1201 'S STRUGGLE AGAINST RABBITS (1880-1930) [By K. T. CAMERON.] (Read at a meeting of the Society on February 23, 1956.)

Of introduced pests in Queensland, the rabbit was perhaps the most expensive to the Treasury and the pastoral industry, even allowing for the ravages of Prickly Pear. The family Leporidae, which also includes the hare, has about seventy species; it is not indigenous to Australia or the great islands of the world. An English magazine, "The Hutch," of October 7, 1896, claims the rabbit arrived in Europe by way of Spain, being brought from the Atlas Mountains, North Africa, giving its authority as Strabo, 63 B.C.—25 A.D. (The extract is from Book III, page 252, Geography of Strabo, translated by Hamilton and Falconer, 1854, London.) They spread from Spain over Europe and Asia by migration or human agency, and in all these countries they were highly valued for food and for their fur. They were a deciding factor on the arrival of many convicts in Australia for it is stated that more people Were transported for poaching than for any other crime. Varro, a Roman writer, in his work on Farming in 116 B.C. writes "their burrowing habit in the fields is a great pestilence to farmers and vineyards." (The reference is from the translation by Lloyd Storr-Best, 1912, page 315.) Pliny, A.D. 28-79, tells of famine in the Balearic Islands caused by rabbits destroying the harvest, and according to him, the Romans found a medicinal value derived from "the ashes of a rabbit or hare mixed with Oil of Myrtle as a relief for headache"; the patient afterwards "drank from a trough that an ox or ass had been watered at." (Natural History by Pliny, page 349, translated 1855.) The rabbit covers a particularly wide range in the New World, where it existed before Columbus crossed 1202

the Atlantic Ocean, as it is found from 63° North Latitude, Greenland, to 40° South, in Patagonia. Its vertical range extends from sea-level to above timber line, reaching an altitude of 14,000 feet in Mexico. (Cambridge Natural History—Mammalia, page 16.) One of the earliest references in Australia is in a "Return of Live Stock in the Settlement" sent to Lord Sydney as at May 1, 1788; Governor Phillip includes five rabbits, three belonging to the Governor, and two to the oflficers and men of the detachment; the dispatch was dated July 1, 1788. At an early date they must have been taken to Tasmania for in the "Colonial Times" (Hobart) of May 11, 1827, appears a statement "the domesticated rabbit is becoming numerous on some of the large estates"; in the same year they were mentioned as being numerous on Rabbit Island, off Wil­ son's Promontory, believed to have been introduced by whalers. In , a dispute arose over the owner­ ship of some of the rodents in May 1836, not long after the founding of the Colony. All these have been referred to as domesticated rabbits. Apparently the forebears of all our troubles arrived in 1859 per the clipper ship "Lightfoot," when Mr. Thomas Austin, of Barwon Park, Geelong, Victoria, imported what was described as "an excellent addition to the livestock of the Colony" in the shape of sixty-six partridges, four hares and twenty-four wild rabbits. In later years, Mr. Frank Mack, of Narromine, nephew of Mr. Austin, recounted to the late C. W. Holland: "They (the rabbits) were placed in special enclosures built of palings, and a special game-keeper was appointed to attend and feed them and destroy their natural enemies; as a special favour my uncle presented pairs to some of his land-owning neighbours. 0) A high flood, however, swept away the fences and they dispersed, but they were still protected. Three years later they were reported as "becom­ ing a pest." An article in "The Yeoman" (Melboume), July 7, 1865, reads, "Six years ago Mr. Austin liberated thirteen, since then he has killed twenty thousand and his neighbours ten thousand rabbits."

