THE RABBIT QUESTION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2341, 8 July 1886, Page 2

THE RABBIT QUESTION.

A LAB9B and influential mooting of the settlers of the northern division of the Wairarapa to consider the administration of the Rabbit Aot in the Wairarapa, was held m the Theatre Royal on Wednesday morning. Mr Maunsell was voted to tho chain

The Chairman stated the object of the meeting was to get concerted action to deal with the question, which was really a colonial one. He thought if the settlers could be brought to look upon the Inspeetors as friends and not enemies, the question would be much easier met. He called upon Mr Hawkins to move tho first resolution.

Mr Hawkins hoped the settlers would not look upou the meeting as a panic meeting, but one in which the whole district would be benefitted. The first thing that they would have to consider was tho Rabbit Department. He would not say anything hard against them, nor would he rake up cases or cast a slur on any individual. He considered they had broken down 111 the northern district, and the Department were alive to the fact He agreed that they should work with tho Inspectors, and not against them. If the Bettlers worked themselves and with the Department, the difficulty would be much easier got over. It was not for any one settler who had not rabbits, to stand aloof, but all should vsork together. He vould propose "That this meeting while refraining from casting blame on any particular officer, is of opinion that the Administration of the Rabbit Act in North Wairarapa has for more than two veara past completely broken down, and hear with great satisfaction that the Department is taking active steps to secure efficient administration."

The motion was seconded by Mr R. R, Meredith,

• Mr W. H. Beetham thought the resolution spoke too strongly. He thought Inspectors in the northern districts were earnest men, and did their best. ' They were aware that no deoided policy could be laid down to deal with the pest, as, what would do for one part #f the country

would not do for another. It was really a 1 question of self interest, Each one plagued;with,the evil did his best to carry out a remedy to suit himself. There were cases in which it was necessary forithe--..'lnspector; to interfere, especially with dilatory settlers, Maori and Crown Lands. The Inspectors had done their duty well, as wa3 evinced by the steps. they wore continually taking with regard to abating the nuisance. He did not think the system had broken down, and would move as an amendment, " That this meeting regrets that the result of past efforts to destroy the rabbits in' the North Wairarapa district haw not been so successful as desirable, and hoars with great satisfaction that the Department is now taking active, steps to ensure the more efficient administration of the Rabbit Act."

The amendment was seconded by Mr H. Beetham.

Mr T, A. Lyons said Mr Bayley in his report did not refer to the North Island, but more to the large bare traots in the Southern island. •

Mr' Brown Hunt did not think the Act was bo bad as some of the gentlemen would have them believe. What he thought was that the casus taken into court were very bad for the- defendants, who could not say a word in defence, and was mulcted in a fine without a remedy. He was certain that if settlers would be deligcnt, the pest would be kept down, and if they did away wit.li the Inspectors the country would soon be overrun again. Mr Hawkins, by permission of hit seconder, withdrew his resolution.

Mr Woodroofe spoke of the struggling settlers in the district. He admired Mr W. H. Beetnam's view of the question, aud was surprised that the ■ Chairman allowed such a resolution to be put as that proposed by Mr Hawkins, • Mr Hawkins said Mr Woodroofe was mistaken. They did not-want harsh - butgood administration. ; If tho : act was good and well administered it would benefit the settlers; if harshly administered it meant ruin to a good many, Mr Beetham's amendment was 1 then put to the meeting and carried." POISONING. Mr Coekburu Hood moved, "Thatthere should be simultaneous poisoniug on all lands on which there aro rabbits at some time between the 16th of May and the 15th of August in every year, and it shall be the duty of the Inspector to see that tho owner of every property,infested with rabbits shall have the necessary, material and plant' for poisoning, and that it is necessary to immediately follow general poisoning by killing down rabbits that have not taken the poison." He said what they wanted to arrive at was unity of action among the settlers in applying the remedy to the evil.

Mr E, E, Chamberlain, m seconding the resolution, said it was necessary that simultaneous action should betaken, as if one settler poisoned and his neighbor did not, the good done was counterbalanced by the neglect. Mr W. H. Beetham did not. see how it was possible.to poison the whole district simultaneously. It would require a shower of poisoned grain from Heaven. If they were to attempt to do the work altogether, -what would become of the 1, stock. It was more a question of neighbourly arrangeinont, for it was very hard where a man laid poison and his neighbor did not, and an open wire feuco was between them. That was a caso where the Inspector should step in and coerca the non-poisoner to do his share towards the work of extermination.

