ARCHIVE FILE
This article was published in 1937
See the original document
Rabbit Destruction — Pastures Protection Act
Powers of Boards and Inspectors
W. J. SMITH, Esq., Inspector of Stock, Young.
Mr. Chairman: The subject that I have selected for discussion this morning is a most important one, and although well-worn and uninteresting to many of you with years of experience in such matters, to those inspectors with limited experience I know of no subject upon which it is so necessary for them to be fully informed, so as to equip themselves in order that they may be in a position to deal with the different phases of administration in regard to rabbit destruction as they arise.
From my own experience, I consider that upon the energy and organisation display by an Inspector in regard to the administration of the Pastures Protection Act governing the destruction of rabbits will be judged his usefulness to the district. I know that there are some persons who do not agree with me and contend that the administration of the Act dealing with the destruction of noxious animals is a matter solely for the Pastures Protection Boards, and that laxity and incompetent administration in this regard is of no concern to the Inspector. This aspect of the matter may be dealt with at a later stage.
Section 5 (Sub-section 1) of the Pastures Protection Act provides for the constitution of Pastures Protection Districts. Section 6 (Subsection 1) provides for the constitution of a Board for each District.
Noxious Animals.
Section 79 (1) declares that the rabbit, hare, fox and native dog shall be noxious animals for the purposes of this Act. Methods for suppression and destruction are as prescribed in the Regulations, and are set out in Regulation 61 (1) and include the methods defined from A to K.
Regulation 61 (2) provides that the occupier of any land shall remove or destroy the harbour of any noxious animal within two chains of a rabbit-proof, dog-proof, or marsupial-proof fence.
Section 81 provides for the destruction of noxious animals by the occupier of any land. NOTE: Before the Act was amended, two inspections of an infested holding were necessary before you could prove your case for failing to destroy rabbits. Under Section 81 of the Act, one inspection only is necessary. This is most important when dealing with infested country, as it saves covering the ground twice. Again, before the amendment of the Act, the landowner of an infested holding would commence the work of destruction after the first visit of an Inspector and continue it until after the second inspection, and then cease operations until another visit by the Inspector, and if a period of six months had elapsed before the next visit by the Inspector, another second inspection had to be made; and in some cases it would take months to get a defaulting owner to the Court.
Notice to Occupiers.
The Board may order any occupier of land to destroy noxious animals, and may prescribe the method of destruction to be adopted. See Regulation 61, and Regulation 62 sub-section (1).
The notice shall be in or to the effect of Form 17. In filling-in the form, it is necessary to describe the land by the name of the holding, its situation, boundaries,etc., so as to allow of no reasonable doubt as to which holding or land is referred to. See Section 167 of the Act.
Examples:
(1) "Being that area of land of about 1,500 acres situated at … … … and known as "Hilltop," of which you are the occupier, and comprising Portion Numbers 80, 81, 85, 86, 90 and 94, within the Parish of Barrumunda, County of Forbes.
(2) "Being that area of land of which you are the occupier, and adjoining the land occupied by John Brown, William Harris, Patrick Murphy and the Main Road leading from Young to Grenfell."
Where a notice under Section 82 (2) is served upon an occupier, it is essential that the notice be correctly prepared and served upon the person named therein, so that proof thereof may be produced in Court in this regard, I refer you to Section 166 of the Act. If forwarded per post, the letter should be registered.
Now when a notice under Section 82 is issued, it is only logical to expect that it will be followed up in order to see that the provisions of the notice have been carried out. See Sub-section 4 of Sec. 82, giving an Inspector or other person authority to enter such lands,etc., and if such work of destruction has not been carried out, to carry out the work of destruction. If such action is contemplated by the Board. I should like to suggest the adoption of the following procedure:
(1) Notice to occupier, properly describing the land.
(2) Issue summons and obtain conviction in respect to the Infested land.
(3) Put men to carry out the work.
(4) Upon completion, submit account for expenses incurred. Attach certificate in the prescribed form, signed by the Chairman of the Board.