]. Pa^er to Oucenslaiul Field Naturalist Club, March 1923. 1203

The rabbit has extraordinary powers of reproduc­ ing its species. It lives to about seven or eight years (according to an English authortiy),^^) \y^i I would estimate in Australia its life-span would not be more than five years. They begin their breeding life at from three to four months, the period of gestation being thirty days, with an average litter of six. (Again quot­ ing the English authority.) They are reputed to have about nine litters in a year, but under Australian sea­ sonal conditions I do not think the number of litters would exceed five. The young are born in a small burrow about eight inches in depth, running under the surface for about three feet; at the far end a nest of dry grass and fur has been prepared. The mouth is covered with loose earth and camouflaged with dry leaves. The mother enters twice a day to nourish them, and when they are about twelve to fifteen days old, she opens the burrow and sends them out to fend for them­ selves. It has been estimated that the yearly increase from a pair of rabbits and their offspring would be twelve hundred, but some authorities are not so con­ servative, and declare this number should be multiplied tenfold. Introduction into Queensland In 1864, about two years after its foundation, the Queensland Acclimatisation Society introduced the silver-grey rabbit. No danger of their reaching pest proportions was evinced from the fact that the Honorary Secretary offered 2/- per head for the first half dozen bred in the Colony. ("Brisbane Courier," July 27, 1864.) Next year in the same paper, a correspondent protested against a proposal to turn some of them loose as they might become a nuisance (May 13, 1865). Again the "Brisbane Courier," October 30, 1866, reported some wild rabbits obtained from Mr. Austin of Victoria had been liberated on Woody Island, Hervey Bay. Two years later, the Queensland Acclimatisation Society reported them as having formed a permanent

2. "The Hutch," 7th October 1896. 1204

settlement on the island from which they would be difficult to dislodge; next year they said that they estimated their numbers at 12,000. The newspaper "The Express," Brisbane, May 21, 1870, reported them as "positively swarming." There were more liberated on the islands off the coast as far north as Booby Island, Torres Straits, also on the mainland at Warwick, Helidon, Clermont, Kilkivan, and Wamba (Burnett District). Happily they did not apparently multiply at any of these places. In the south, the rabbits imported by Austin over­ ran Victoria. The , which was confidently expected to be a barrier to them, was taken in their stride, and they penetrated into , and . By 1874 they were driving people off their holdings in the Riverina, and along the Darling River. The Braidwood district suffered worse than any other part of the colony. During the "seventies" they spread rapidly north. In 1879 a warning was was sounded by Mr. G. M. Simpson in the Queensland Parliament. Later in the year a Bill was introduced to prohibit the further importation or breeding of the animals, the mover being Mr. G. H. Davenport. The Bill was read a first time, the motion for a second reading, however, lapsing. In the following year a Bill was brought forward by a private member, Hon. E. J. Stevens. This Bill was on the lines of the former one moved by Mr. G. H. Daven­ port. Voices were raised in Parliament claiming the measure was too stringent. During the debate, in the Legislative Council, one member said: "To provide that the whole population of a colony containing millions of acres should be debarred from introducing one of the most domesticated and certainly one of the most innocent of animals is too absurd." The Bill, however, was passed and became law as "The Rabbit Act of 1880" (Vol. XXXI (31), 1880, Queensland Parliamentary Debates) ; it forbade the keeping, introducing, or breeding of rabbits. The Act was administered by the Marsupial Board, which was the forerunner of a Rabbit Board. The first prosecution under the Act was on July 4, 1205 1883, when W. McKenzie was fined in the Police Court, Brisbane (extract from Pugh's Almanac, 1884). If the Government of the day—the Mcllwraith Ministry ^ hoped they had now quietened public clamour, they were mistaken. This was a period when country members wielded enormous influence, and they prodded and goaded the unfortunate Ministry into activity. The Hon. E. J. Stevens was again critical of the Ministry when he drew their attention to the presence of rabbits only 200 miles from the Queensland border on the lower Paroo River. The Government sent an expert to investigate and he returned and airily reported that all was well, as the enemy was 140 miles away in New South Wales, while in South Australia they were even further away. However, the authorities were evidently becoming alarmed for, in 1885, a ship arrived in the Brisbane River with a solitary rabbit on board, and an oflficial was sent to the ship to see the unfortunate creature despatched. The Griffith's Ministry