THE RABBIT PEST.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3824, 28 July 1928, Page 3

THE RABBIT PEST.

1 HOUSE DISCUSSES AMENDING LEGISLATION.

The second reading of the Rabbit Nuisance Bill, was passed by the House on Thursday night. During the discussion, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. 0. J. Hawken) said: If care were taken by farmers the rabbit pest would become one of not great moment. It was unlikely that rabbits would be eradicated from any country in which they had been introduced, although, as the result of the good activities of the boards, the animals had been practically exterminated from some districts in New Zealand. If o hoped the Bill would be of assistance to the boards and aid the good work they were now undoubtedly performing. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne), ri bile complimenting the Minister on introducting the Bill, criticised severely the clause setting put the regulation to be adopted for the destruction of rabbits. He maintained that it was impossible to lay down any definite rules as to what poison and methods should be used. He also thought that it should be made illegal to keep rabbits, and that in no case should the permission of the Minister to keep them be given as was proposed in the Bill. “For the last seven years the rabbit pest has been a sleepless worry to those who gain their living from the land/’ said Mr. T. D. Burnett (Temuka), who intimated that he would have a good deal to say at a later stage. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) said that New Zealand was exceedingly fortunate in controlling the rabbit to the extent it had done. Some years ago it appeared as if New Zealand was going to suffer from the rabbit pest almost as much as Australia. It would be wise to discourage any attempt to foster the rabbit industry in the Dominion. (Hear, hear). Mr. D. S. Reid (Waikato) said that, thanks to the rabbit boards, the position to-day was less serious than it was a few years ago, but nevertheless he thought that every effort should be made to eradicate the pest; to “let up” would be most unwise. The Bill was on the right lines, and would be productive of much good. Mr. J. Mason (Napier) contended

that the clause which gave power to an inspector to enter on private land and destroy rabbits thereon, was too drastic.

Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Eden) considered, contrary to the views of the last speaker, that there was nothing particularly alarming in the Bill. On the whole the measure was quite a'gopd one. Mr. W. -S. Glenn (Rangitikei) said that at one period of its history his constituency was in grave danger of being overrun by rabbits, but today properties affected had returned to about 60 per cent, or 70 percent. of their original carrying capacity. The rabbit boards had performed good service, and while they consisted of practical men, he considered they should be allowed to administer their own affairs. He approved of the Bill, which proposed, among other things, to provide for the unoccupied lands which so often became a refuge of the rabbits and for the adjacent roads. He trusted the Minister would insist on that provision being strictly enforced.

Sir George Hunter (Waipawa), touching upon one aspect that had not been referred to, asked the Minister whether acclimatisation societies should be allowed to offer premiums for the destruction of the hawk, which, in his opinion, was one of the greatest natural enemies of the rabbit. Sir George Hunter urged that the hawks should be protected to the same as, or, if possible, a greater extent than the stoat and the weasel. -

After other members had placed their views on record the Minister replied to the debate. The law, he said, had been carried out in such a way that it not only helped to eradicate the pest but also did not press too heavily on the landowner. The Bill had been thoroughly thought out, and there would be few alterations after it emerged from the committee.