Mr Hood said Mr Beetham had cut the matter rather fine. They did not-want-poisoned grain rained from Heaven. What they wanted was, tocompol settlers to poison at the proper time, and have the necessary appliances for the work,' and not allow men to. escape on the mere promise to do the work, Mr Beetham said ho was fully alive to the ravages of the pest, and was of the Same opinion with regard to that Act as to the Scab Act. If a .settler had not the appliances they could not expect the work to be'done. It was the duty of the Inspector to see the work done.

Mr R. R, Meredith in supporting the resolution, said if they wished to get rid of the rabbits, simultaneous action must be taken. The poison season extended for three months,- and there was ample time to do the work. In regard to a mutual arrangement among settlers that had proved a failure in the Shoep Act and would do so if applied to tho rabbit Act. The Inspector should enforce the Act and see the poisoning done at the proper time.

• Mr Stuokey thought that if a settlor had not any rabbits it was very hard for him.to be bound to lay poison. It meant a deal of work as the whole of a run would have to be poisoned from the outside to the centre. He instanced his own case, where he was comparatively free from rabbits, and yet received notice to poison, Mr Brown Hunt said it was absolutely necessary that everyone should poison. If they did not have rabbits in the day-time they might at night. ]t was the same as an Inspector finding one louse in a flock and compelling the whole flock to be dipped.

The Chairman said ho thought it was hard that a settler without rabbits should be compelled to poison. No doubt tho lnspeotor in those cases would use his discration. The neoessary plant should ba on every property wherever rabbits existed so that the work of extermination could be effectually carried out.

The resolution was then put and arried.

NATURJit ENEMIES,

The Chairman moved " That the introduction and establishment of ferrota, stoats, and weasels in large numbers is, in the opinion of this meeting, the onlv means by which the rabbit pest can be successfully put an end to, and that every owner of land affected by rabbits should either turn out ferrets in proportion to his acreage or contribute to a fund for the breeding or purchase of ferrets, stoats, and weasels, to be turned out in the district ; that the landowners present form themselves, into an association for the purpose of providing the natural enemies." He said that opinions differed very much about the introduction of stoats and weasels especially among those who went in for ganie or poultry. He thought those who were likely to suffer could easily avoid the danger with a little expense. Mr Bayly had informed him that the introduction of the natural enemies down south had a most beneficial effect. The settlers there had scarcely any winter poisoning to do. He thought that Associations throughout the colony would do a deal of public good and' place all information before the settlers. They couWalso work harmoniously with the Rabbit Department. MrOockburn-Hood seconded the resolution.

Mr Stuckey agreed with the motion to a certain extent. His experience was that if confined the stoats and weasels killed themselves. He did not think that the breeding could be carried on successfully in confinement. ' His idea to abate the pest was to fence the boundaries with rabbit proof fenoing and turn out the natural enemies. He deprecated the idea of killing rabbits by contract. He believed that to offer a bonus to men to effectually dear the land, and then turn out the natural enemies, and close fence, was the. remedy. From enquiries made in England, he could not find out that stoats or weasels ever attacked lambs.

Mr W. H. Beetham said that having introduced th» rabbit* without their

.natural enemies they have so increased that it was found necessary to, introduce, their natural destroyers. The nori-aucceas of the introduction of the ferret did not surprise Mm, for there were large tracts of land cold and clayey, without even' adry spot for an animal to lie down in, He would build stacks to shelter the ferret, so that they would 'be able to have comfortable quartets,' aud ho belieced they would be able to, roar them successfully Mr Hawkins, in dealing with theqnestion, said he nover heard of any damage having been done in England from the stoats and weasels, He did not approve of Mr Beetham's stack principle, and thought there was plenty of shelter for ! .them. Ho thought they had not got enough of them, ouiue would turn out twenty or thirty, and, another settler would not turn out any. Consequently, they got considerably scattered. He spoke of the great success of the natural enemies down South, and he believed in introducing enough to cope with the evil. Mr R. R. Meredith was doubtful about th# introduction of the natural enemy, and whether as much could be got out of them as was expected. He quoted from Mr Bayley's report as to the bast means of abating the rabbit nuisance. Ha wm in favor of trapping and fumigating. He also read a portion uf Mr Bayley's repot t, which, showed that the ferrets drove the rabbits from one place to another. He thought what was required was to kfll then) and not drive them.away. . The Chairman . said lie thoroughly believed in importing and breedmg ferrets, and obtaining them from a reliable source, so that no'disease might be introduced among them. Mr W. H. Beetham spoke of the Government commencing the introduction of the natural enemy and. then knocking off the importation of them because some of the sensitive passengers refused to travel on the same boat,, as the animals smelt rather strong. He thought the Government should be urged to charter a ship especially to bring the natural enemy to the coldny. Mr Hawkins: The "Hinemoa." (laughter.)