now in power was more sympathetic to the demands of the pastoralists, and passed "The Rabbit Act of 1885" (which is still in force), which went further than the Act of 1880. Sir Thomas Mcllwraith, then in opposition, in supporting the Bill, said, "In our present temper we would destroy them without an Act of Parliament." The Government was perhaps influenced by a monster public meeting held in Charleville, convened by the late W. W. Hood, which advocated the building of a rabbit-proof fence south of the Western Railway, then being constructed from Roma to Charleville. Shortly afterwards the Government voted £50,000 to construct a rabbit-proof fence along the New South Wales border. They had originally placed £100,000 on the Estimates, but the House reduced it by half. Once committed, the undertaking was carried out with the tenacity that characterised our Colonial Governments in those days. In 1886, the work was commenced at a point sixteen miles west of the Warrego River and the work went on until 1891, the fence then having reached 1206

Haddon Corner (lat. 26° South) on the South Aus­ tralian border. It was a gigantic undertaking for the finances and population of the colony seventy years ago. More material was required than to build the Overland Tele­ graph Line. England and Germany were the only countries who manufactured rabbit-proof netting, and while the German netting was cheaper, the English netting was a better article. Tenders were called for erection of the various sections and advertised in the "Charleville Times," "Warrego Watchman" (), in the local paper in Bourke (N.S.W.), and in the Brisbane metro­ politan papers. The original fence was a much more substantial structure than those erected later. Timber was to be cleared 50 feet on either side; specifications required ordinary posts to be 8 inches in diameter at the small end, and 2 feet in the ground; strainers 10 inches and 3 feet in the ground; four plain wires 6 and 8 gauge. The netting was 48 inches high with 1^ inch mesh, 16 gauge, to be sunk 9 inches in the ground. (Standard fences later were 42 inches wide, 1^ inch mesh, 6 inches in the ground, cleared 10 feet on either side.) The timber to be used was specified as gydia, mulga, coolibah, cypress pine, and beef wood. For­ tunately a good supply of timber was available along the entire length of this fence, which covered an over all distance of 480 miles approximately. Lives were lost in the construction principally from berri berri or typhoid fever, probably caused by the use of stag­ nant water. It was perhaps not the purest in the first place, and it was carted in square iron ships tanks which were left in the blazing sun until they had to be replenished again. There was in those days no Flying Doctor Service, the nearest hospitals being Cunnamulla, in Queens­ land, Bourke, on the Darling River, and Milparinga on the Mount Brown goldfields, all averaging 100 miles or further from the work. The only means of transport­ ing a sick man was by buggy and horses. It was a case of "keeping the patient amused until nature effected a cure" and in most cases it was "beyond nature's power." The graves of these men can be 1207

distinguished by the heavy timber used in fencing them, in their names deeply cut in a heavy wooden slab, and often very neatly done. It would give you the impression that their mates wished that the de­ parted ones would not lie in an unmarked grave. It is perhaps more important than any written document if we have some knowledge of the men who made history. Twenty years later, I met many of these men. They were not given to complaining of the hard lives they led, and while some of them were provident and temperate, some were not; but thinking back I cannot rcollect any of them conveying to you the impression that their work was in any way a mile-stone in the country's progress. There are, as far as I am aware, no figures avail­ able for the contract cost per mile, but costs of fencing from old ledgers of pastoral companies of the period give us some idea. Ten feet panels were the order of those days, with our estimated 530 posts per mile. Per mile Cutting £1 per 100 posts £5 7 0 Erection £1/5/- per 100 posts 6 13 0 Boring (4 holes) 15/- per 100 posts 4 0 0 Trenching 1/- per chain 4 0 0 Wiring and straining 7/- per mile per wire (4 wires) 18 0 Hanging and tieing of nettifig 6d. per coil (176 per mile) 4 8 0 £25 16 0 In addition, there was the clearing and carting of the posts on to the line and the making of flood gates. A cook was employed and also a man to attend and drive the horses or oxen, and in many cases water had to be carted. All plant had to be found by the contrac­ tor; all employees except the horse-driver and cook being sub-contratcors, were on a mess account. It is therefore diflficult to see how anyone would ask less than £50 to £55 per mile. The delivery of the wire must have been an enor­ mous expense to the Government. In 1886 the nearest 1208 railway in Quensland was Mitchell. English netting was eventually purchased and after its arrival in Aus­ tralia, the first netting was railed to Bourke (N.S.W.), but later as the fence moved west, it was sent by river boat to Willcannia on the Darling River and thence by horse or bullock teams. The railway having reached Charleville in 1888, the last netting was taken from that point, via Durham Downs on Cooper's Creek, to Haddon Corner, When I was a lad the old carriers still used to talk of hauling the netting on to "The Fence." It remained always "The Fence" to the old hands. As the various sections were completed they were taken over by the Government. Boundary riders were placed at intervals to patrol and maintain it, the patrols being done by horse or camel, whichever was the better suited to the locality. Huts and horse paddocks had to be built for them and wells and dams put down for water. Their job was no sinecure. Floods in the Paroo and Bulloo Rivers and Cooper's Creek, as well as numerous other watercourses, swept it away; further west, the shifting sandhills buried it. This struggle between man and elements went on for forty-four years. Stringent penalties were enforced for unlawful interference with the fence carrying £100 fine or twelve months' imprisonment. Having completed the first leg of the border fence we will now return to the Legislative side of the stmggle. In New South Wales a Royal Commission was appointed to enquire into rabbit destruction and £25,000 reward was offered for an effectual means of total extermination. The Commission examined 115 schemes submitted from all over the world, including one submitted by Louis Pasteur; their finding was that "no evidence to warrant the belief that any known disease would exterminate rabbits" was found. Dr. Joseph Bancroft and Henry Tryon attended as observers for Queensland. Twice in 1887, and again in 1888, the adjournment of the Legislative Assembly was moved by a private 1209 member (Mr. F. R. Murphy) to call attention to the rabbit menace, and the need for the erection of a second line of fence. The Rabbit Act was, however, amended in 1889. In 1891 Legislation went a step further and the "Rabbit Board Act of 1891" was passed. (Vol. LXV Qld. Pltry. Debates 1891, pages 1911-1938.) This Act gave power to proclaim infested districts, for each of which a Board of local stock owners was elected. The Boards were empowered to raise funds by assessments on stockowners. The levy was fixed at 5/- for every 100 head of cattle, 10/- for every 500 sheep. Pastoralists were required to contribute to the erection of skeleton fences on which Board netting was to be attached. The Government subsidised the Boards by supply­ ing netting free of cost. The Boards actively took up the extension of the Border fence eastwards from the Warrego River. So actively, indeed, that by 1904 they had a rabbit- proof fence from near Moreton Bay to the . In 1892 the Government appointed two Inspectors, Messrs. Alexander Donaldson, stationed at St. George, and J. Avery, at Longreach. Five district Boards were immediately established: Warrego, Maranoa, Mitchell, Gregory North and Leich­ hardt, then Darling Downs in 1893, Carnarvon in 1894, Burke in 1899, and lastly, Moreton in 1905. As a further inducement to people to rabbit net their hold­ ings, the Pastoral Leases Act of 1892 was passed. (Vol. LXVIII, Q.P. Debates, page 1674.) An area of 117,900 square miles in South- came under the Act; by netting their leases the pastoralists secured seven years' extension of tenure and selectors on grazing farms, five years. Occupiers of ninety-eight pastoral leases and sixty grazing farms took advantage of the Act. The benefit of the Act was, in 1895, extended to the Central Rail­ way Line, making a total benefit area of 270,450 square miles. The Act of 1892 was amended in 1894-95-97-98 and 1900; an amendment to the Rabbit Board Act in 1894 created a Central Rabbit Board, the members of which 1210 were appointed by the Governor-in-Council. This Cen­ tral Board was to act in an advisory capacity to the Government. One of the provisions of the Act made it an offence to deal in skins or rabbit carcases without a licence from the Central Board. The first proposal of this Bill was to levy assess­ ments in districts outside the proclaimed areas. In addition, £5 per mile subsidy was to be paid annually to the (Central Board to maintain the original Border Fence. These proposals were afterwards abandoned in committee and a £10,000 per year payment was sub­ stituted therefor. A Rabbit Board Act of 1895 gave the Boards power to compel owners of enclosed holdings to destroy rabbits; again the Act of 1896 placed the supplying of private persons with netting in the hands of the Minister of Lands instead of the Boards. A letter written in 1891 by Mr. Green, partner in Bulloo Downs, praising the protection afforded by the Border Fence, and contains the following: "The country on the Queensland side is luxuriant after the fine season. On the New South Wales side, the country is desert, relieved only by rabbits and stumps of dead bushes. I only wish the Government and Parliament could see it. It would