More Staff Needed For Nassella Eradication

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28269, 6 May 1957, Page 13

More Staff Needed For Nassella Eradication

A permanent grubbing gang, more staff, more money—both from counties’ contributions and Government subsidy—and an afforestation programme are needed if nassella tussock is to be eradicated in North Canterbury.

These views are expressed by the chairman of the North Canterbury Tussock Board (Mr Malcolm HydeS, in hiF annual report. “We have had no grubbing gang for a considerable period. Whether we will get men this winter for any long period remains to be seen. This is unfortunate. We cannot keep a good grubbing gang. Again, is our remuneration sufficient?” he asked. “I still consider we have insufficient staff, and I feel this most vital to success: with more and a contented staff, along with afforestation, I believe it possible eventually to head off this weed.” With the spread of nassella tussock and rising costs, the board’s finances were inadequate. “I

think it would not be asking too much if each county contributed another £lOO, with Waipara £2OO. This, with subsidy, would increase our funds by £5500. This is still little enough, but could we ask for more with hope of getting it? “Research is continually being brought up at meetings. I do not wish to belittle the work of Mr Milne. He has done and is still doing a great job, but we all know that it is only one of many of his occupations. Should we have a full time officer?” said the report. “Not Reassuring”

The board’s inspectors’ reports were not very reassuring, said Mr Hyde. There were still too many farmers whose position was worsening by allowing the 5 per cent.

or 10 per cent, of nassella tussock missed in the grubbing to seed and reinfest.

“The seed control on our problem areas was more or less effective, but on the surrounding and adjacent large and small patches, with the favourable spring and early summer, seeding was heavy and, coupled with the strong winds in January, seed dispersal must have been considerable. “For some reason seed control was not nearly so effective on Mount Highfield and Glenbourne. For these heavily infested areas I can see no alternative but afforestation, but we have a sub-com-mittee going into this problem.” Estimates of expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1958, amounting to £40,881, were approved,' and it was decided that county councils’ contributions should remain the same as last year, at £3OOO, which would entitle the board to a Government subsidy of £lB,OOO, according to a supplied report. Representation on Board

Reference was made to the dangerous situation that could arise in relation to the administration of the board’s functions, if constituent county councils could be represented by persons other than elected councillors, and it was resolved that the subject be referred to the Government with a recommendation that the Nassella Tussock Act be examined with a view to avoiding the possibility of the board becoming composed entirely of members not directly elected by the people. Officers elected were: chairman, Mr Malcolm C. Hyde; deputychairman, Mr T. G. Maxwell; executive, Messrs M. C. Hyde, T. G. Maxwell, J. W. Earl, W. Briggs, A. R. Dingwall, G. J. Watt and L. R. C. Macfarlane.