickened and do not come the second time ; like rats, you cannot get them to take it. You may be sure the Inspectors acted for the best. It is a most difficult question to lay down any fixed rule upon. 503. Are you aware that some people in the Wairarapa have only commenced to poison a fewdays ago? —I am aware they were very late in some instances. 504. Do you think the Inspectors should have taken the matter in hand before they did in places where the rabbits were numerous ?—I do not like to blame the Inspectors, because lam not prepared to make any hard-and-fast rule. The Inspectors Ido not believe know more than we do, who are so vitally interested in the matter. I believe they endeavour to do what is right, and act for the best. lam convinced the whole salvation is in the introduction of the natural enemy. The poisoning business is becoming to be a heavy annual cost, exceeding all our rates put together. I may say the cost of poisoning on our property, which took place two months ago, was £800. 505. Hon. Mr. Pliarazyn.] You said, in your opinion, that the erection of a boundary wire fence was a good protection against your neighbour's rabbits ?—Yes. 506. Do you think in such cases as that the owner should pay half the cost of the fence ?—I tried to get our neighbours to help us. They knew the law did not compel them, and so we had to pay it ourselves; but this we did not regret, because it paid us. 507. You had to pay the whole cost because, as the law stands at present, it is not a legal fence?-—Yes; they knew we should have to pay it. 508. Would you advocate it being made legal —compelling your neighbour to pay his share?— Yes ; under certain conditions ; but not to make it compulsory at all times. 509. Son. Mr. Bobimon.} Are the rabbits more likely to be destroyed by united efforts of the neighbours themselves or under Government supervision?—l should be very sorry to see the Inspectors discharged; What I would like to say is this : that no hard-and-fast rule, in my opinion, can be laid down, because what may suit one person will not suit another. One man may have eood rich land who cannot afford to leave it to the rabbits, while his neighbour may have poor and barren land. I say it is a most difficult question to determine.

% Mr. P. ¥. 0. Huddleston examined. 510. Hon. the Chairman.] What is your name?— V. F. G. Huddlestou. 511. You live at Mount Cook?— Yes. 512. And there is a rabbit-ience erected there'?— Yes; there is a main line of fence running across there.