THE RABBIT NUISANCE IN OTAGO.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1172, 10 November 1883, Page 1

THE RABBIT NUISANCE IN OTAGO.

(Abridged from the Otago Daily Times.) We publish the following report of a meeting between a deputation of Waibemo settlers (accompanied by Mr Pish, M.H.R.. and Mr R. Stout) and the Colonial Secretary, when the Way ‘Theßabbit Nuisance Act 1883’ was carried out in their district was discussed, by request. The following were present—Messrs J McKenzie, M.fl.R., J Muir, P M’Leod, W Murray, R Malheson, J E Glover and ;D Ross.

Mr McKenzie said Iho deputation’ had ■been appointed by the settlers of tlie Waihemo district to bring under the 'notice of the Govern nent some grievances that they suffered under the Rabbit Nuisance Act. The settlers bad now begun to feel that the rabbit pest was of such a serious nature that it was only by united effort that anything could possibly be done to keep it down. Up to the present time the inspection in their district had not been satisfactory Some settlers did tlieir best to keep down the rabbits in the winter season, when it, wr.s easy to do po ; but other settlers were allowed to neglect the work, and do very much as they pleased. The consequence was that the settlers who cleared. their land in winter now had the rabbits coining down upon them from the land of those people who had not done the work. They were confident that if everyone did the same sort of work in winter they would be able to keep down tbo pest. If every person in the district was compelled to use poison at the proper season—iu winter—and use other means in summer, such as shootjng, trapping, and also, be thought, Mr Forsyth’s machine, it would be possible to keep down the rabbits. Keeping in View future legislation, on the subject they thought that the counties should be called upon to deal with the rabbit peat, as possibly tbo counties would be better able to deal with it than the Government. They considered it very necessary that some definition should he given as to what area a rahbiter could keep clean. Under the Act the inspector bad power to what a man must do to comply with the Act. On a large run of, say, 100000 fjeros, a runholder might be employing 30 rabbiters, laying a great many pounds of poison, and taking u quarter of a million skins every year. All that looked very large on paper, and people might imagine the runbolder was doing splenoid work, ihit what would it amount to? It would mean that only one man was employed to look after 3000 acres. From what he knew of the country in Shag Valley he could say that that would be like looking for a needle in a haystack Mr Stout, who was present, would be able to inform the Minister as to the feeling of the peop’e in the district. A few settlers were summoned under the Rabbit Nuisance and Mr Stout was engaged to defend them. He had asked Mr Stout to give the Minister an idea of what the real feeling in the district was. There were over 20 farmers in Court to see how the cases went, and they held a meeting afterwards and appointed this deputation. ; Mr Stout said he did not know any- s thing practically about this question, only

lie had been at Shag Yalley, and heard from most of (he settlers—especially the small settlers —how they were situated. It was very much as Mr McKenzie had said. A great many of them were deferred payment settlers, and they said that during the winter months (hey cleaned' their land with poison. The occupiers oflafge holdings had found it difficult to keep them clear of rabbits, owing to the broken nature of the country, and they ;had not taken such active steps as the small holders. Their land was not clean, and the rabbits went on to (he land of the farmers and destroyed their crops. 1 . One man said that just as his crops,were coming up the rabbits came down on tliem from the neighbors, and be not only lost several acres of wheat j but be was summoned for permitting the rabbits to ho on his land. To a small holder such an occurrence meant absolute ruir. With regard to country management and inspection, he thought the General Government would be only tco glad to get rid of this rabbit question by relegating it to the counties. In addition to that there might ho a law passed giving u man the right .to sue his neighbor for damage done by rabbits coming from t hat neighbor's land. At present a man could sqa his neighbor for scabbing a fleck of sheep. It would be a very difficult thing to prove; but if it were proved that a man was breeding rabbits on his land and doing nothing to destroy them, he did not:see why the injured man should not have a right of action. The Hon. Mr Dick said sheep were earmarked, hut he did not think that was the case with rabbits.

Mr Stout agreed that was true ; but a. man might prove that bis neighbor was doing nothing to destroy the rabbits There was a strong feeling in Shag Valley that unless something very decided was done great damage would be caused by the rabbits, not only wM),respect to sheep and cattle raising, but also with respect to the growing of crops. MrJ. M’Leod had simply to say that his experience svas the same as tint of everj'one else who lived where rabbits were numerous. That was, he suffered a great deal from the encroachment of the rabbits. They came down from the rough land to the cultivated land when' the grass and young crops were coming tip. The rabbits travelled a long way for good feed, and it was useless (or farmers

to clear tlieir land of rabbits if the rough country was not also cleared in the winter. A. great difficulty was that the men who got a living by rabbiting were directly interested in not eradicating the pest. Whenever the rabbits were thinned off to a certain point the rabbiters moved off to another place, where they could better wages so that there was; sufficient number of rabbits left to breed a plentiful supply in the course of; a few months. If the rabbiters killed off all the rabbits they would have nothing to do next year. Dnless some system were adopted whereby the inspectors would see that the country was thoroughly cleared of the pest, the whole district would suffer. The Hon Mr Dick asked Mr Fish what he, as a member of Parliament,, would consider to be a fair salary for a rabbit inspector. Mr Fish was not prepared to say. That was a duty undertaken for members by the gentlemen who were in ofiice. Members thought the Government should know better than they did.

Mr Glover said he was a small settler in Sbag Valley, and there was not the least doubt that he bad suffered to a very great extent from the rabbits during the last 18 months. Last year he had done all in his power, destroying the rabbits! ■ Last summer he had as fine a crop of wheat growing as a man could wish to see and people who saw it said it would yield 40 bushels to the acre at least. When the harvest time came there were 18 acres of 'it lying alongside a Government reserve and a neighbor’s land on which be never put a machine, us the rabbits bad completely eaten away the wheat. Where tiie wheat stalks were 3£ft high they were eaten away a few indies from the ground. He went to bis neighbor and asked him to do something to keep down tiie rabbits, but be said ‘I will do something when it suits me. I have only got tussocks, and the rabbits will not stop with me.’ The rabbits were very numerous also on a Qovernment reserve which-j adjoined his property.

The Hon Mr Dick was not aware before that the rabbits attacked the wheat crops. , Mr M'Kenzie said they were very fond bf the wheat when it was in ear. .

The Hon Mr Dick said that it was quite clear that something must be done with the W.liberab district. He would send up an inspector to settle in that locality, without delay, and would instruct him to show no favor to anyone. Of course he did not expect that the inspector would show favor; and perhaps bo would be pretty sharp with some of the deputation themselves, who might then complain. Mr Ritcbi •, of Mount Royal, tackled the difficulty most thoroughly, and showed what could be done on the large | properties.

i Mr McKenzie said the large landholders maintained that the thing could not be done. But Mr Ritchie showed that it could be done. But of course Mr Ritchie’s property was freehold. When it came to the worst on the runs, the runholders threw up the leases. After some conversation as to the provisions of the Act, the deputation withdrew.