BLACKS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1066, 29 September 1882, Page 2

BLACKS.

From our own Correspondent Is a former communication I stated that there was some talk of ihe e was some ta'k of taking reps to clear the rmiUoldeiV sheep off ihe Spottis block, or bundle I ; but, though that is the case it need not be inferred that the sheep are put there purposely to eat up the crass, which is locked upon as a privilege »r right belonging to the residents on the block ' Situate as the bl ick is, the squatter’s sheep are just as liable to trespass on the block as tlm settler’s cattle are to tnspiss on the run, the difference being that, the one holds tho power of being able to impound the trespas-t-re, while the other mils: grin and bear it, unless they put themselves in conformity with the law and appoint wardens and a ranger. 'ibis hj s in times of previous conflicts between the rnnholders and the settlers been partially carried into i ff, ; ot on two occasions, but somehow or other the trouble b ewover, and the rangers quietly displaced! themselves or dropped out of the bidet by common consent, without the formality of a resignation or giving any account of their stewardship. Yet the action of one of these officers were not altogether barren of results ; two contested Matakauui Ri ling electors were mate! ially affected thereby. Practically tho unoccupied portion of the block is of little or no value to the residents when their cattie are threatened with the pound if they stop over the boundary, and its limited area makes it hardly worth while to take the trouble of electing wardens and appointing a ranger, as even then a boundary keeper would be required. -The objection of ths runholder to the give and take principle is not so much cn account of the quantity of stock-put on, there could be some means adopted of iemulating this, but it is the continu.vl hunting and removing of the settler’s stock when scattered over the run, and thus disturbing the station sheep, that is most complained against, and which no doubt must be a serious grievance. To conserve the grass for the benefit of the people on this and other blocks to he opened in iMarch next, the most feasible plan would be to place the unoccupied portions under the control of the c uniy; A certain percentage of the revenue derived from the occupied portions of the blocks are now paid to that body for expenditure on the blocks for road making, this could he supplemented by charging a rate per head for cattle’depastured on the unoccupied portions. With this revenue in prospect, let the County erect boundary fences immediately the settlement commences. There would in the first instance he a considerable outlay, but ultimately there would be a gain. Compensation would b a paid for all fences bounding tho sections as they became occupied, and tho cattle being thus s .cured on the unoccupied portions, stockowners would not grudge paying a fair price for the right to graze. The erection of the boundary fence would he of much m >re service to the settlers during the first few years than any road.making could be, but ol course if both can be managed so much the better. Taking into consideration the amount of fencing that is being done by the innholders on their now licenses, it is reasonable to assume that if the fencing will pay them with the short and precarious tenure ihey have got, there can be little doubt that the fencing 1 indicate would ultimately pay the County and bo a lasting benefit to the settlers.