FAILING TO DESTROY RABBITS .

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3515, 24 July 1926, Page 2

FAILING TO DESTROY RABBITS .

The Manawatu Rabbit Board (Mr D. R. Barron) proceeded against M. Pakoloski (Mr. Grant) for failing to eradicate rabbits on a properly at Moutuiti at yesterday’s ft.M/Court before Mr. J. L. Stout, ft.M.

Mr. D. R. Barron, inspector for the Manawatu Rabbit Board, gave evidence as to having notified defendant that the Board desired a strychnine carrot poison on a certain date, but defendant had not carried out the instructions. Rabits were very numerous on the lower end of the property. G. S. Rankin, Government Stock Inspector, gave evidence to the effect that he had inspected the property with the Board’s inspector. There were signs that rabbits were very numerous* and little or no work had been done to eradicate them.

John Pakoloskin, gave evidence that he occupied the property. On receipt of his first notice from the Board to poison he had done so with pollard. Put three tins of poisoned pollard on the property. Could not use strychnine carrot poison on the property as there was a likelihood that the cattle would eat it. Could not coniine the cattle to one paddock during the month of May when the poison was authorised owing to lack of water on his property. Removed the cattle in June and poisoned with carrot as soon as possible. Considered pollard poisoning as good as anything else. The Inspector said pollard poisoning was not satisfactory. A. E. England and A. E. Bloom-, field gave evidence as to having carried out poisoning on defendant’s property. The Inspector pointed out that the work had not been done until after the summons was issued. The S.M. remarked that May was the wettest month we have had this year. There would hardly be a shortage of water for the cattle that month, whereas June, the month in which defendant said there was plenty of water, was very dry. The work certainly had been done now, hut it ought to have been done before. Defendant had been very dilatory and caused a good deal of trouble. The maximum fine in a case of this sort was £IOO. Defendant would he fined £5. Costs amounted to 7/-.