FARMERS AND THE RABBIT PEST.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 645, 28 June 1921, Page 7

FARMERS AND THE RABBIT PEST.

F»A**KLIN COUNTY OFFENDERS. • y • 1 SUBSTANTIAL FINES IMPOSED. ‘ t NUISANCE TO BE ERADICATED. .Tfee rabbit pest in certain parts of the Franklin County was a subject discussed at several meetings- of the Franklin County Council some months ago, when the advisability of having an additional rabbit inspector was urged upon the Stock Department, with a view of having the nuisance stamped out. It was pointed out that, rabbits were increasing in certain districts,. It will be remembered tfcat two officers of the Departftifsf waited on the Council, stating ~-£nLt it was the Department’s intenrigidly enforce the provisions of the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 'and \* tost the assistance of the Council in the matter was necessary. In the

J meantime, however, the two inspecij tors. {Messrs F. H. Brittain and A. - Hughes, have been busily engaged doing their utmost to impress upon prbj»erty owners their obligations under the Act, and to get them to do the necessary work in eradicating the rabbits. The inspectors have bee?: very successful in their work, and a marked improvement is noticei able. Rabbit committees were form-

ed in various districts and with their

assistance excellent work has been done. However, in spite of their ©nSeavburs, several property owners appear to have ignored the instructions of the inspectors, and adopted the “go-as-you-please” attitude. This the Department is not tolerating any farther, and the promise made to the Franklin County Council, that the Act would be rigidly enforced, has been carried out. Three offenders appeared before Mr E. W. Burton, S.M., at yesterday’s sitting of the Papakura Magistrate’s Court, when j fines of £2O, £lO, and £5 respectivewere imposed for failure to destroy rabbits.

The first case called was that against William Bremner, of Drury, whb pleaded guilty as to the rabbits, but not guilty as regards taking steps to destroy the pest. Mx F. H. Brittain representing the

/ Stock Department, said that defenl darit’s property was inspected in Jan- | uary and February, when it was 1 found that rabbits were numerous. The need of doing immediate and systematic work was emphasised, otherwise prosecution would follow. A further inspection was made in April _ when it was found a certain amount ■gkf trapping had been done and rabBL’its were less, but satisfactory work Bind not been done. Inspector Hughes Inspected the defendant's property Mast week and found that very satisfactory wprk had been done. In vie w , of this fact he did not press for a heavy penalty. The defendant said he had an area of 300 acres to clear and it was very difficult to keep clean. Rabbits sheltered in 25 acre lots near his place [ and these sections were bare and consequently rabbits came to his property for feed. He had burned and had lost miles of fences which would be very expensive to replace. His property was now clear of the pest. The magistrate pointed out that for failure to destroy rabbits the Act allowed for a find of £IOO. He noticed that in other districts magistrates wer- dealing harshly with offender's and they were bound to inflict. a penalty. He imposed a fine (-'of £TQ with' costs aiJHMgt? to 7s.