THE RABBIT NUISANCE IN VICTORIA.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2382, 4 November 1880, Page 3

THE RABBIT NUISANCE IN VICTORIA.

A Babbit Suppression Bill bas just been passed by tlic'V ictcrian Assembly. Mr liicbardsou who introduced it thus describes its provisions First of all the administration ot the act was placed in the hands of tiie municipalities. It was in fact brought under the Local Government Act. The provisions were that the owners and occupiers of lands should destroy the rabbits thereon, and and that the municipal bodies should have power to inspect the lands to ascertain whether the}' were infested, and if they found rabbits thereon they should give notice to the holders, who would have to destroy the vermin forthwith. If the owner failed to destroy them after receiving due notice, t hen the municipality by its officers might go upon the land and do so, and the expenses entailed would fall on the holders. Then if the local body failed to do its duty, any person authorised by a justice might enter on the laud and effect the destruction of the rabbits, and the cost could be charged against the local bodies. The 11th section ot the bill provided for the destruction ot brush or log fences, or of stone walls in which rabbits were supposed to to lodged. When it was ascertained tin t rabbits were lodged in fences or walls the owner might be called upon to desroy such fences or walls within a certain period. This section had been carefully considered. At first he (Mr Kichardson) felt that it was giving great power to a local body or person to destroy property which did not belong to them, and hesitated to include the section in the bill; but after ro peatod representations from gentlemen interested, he consented. Tim objectionable feature of the Babbit JiiJi introduced three years ago, viz., the proposal to impose a tax of so much per acre on landowners, had been entirely left out.