appeal to them." This letter con­ tained a warning of a menace as well as praise. In spite of all this activity, Government and private, Mr. George Storey moved in the Legislative Assembly in 1898, "That in the opinion of this House, the question of rabbit destruction should to a greater extent than obtains at present, be made a National undertaking." The Rabbit Board Act of 1896 authorised the Boards to supply netting to settlers with interest at 5 per cent, per annum. The cost of the netting was regarded as a charge on the holding until it was repaid. The result often was that at the expiration of the lease, the Government had to take over netting in many cases valueless. The total advanced under the Act was £253,615/9/8, of which £114,667 remains unpaid in respect to 295 holdings. The expenses of the Boards were considerable as each had a Superintendent, at least two inspectors, a 1211 clerk (often part time), and offices to maintain. Suf­ ficient plant for keeping thie fences in repair was neces­ sary. Each boundary rider had about twenty or thirty miles of fence to patrol. One was situated at every main stock route. He had to be a married man, his wife's duty being to see that people using the stock route closed the gate properly. ^^^ In time of floods, or bush fires, extra labour had to be employed to effect repairs quickly. There were many colourful characters employed on "the fence." While it must be acknow­ ledged that in earlier years all did an eflficient and conscientious job, the same could not be said of later years. The huge expenditure on rabbit destruction was not without its blessings in other directions for it gave a lot of employment, particularly in the lean period following the 1893 bank crashes; it helped business people in the Western towns, it added considerably to the permanent population of the , and above all, it caused a decentralization of Government spend­ ing. As previously stated, it was within the power of the Boards to compel destruction. Pit traps along the netting fences was one method of destruction. As boys, without school on Saturdays, we used to massacre the rabbits in the pits. As well, we found turtles, snakes, iguanas, porcupine, young emus, and if we were lucky, dingo pups. Another method was arsenical water in dishes from which stock were protected by barbed wire. The most widely used and perhaps the most successful was the poison cart. It was a rather ingenious arrangement, drawn by a horse, having on the back of the cart a drum of about five gallons' capacity. Into this was placed a mixture of phosphorous and pollard or bran. On being put into gear a chain from the revolving wheel of the vehicle turned a churn within the drum, which in turn dropped a small bait into a hollow plough shear. The bait fell

.^. Two gates wprr pstalilishcd at each crnssinii in the event of one gate being damaged—usually by carriers. A piece of netting was stretched across until it was repaired at rod to the person resj)onsiliIc. 1212 into a furrow about one inch deep at intervals of approximately one yard. ^'^^ It was diflficult to get labour for them as it was an unpopular job on account of the fumes that escaped all day from the drum. In fact, it was said by "old hands" that when you got too old and dirty for any­ thing else, you could always go driving a poison cart or cooking. The rabbit had a few indigenous enemies such as the dingoes, iguanas, snakes, hawks, crows, and native cats, but the number of rabbits was so great that their enemies were of little avail in stemming the tide. People turned domestic cats loose in the bush, but the rabbits killed the cats. Post mortems showed the cats' stomachs to be full of balls of rabbit fur. There was talk of introducing more enemies, amongst which stoats, weasels, ferrets, and the mongoose were men­ tioned. Another proposal was a red meat-eating ant from Natal, but Western residents considered they were already over-supplied with ants. It was later proposed to import from South Africa the Muishond or stink cat, while some favoured the Chilean Quique. The latter is described as "a savage and diabolical looking animal that almost rivals the skunk with the odour it can emit when enraged." People who were raising thousands of lambs would have none of it. In 1895, C. J. Pound, Bacteriologist, announced the discovery in Brisbane of the disease Chicken Cholera. This was mentioned by Pasteur to the New South Wales Com- rnission in 1888, but they were afraid of its introduc­ tion. Now that it was in Australia it was resolved to use it. The Central Board sent out two instructors to give demonstrations. The experiment was abandoned after £3,625/16/5 had been spent on it. The rabbits apparently weathered the great drought of 1898-1901 better than the sheep and cattle did, because the early years of the century have been spoken of as the most critical years of the menace. The bountiful rains of the early months of 1906 pro­ duced in the spring of that year, and the summer of

