MR RENALL AND THE RABBITS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 910, 28 October 1881, Page 2

MR RENALL AND THE RABBITS.

To the |Editor of the Wairabapa Daily. Si*,—At the meeting held by Mr Beuall recently, the much-vexed rabbit question was somewhat freely discussed, and Mr Eensll, in ho measured terms, denounced the Babbit Act passed during the last session of Parliament as oppressive and unworkable; he denounced alto, in the same manner, one of our reprtMentatires, who has devoted a considerable amount of time and energy in the endeavor to procure suoh a measure as would be popular and effectual in the direction aimed at, Mrßenall was, moreover, kind, enough to present to the audience m» view of how the nuisance should be with, He is of opinion, it seems, that the inspectors appointed in the sevoral rabbit districts throughout the Colony should have power to employ a sufficient number of hands to keep the rabbits in check.. Let.' us see for a moment how his scheme will bear the test of figures. One of the inspectors reported a short time ago that, in three out of the seven districts in the Wairarapa, over 250 men were employed at that time by landowners solely in destroying rabbits. I think it will be admitted by persons who have any practical knowledge of the subject, that it would take more men to successfully cope with rabbits during the spring and summer than would be required on any particular piece of country in the winter. If there should be any doubt about this, I am willing to give Mr Eenall's scheme the benefit of it, Suppose, therefore, the same number will do the work. It is a reasonable deduction to eoncluie thit an equal number of men would be required for the remaining four districts in the Wairarapa. (Oieytown riding is not yet constituted a rabbit district.) This gives a total of 500 men at least all the year round. Suppose the services of these men could be secured for £1 per week each, the men to supply their own ammunition and take the skins. Here is an expenditure of £'26,000 per annum for two or three years at least. Sir, five hundred men could not overtakethe work in the Wairarapa at the present time, nor could Mr Benall have more plainly disclosed the fact of his entire ignorance of the question in all its bearings, than by proposing such a scheme for dealing with it. His idea apparently is to relieve the occupier from the trouble and responsibility of killing the rabbits on his property, and thereby enable him to devote his attention to pastoral and agricultural pursuits. The paid army of rabbiters is to inarch through the country, carrying before it death and destruction to the rabbit species. This may be an excellent idea no doubt in theory, but utterly impracticable, besides being oppressive in the extreme, for it would necessitate the levying of a rate many times as heavy as the maximum hitherto allowed by law. I venture to say such a method would be found to he neither successful in operation nor acceptable to the public; but as a proposal to relieve the | landholder from the searching eye of the Inspector, and the liability to be brought before the" beak" (I am indebted to Mr Benall for this vulgarism), will find favor in some quarters, and is calculated, at this juncture, to create a diversion in Mr Eenall's favor. Mr Benall appears further to be of opinion that the operation of the new Act will be an ondoavor to compel landowners to do that which he contends they cannot ' do, viz, to keep their rabbits in check. Instances where success has attended efforts in this direction are by no means wanting in the Wairarapa, and because, in a case mentioned by Mr Benall, tho efforts seem to have failed, he seems to have arrived at the extraordinary conclusion that it is impossible for landowners either to keep rabbits in check or fence them out. As regards the latter, if the rabbits jump over it, cleurly the fence is not high enough, and Mr Eenall's sous have probably paid for their experience nn this point, and will know better in future. The real cause of want of success is, however, not far to seek. We find it in the absence of unanimity of notion on the part of landowners. For instance, A, B, and C are neighbors. A is an indifferent slayer of rabbits, B goes at them tooth and nail, C looks on complacently, and watches his sheep starved out. If you address toe persons individually on the subject you will find A is (by his own account.) flooded with rabbits from B and C, B complains bitterly of A and C, and C blames the other two. It is only fair that the law should protect B, and how is this to be dona otherwisa than by compelling A and Ctodo as B does—i.e., take efficient steps to .kill the rabbits, and this law must be strictly and impartially carried out, for you will never get voluntary unanimity of action in a question like this. You must compel it, just as you must compel sheepowners to clean their sheep of scab, I can remember the time, sir, when Is and costs was the usual fine for failing to clean sheep within the proper time. And what was the result ? Half the flocks in the Wairarapa were scabby. The same thing applies to the rabbit question, which is a far more serious one. It is only in its infancy in this part of the country. Read the accounts of the,devastation caused by rabbits in. the Middle Island I Millions of acres rendered worse than useless I Thousands on thousands of sheep starved out, or sent to the pot to save their lives I Both import and export trade seriously affected thereby; men of property ruined, with other evils too numerous to mention.

Let no glance shortly, in conclusion, at the part taken by Mr Beetham with reference to the new Act, and for which lie has been brought to task by Mr Renall. The latter stated at his meeting that our representative was to be much blamed for not obtaining the opinion of his constituents on the question before voting for the measure. At such a time, and under such oircumstances as existed «. when this subject was being discussed by I a,joint committee of both Chambers.of,' , the Legislature, what more could havei(L'/ been done than was done—viz., to seelr*' the opinions of the various Boards of Rabbit Trustees who had been put in office by the ratepayers themsolves? The Boards were naturally supposed to be the mouthpieces of the ratepayers, and their opinions to reflect those of the persons by whom they were elected. There was uo necessity, therefore, to consult both the Boards and the ratepayers, but the more speedy, and, at the same time, convenient method was adopted of giving the various Boards throughout the colony an opportunity of expressing tlieii- opinions on the subject, V Mr Beetham and those with whom he '.' was associated in this matter—most of them, at all ovonts, men who had devoted much time and attention to the rabbit question—clearly appreciated the fact that nothing but the most stringent • measures would prove in the least degree ■ effectual m abating the rabbit nuisance; and I have no hesitation in saying the colony will yet learn by experience that this is so. I advise Mr Renall to confine his remarks on future occasions to questions with which he is more conversant. I am, &e., • ■ ■ : Common Sense,