Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FAILING TO DESTROY RABBITS.

SETTLERS CONVICTED AND FINED. MAGISTRATE’S WARNING. At the local S.M. Court yesterday before Mr Stout, S.M., the Inspector of the Manawatu Rabbit Board (Mr D. R. Barron) proceeded against- several settlers in the Board’s district for failing to take sleps to destroy rabbits on their respective properties. These are the first prosecutions taken by the Inspector since the constitution of the Board and prior to which notices had been served on all owners in the Board district .and the Board’s policy explained. The first case was against A. Gard nor, of Himatangi, who pleaded not guilt.y and was represented by Mr Bergin. Mr Barron, Board Inspector, gave evidence of having served notices on defendant and subsequent visits disclosed that nothing had been done and that the rabbits were a s numerous as ever. There was very little cover on the property. The Board’s policy' had been fully explained to defendant, and he had had every opportunity to comply with the Board’s requirements. Mr Bergin contended that there was a difference of opinion as tc the efficacy of poisoning in the spring when feed was plentiful and lie understood permission has been made by the inspector to trap rabbits.

Mr Barron admitted giving permission to trap in one instance, provided other steps were taken. James Rankin, stock inspector, stated that he visited defendant’s property in company with the Board’s inspector on December 16th. There was no indication that steps had been taken to kill the rabbits which were numerous. A portion of (be properly was sandy and billy. Adjoining property' owners bad taken steps in accordance with tinBoard’s policy.

The S.M.: Tl is necessary for every one lo do I heir best to assist I lie Board to slop the rabbit nuisance. if not Ihe fines would be increased. Defendant bad apparently promised to do something, but never did it. The notices had been ignored. Air Bergin said his client bad been a resident of the district for nine years and had done more than his neighbours to cope with the rabbit post. Last spring had been good growing weather and the rabbits could not be enticed to eat the poisoned pollard. Alfred Gardner, defendant, stated that in his opinion poisoning during (be spring was a waste of time. Trapping bad been done on bis property. In reply' to the S.M., defendant staled that he had expended about £1 15/- in poisoning, but did not pay anything for trapping. C. J. Cockburn gave evidence that lie had trapped in November on defendant’s property for 12 days and had trapped 559 rabbits. F. W. Broom, rabbit trapper, said he had laid poison on Gardner’s property. Gardner found strychnine and carrots and witness did I lie work and took l/lc skins. He had not done anything since October.

James Davey, fanner, gave evidence as to poisoning not being effective in the spring, when feed was plentiful. Mr Barron said defendant had not started to take efficient measures until lie found the Board was determined to enforie its powers. Defendant said lie was busy with harvesting and intended to take steps after the busy season. The S.M. said the Act provided very heavy penalties for failure to destroy rabbits and these would be enforced if settlers did not comply with the Board’s regulations. The constitution of the Board was in the farmers’ interests and the rabbit pest was a serious menace to their interests.. They must be prepared to spend money in this connection. He referred to what had taken place in Central Otago, where the rabbits had laid bare the country. Defendant had not complied with the requirements. The operations of the professional trapper were useless as he was out to make a profit for himself in the sale of skins. He would convict the defendant and impose a fine of £5 and costs 13/- and advised defendant to get busy to destroy the rabbits. He was satisfied the Board did not make any discrimination in taking action. Similar fines were imposed upon William Osborne, of Taikorea and Glen Oroua, and B. H. Just, of Oroua Downs.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19250124.2.19

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2837, 24 January 1925, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
688

FAILING TO DESTROY RABBITS. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2837, 24 January 1925, Page 3

FAILING TO DESTROY RABBITS. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2837, 24 January 1925, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert