THE CALIFORNIAN THISTLE.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 185, 14 April 1915, Page 4

THE CALIFORNIAN THISTLE.

1 ACTION FORMULATED. I ! A DEPUTATION APPOINTED. I The Californian thistle is included in tlie Noxious Weeds Act and settlers are thus liable to prosecution for in t keeping their properties clear of it. The Agricultural Department instituted proceedings against several settlers hist Court da\ for failing to cut the thistles, a proceeding considered by farmers to be unnecessary and in cascs impracticable. A meeting was convened for to-day to discuss the best means of dealing with the question. Mr. H. D. Bennett was voted to the chair, and he referred to the serious nature of the question to be discussed and made a special point that what the j meeting decided on should not be prompted bj r any desire to save the cost of cutting.'* The Noxious Weeds Act had not been enforced for two seai sons but the Agricultural Department ' had taken the matter up and last Court day had instituted several prosecutions on which small fines had been inflicted. The general experience was that the thistle was fostered by cutting it warbetter to leave the plants. Mr. R. T. Batley, a large landowner, stated that the Californian thistle had been made a party question by some. That was most unfair. He considered this the explanation why prosecutions had been instituted after the Act had been allowed to lapse for tw»» years. He was not afraid of the thistle—ho was afraid of the law, and that was the position to-day. Where the thistle had been cut he found that the i thistles had spread; where they were i left „ alone they gradually disappeared. j Tlie thistles had been the farmers' salvation during the drought. The thistles were a pest where land was being cultivated') but on the hilly country thev did no harm. On one o&his properties which carried the thistles he had shorn oyer four sheep to the acre, and if the thistles were as bad as some made out that performance could not have been established.

1 Mr. C. E. Laidley considered that the institution of prosecutions thi ( s 1 year was due to a change in departmental officers. He reminded them,.that any attempt to repeal the Act would meet with keen opposition from* some | outside districts. The line of least Te- | sistanee would be to have the Californian thistle removed from the seeond to the third schedule of th'e?Act avflft that would allow local authorities . to act within the limits of their own .jurisdiction. He moved in that direction. Mr. A. J. Joblin seconded the motion, Mr. J. F. Studholme doubted if th«? motion would meet the -wishes of tii", meeting It would leave a great dent in the hands of the local authorities—in many cases not farmers and not acquainted with the position. Ho considered it an absolute to eradicate it and even if it could b;> done he was not in favour of doing «o. In England, Ireland, nad Scotland tKthistle was in almost every paddock, scattered patches, and it gradually eradicated : -elf. He would be son.to see the th'stle die out. (Laughter',. The Act should be repealed or carried out. At present the Act was a farce*. Mr. J. J. Bryce pointed out that the local controlling authority exercised jurisdiction over the district from .the sea beach to north of Taihape, and a-y.y-resolution by this meeting would be lost sight of by the Eangitikei CountyCouncil, a majority of whose members' represented the lower country, where agriculture was largely in vogue, and consequently those thus occupied were against the thistle. He would like to see a better means of attacking the-, question than by Mr. Laidley’s motion. Mr. Laidley’s proposal was then withdrawn, and Mr. H." D. Bennett moved and Mr. Alf. Barnes seconded, "That this representative meeting of settlers from Eangiwahia -to Eaetihi do unanimously declare that after some years’ experience they consider that the Californian thistle should be removed from the schedule of Noxiou*. Weeds Act, 1908.’’ The chairman stated that the motion really meant that the meeting did not recognise the Californian thistle as -i noxious weed.

Mr. W. Beuclc asked if those present considered that the Californian thistle was not a noxious, weed Would any of those present accept thistle seed wirtt other seed? He favoured Mr. Laidley's motion and thus give agriculturalists a chance to keep 'heir proper!ie? clean. He did not think that t'hi sliistle eradicated itself. Mr. Shaw, a member of the Kiwitca County Council, reminded the meeting that his body had passed a motion asking the Government not to en force tn» Noxious Weeds Act respecting the thistle. Ho was certain, after 20 years' experience, that cutting the an absolute farce. Ho oonsidoiSeif that the thistle was gradually dying /,nf. The chairman suggested that tin's motion be carried, in sp.vei'a! centres and this be followed bv a strong renresentatjvc deputation to the Minister for Agriculture. Mr. B. W. Smith, M.P., did not agree with those who pleaded that the thistle

could have been eradicated if taken in

hand at the to _,,':* appearmice. He stated .'ars ago ftt2 spent £25 yearly 0 .-rsties ot> a 520-aerc property. For tiie fnsf yjir or two it had cost him only 50/- t>V keep the thistle under. H i find been unable to get a copy of the report of the Noxoius Weeds Commission nTriclr sat in Taihape three or four years a?**. He had asked the Minister for V'Jf'Wi!ture to circularise the farmers in ti.it* district with the requirements of tiuDepartment respecting noxious weeds. He favoured Mr. Laidley 's .ino'ior,. which to him represented the only w;.y to' attain the desired result;;. .17 o would riot support a propos-.il to ask the :\i,iyistct to delete the Caiivomin •■ tliisti*? from the Act —he favoured its removal to the third schedule. He approved of the chairman's suggestion to deputationise the Minist°\ The thistle had 1 such a hold in this district to-dny that it would be impossible to eradicate it. Mr. Joblin, as seconder of. Mr. Lairtley's motion, objected to it being/withdrawn. The chairman stated he believed that the Commission reported that, the NToxious Weeds Act in its present, state was inoperative. Mr McDonald, with 20 years' experience, stated the thistles could not be kept down by cutting. Mr E. W.- Smith, MP., then read from the Parliamentary Order Paper a copy of his uestion, twice asked in December, 1913, respecting the non-ap-pearance of the Commission's report and what was expected of• the farmers in respect to noxious weeds Mr. Massey replied that it was intended to obtain the advice of the Agricultural Board; meantime, the system of leaving the matter with the loeal inspector M -and his superior officers would be ad- . hered-to/ He was glad the meeting 1 had been called so as to support hinHlfr* his actions as outlined in the questions asked in the House. The chairman then stated that ''he would withdraw his motion in favour of Mr. Laidiey's, which was put and carried with two dissentients; these considered the motion did not go far enough—it would be much better to work with a view of having the thistle struck out of the Act. The chairman, Mr. W. Dixon, and E. W. Smith gave it as their opinions tan? there was not the remotest chance of having the thistle altogether struck out of the Act. Messrs. C. E. Laidley, W. P Shaw, A. ■;Barnes, A. J Joblin, H. D. Bennett, Pemberton, and a representative to be appointed from Eaetihi, were appointed to proceed to Wellington to interview j the Minister for Agriculture after j-meeting in other centres have been rcallfid, and Messrs. Lafdley;' Barnes, ||Toblin, and Bennett were appointed to | organise a meeting at Eaetihi.