See Section 82 (Sub-section 5) and Regulation 62 (Sub-section 2) and Form 18 in First Schedule.
I have had experience in this matter of digging out rabbits, and the method of procedure was adopted. It stood the test, as the defaulting owner did not pay—only through his solicitor. If a Board does not intend to have the provisions attached to a notice under Section 82 carried out, then such a notice should not be issued.
I may remind you that in Sub-section 4 of the Section, the words "an Inspector" are used. Now "Inspector" means the Inspector of Stock, as defined in Section 4 of the Act, and does not include the assistant Rabbit Inspector, who would be covered by the words "or other person."
Meaning of Land.
Section 86 deals with land adjoining watercourses. In many instances, an occupier has an area of land adjoining a creek: be erects his fence up on the bank of the creek, on a suitable line, leaving an area of land between the fence and the creek which he neglects and allows to become a breeding-ground for rabbits. If permitted, he will deny all responsibility in regard to the area between the fence and the creek. When it is realised that the creek may run for miles through a district, and the conditions as outlined exist, then definite action is necessary and should be taken against the defaulting occupier.
In the cases outlined, the notice as prescribed under Section 82 (Sub-section 2) should be used. in order to have uniformity and co-operation in cleaning up the infested area.
Method of Inspections.
In those districts where one or more assistant Rabbit Inspectors are employed by the Board, the actual inspections will be carried out by them. The district should be worked in a systematic manner, all holdings being inspected, and not running from one part of the district to another. If an Inspector is sent to inspect one or two holdings in a locality because of a report, and does not inspect all holdings or at least all infested holdings in that area, you will not get practical results, and at the same time you will give rise to the complaint that certain holdings are being selected for attention.
All holdings should be inspected, and the report of such inspections submitted to the Board. It is the duty of the Board to decide as to the action to be taken. See Section 81, which contains the words “and in accordance with the requirements of the Board.”
Reports.
All reports of the result of inspection of holdings by a Rabbit Inspector should set out all information that may assist the Board in arriving at a proper decision. I attach a form which is used at Young. After each meeting of the Board, the report-sheets are filed and retained for reference purposes.
I maintain that the Board is entitled to have the reports placed before them in a proper manner, and if the Inspector does not concern himself about it, who is going to do it?
I have always contended that it is the duty of an Inspector to endeavour to mould the policy of the Board along the right line and and assist them to carry it out. if a Board is careless or indifferent in the administration of the Act in regard to rabbit destruction, then there is no need for it to exist, as that is the purpose for which Boards were created.
Where a prosecution is ordered, it should be done by resolution of the Board, and should be in the minutes of the meeting. I am aware of the provisions of Section 160 (Sub-section 2) which states that any person may take proceedings for the punishment of any offence under this Act, but for proper administration, no Inspector or Officer of the Board should take proceedings without a direct instruction from the Board. This procedure is only right, as the Board has to bear the responsibility and the expense.
Entering Land.
I would refer you to Section 82 4Sub-section 41 which provides that an Inspector or other person authorised by the Board may enter upon land. Again, the word "Inspector" means the Inspector for the District, and does not include assistant Rabbit Inspectors. All officers of the Board should be furnished with an authority issued by the Board, empowering them to enter upon any land at any time, in order to ascertain that the requirements of the Act are being complied with. In making out the authority, it is advisable to follow the working of the Section as closely as possible, and the seal of the Board may be attached thereto.
In those cases where a prosecution is ordered, the papers should be handed to the Inspector, who should sign the information and carry the case through the Court. I do not know the course adopted in other districts, but in my case the papers are handed to me, I prepare the information, attend and conduct the cases at the court, and submit a report to the Board as to the result of such proceedings. I do not think that it is necessary to employ a solicitor in ordinary rabbit cases, thereby saddling the defaulting owner—and in some cases, the Board—with heavy expenses. I suggest that in the interests of economical and efficient administration, each Inspector should be supplied with a copy of the required information and a list of all formal proofs required for the proper presentation of the case (rabbit prosecutions).
Evidence.
