Article On High-country Problems Criticised

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31092, 22 June 1966, Page 19

Article On High-country Problems Criticised

Members of South Island high country sub-sections of Federated Farmers, attending their annyal conference in Timaru on Monday, took strong exception to an editorial in a recent issue of the journal of the Tussock Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute, written by the director of the institute, Dr. S. N. Adams. The conference will advise the institute that the editorial makes no contribution to the solution of high country problems. Addressing the conference, the chairman of the South Island high country commiti tee of Federated Farmers, (Mr P. C. Ensor, of Double Hill station, Bakaia Gorge), said that the committtee had played a leading part in the original planning of the institute and had been associated with its formation. I “It is recognised that we I may have to accept well-

substantiated or scientific facts which may appear to be contrary to our own personal views, but I am certain that at the time we never expected to find in the official publication of the institute an editorial dealing with the past such derogatory terms, nor a forecast of the future based on such unsubstantial evidence,” said Mr Ensor. “Personally I find it hard to believe that this article reflects the considered views of the institute, or of the committee of management" Mr J. M. Wardell, of North Otago, who proposed that the conference should write to the institute, said that cooperation was vital in the high country. In the last 10 years production had gone up 30 per cent and today more people were interested in soil conservation and “this article is the worst possible way of converting those who are not.”

Mr S. M. A. Chaffey, of Marlborough: “We do not like to be told that we are blaggards, or that our fathers were.” Dr. Adams, who was at the meeting, said that he had written the editorial, possibly

under the mistaken impression that people thought there was a conflict between soil conservation and production in the high country. From what he had seen, some people did not realise that with technical advances, although some country might be destocked, there could be not less production, but more. The problem was not that there were too many sheep in the high country, said Dr. Adams. There were not half enough, but some were not in the right places. Even if class VII and VIH country were closed to stock, the high country could still carry many more sheep. If runholders all knew this already, Dr. Adams said, he was mistaken and apologised. He had thought that many people felt that runholders disputed that class VIII land should be destocked.

Mr D. McLeod, of Grasmere, said that Dr. K. F. O’Connor, of the grasslands division of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, had admitted that with the finance available the runholder went without income from his improvement programme for a long time. It was here that the conflict between soil conservation and production came in. Where the runholder had to give up land and make alternative provision for his stock, it meant that he had to live with little or no practical income for a long time. This was something that had to be continually pressed on the Government and soil conservation authorities, said Mr McLeod.