Mr Cockburn Hood said he would like to hear an expression from the gentleman from clown the Lower Valley. Mr Martin of the .Lower Valley, s&id that during 'the' pait five years he had turned out ferrets, cats, &c,, and kept up the rabbitters. For two years he had not laid'poison, and he thought the settlers should urge upontke Government to compel the Inspectors to dear the district in two years, or else put on men that would do it.

My Elgar spoke greatly in favor of the. natural enemy and the great good they, had done in the Lower Valley.' Mr Stuckey said that the report about passengers not caring to travel on the boats that stoaijs and weasels were on was not altogether correct, as in the ship he travelled on the passengers did not know there were any on board until the Captain had - informed them. He balieved that, although the opinion was in favor of ferrets, one stoat or' weasol was worth twenty of them. ! The resolution was then put and carried unanimously. . ' THE RABBIT AOT. Mr R, R. Meredith moved the following resolution That by the plain grammatical reading of the 9tfi section of the Rabbit Act, it was the duty of the Inspector to indicate to the owner what particular means should be employed to get rid of the rabbits/ That the decision of Judge Prendergast in' the case of Sutton v Thompson havin? reversed the reading of this section, it is desirable that it should bo amonded in such form as to preclude any misconstruction by the Court." He thought the R.M. in the case Sutton v Thompsou ruled that' he could not convict, as the Inspector had not told Thompson what ho liad to do, which was over-ruled by Judge Prendergast. He thought that the Act was arbitrary in which the opinion of the Inspector over'ntfes'the evidence of any number of witnesses. Ho thought the opinion of the Inspector should be bassd upon something definite. Seconded by Mr Elder, who thought that the Inspectors should have'some basis for their opinion, and then perhaps the Crown Lands would be dealt with in such a manner as private settlers were now expected to deal with their lands. • Mr Hawkins criticised at some length the ruling of Judge Prendergast in the case referred to, and characterised it as unreasonable, and an 'upside reading of the act. He thought the Inspectors knew what mi required to be done, and they should give that information to the settler, instead of dragging him' to the R.M., who had no alternative but to impose a fine.

The Chairman thought the discretionary power in the hands of the Inspectors was rathor too strong. If they would only give the settlers the information required there was no doubt in many cases a deal of difficulty would be got over. The resolution was then put and carried unanimously.

THIS FENDING iOI, Mr W. H. Beetham, in dealing with the Fencing Act, said he was in favor in many cases of erecting rabbit proof fences. He thought the Act lecently introduced trying to legalise rabbit proof fences was rather arbitary, He moved, "That wire netting in rabbit infested diatribts should b« a legal fines, subject to the following conditions: That the owner desiring to erect wire netting, shall apply, with the written consent of the Rabbit Inspector, to the Resident Magistrate) who shall appoint and notify to the other owner interested a day of hearing, and give his order on such hearing," Mr Stuckey seconded the resolution, ana spoke greatly In favor of wire netting. He gave the meeting the result of his experience of wire netting fending, whioh has been to almost rid his property of the pest, The Government should bear part of the expenso where Crown Lands adjoiu a settler's prop art v. If necessary they j should fence with rabbit proof netting and mako it a first charge on the land, IJr Elgar said that to demand fenoing would be to acknowledge the neighbors ) being infested with rabbits. 1

Mr Guild in spaaking of the resolutions passed, thought that one resolution was antagonistic to the other, If simultaneous poisoning would rid them of the pest, why require fenciug ? Thore were some properties that would require different methods and take longer to clear. He did not think in accordance with the resolutions passed that wire netting was required.

Mr Hawkins called Mr Guild's attention to the resolution whioh he said was. not to be a raieral thing, but a useful institution where settlers required it.

■ Mr Brown Hunt said he could sits difficulties, one of which was that the little settler was at the mercy of the runholder. It meant absolute ruin to the' struggling settler. He denounced, the resolution as rot, and said that if a large .and. rich landholder had his,eye.on an adjoining property of a small/ settler, he would call upon hiin to fence, and if ;h? was unable to do so, he would h&ve' fy leave. He hoped the legislature wo'i}ld: throw out such a Bill' if ifc wera ihtxodu<»4 into the House. . .. /,-ii! The Chairman, pointed out' to settler, was lazy, and allowed rabbit* to accumulate on his property to the ditrf.'

ment of the adjoining.pr<i|)brty|". stritigant steps should be taken to compel him to help to abate the pests. . , The resolution Jc there beinp a few dissentient'voices, W Tho meeting then dissolved. Y'f