When you reach the court and the defendant pleads not guilty, you are then called upon to prove your case. Certain formal evidence is necessary (See Section 169 of the Act). The evidence is given by the production of the necessary Government Gazettes. All this evidence is submitted before any evidence is given as to the actual offence. I usually have a deposition sheet typed out with all the necessary formal evidence set out thereon, which I hand to the deposition clerk when I enter the witness box. I also have the papers In order as set out in the depositions, and produce them in turn. This saves a lot of time in the court, and there is no danger of missing anything, and in addition, creates a good impression in the court.
When giving evidence, do not use the words, "I asked him and he replied…” I suggest that you say: "I said, 'How long have you been in occupation of this holding?' He said, 'About ten years.' I said, 'It is badly infested with rabbits' He said. 'Yes, but the ground is too hard at present.'”
When it is intended to use a conversation as evidence, choose every word you use and await the reply before following with a question, and above all, confine the conversation to the matter at issue. You will find that in contested cases the slightest word used may he construed to mean something that was never intended, and may have a direct bearing upon your evidence.
I know from experience that conducting rabbit prosecutions is unpopular, but that is no reason why it should be avoided. If you displease one person, you will make fifty friends, It is the law, and you are there to help in its administration. My advice is to deal with facts, not people.
Methods of Destruction.
All the methods as prescribed may be found effective under certain conditions if carried out in a thorough and systematic manner. If the land lends itself to the complete extermination of the pest, there is only one method to use, and that is destruction of harbour. It will be found the cheapest and most effective.
(1) The first step is the erection of a netting fence on the external boundaries—subdivision into reasonable areas according to the class of country.
(2) Pick up and burn off all timber and hollow logs that serve as rabbit harbour.
(3) Dig out all burrows, and fill in burrows after digging out. A good pack of dogs is an absolute necessity to go over the dug-out country to prevent loose rabbits from getting back, for if the job is done properly in the first instance you never have to do it again.
Fumigating.
If the ground is prepared by getting rid of all harbour, and dogging the infested area well so as to get the rabbits underground, good work may be done by fumigating. Every burrow that is opened up should be dug out. With fumigating, the burrow remain, and I find that in most cases if you have the houses you will get the tenants.
Ploughing.
Ploughing out is effective. Here again you must be thorough, and keep the rabbits in front of you and not allow them to get back on to the ploughed-out country. Again, a good man with a good pack of dogs is a necessity.
Trapping.
Trapping tor commercial purposes is not an effective method. It thins them out, and the trappers leave until the rabbit breeds up again. In rough country, good work can be done by trapping if you get the capable trapper. The usual method is to trap the country, you then till the burrows and then trap every burrow that is opened. Of course. the trapper must be an employee, and an experienced man with a knowledge of the habits of rabbits.
Poisoning.
I have never considered poisoning as a means of destruction. It is alright as a preliminary step where a holding is badly infested, and it is desired to thin them out before commencing the work of cleaning up.
Rabbits on Travelling Stock Reserves.
In dealing with rabbits on reserves. I have only used one method—the destruction of harbour. All burrows are dug out and filled in. I am of the opinion that burrows should not be left open on travelling stock reserves, which are public lands. I know that many will not agree with me, but after years of experience I am firmly of the opinion that, after digging out, the burrows should be filled in.
I could never see any difficulty in getting rid of rabbits once they were tackled in a systematic manner. All that poor little bunny can do is to run into a hollow log or scratch a hole in the ground and get busy upon the job of reproducing its like, yet we find that with all the ingenuity at man's disposal, certain landholders protest that the pest cannot be controlled.
I find that the man with a small or limited area of land cannot afford to have rabbits, and the man who has so much land that he cannot afford to dig them out or get rid of them by some other means, has too much land and becomes a menace to his neighbours in the district in which he is located.
Concluding Remarks.
I have endeavoured to touch on the most important aspects of the administration of the Act in regard to rabbit destruction. I hope that I have been able to interest you, and If I have touched on any matter which I have failed to make quite clear, I shall be pleased to discuss the matter in question with you during Conference.