4. Curiously enough, these carls were manufactured by IXL Jones—of jam-making fame. 1213 1907, the largest rabbit population hitherto seen in the State. Fortunately, the winter and latter part of that year was dry in the most badly infected districts, and millions of rabbit skeletons littered the country. Circumstances were now working against the pests, the effectively maintained Board check-fences were confining them to the southern part of the State, and the huge pastoral holdings of the eighties and nineties were being partly resumed into blocks averag­ ing 20,000 acres, and these were being heavily stocked with sheep. This meant that at least once a year there was a period of a few months when there was a shortage of feed, thus denying to the rabbits a continuity of lush conditions, and it is only under such conditions that they survive and multiply in great numbers. On top of this, in 1910, the whole of the south and south-western river systems were in high floods that lasted for weeks and which drowned millions; many more died after the waters subsided from sand­ flies which entered their nostrils and ears. Finally, their discomfiture was completed by Queensland seasonal conditions, for, as is often the case, a wet period is followed by a lean one. Nineteen hundred and eleven and the first half of 1912 were so dry as to reach almost drought conditions, which further thinned their ranks. This has always been to my mind the turning point of the long struggle against the rabbits. Meanwhile various Acts of Parliament were passed, either as Land Acts or Rabbit Board Acts, none of them being very revolutionary. In 1902 a Land Act empowered the Minister to remit such portion of rent as he thought fit to any selector who enclosed his property with rabbit-proof netting before January 1, 1906. (Part III. section 15 C, Act of 1902.) Though many complied with the conditions, there was never a case of any Minister's exercising his discretion. The next important Bill was introduced by the Ryan Government in 1916. The main feature was the abolition of the Central Board, which had not been called together for some years. The Bill was passed by 1214 the Legislative Assembly, but the Legislative Ck)uncil, however, so mutilated it as to make it unacceptable to the Government, and it was abandoned. In 1914 the traditional policy of not permitting traffic in skins and carcases was modified, and in that year twenty-seven licences were issued to approved applicants. By 1929 the number of licences had risen to 382. The first World War took the people's mind off rabbits and by 1920 it was admitted that the Border Fence in the Warrego and Mitchell districts was not rabbit-proof and would be very expensive to renew. A fall of wool and beef prices in 1921 had caused a reduction of Government and private spending power. Both were casting around to reduce their overhead expenses. The Warrego Rabbit Board had in 1901 gone bank­ rupt, and its administration was taken over by the Lands Department. Its failure cost the Government £29,162/17/-. In 1924, in view of the fact that rabbits had not increased in the last twelve years, and the heavy expense, the Government abolished the defunct Board, ceased levying assessments and sold the 2,064 miles of Board fences to the landowners on whose properties they adjoined. This was the beginning of the end of the Rabbit Boards. Following the abolition of the Warrego Board agitation for similar relief by other districts arose. The spearhead of opposition to any change came from old die-hard landowners who opposed any change, and salaried oflficers and employees of the Boards. There was a difference, quite genuine, among field oflficers of the Lands Department; the Government also wished to make sure of the wisdom of abolition and they had no desire to begin again where they started in 1881. The Moore Government came into power in 1929, the Great Depression had begun, and the price for pastoral products was so low the landowners were hard put to carry on. Clamour was intensified for relief from the burden of Rabbit Board taxes. After consul­ tation with the Land Administration Board, a Govern­ ment Gazette (Record of Patent Register No. 17, page 123) on April 11, 1930, appointed a Royal Commission 1215 of three to enquire into (1) The Rabbit Pest, (2) The Dingo Menace, (3) The improvement of Stock Routes. This paper is only concerned with the first enquiry. The Chairman was Mr. W. L. Payne, an experienced oflficer of the Land Court who was already well known for his report on Prickly Pear, early in the previous decade. Mr. W. J. Fletcher, of Bonus Downs, Mitchell, was a pastoralist of wide experience; Mr. Burgoyne Tomkins, of Goondiwindi, had also many years' con­ nection with the land. Mr. J. H. Shaw was appointed secretary to the Commission, The Commission began its sitting on April 30, 1930, at Goondiwindi. It sat at twenty-seven places; 321 witnesses were heard, or forwarded statements of views. The notes of evidence filled 1,194 pages of a bound volume. The Commissioners travelled 2,243 miles by rail and 2,640 miles by car, holding their final session in Brisbane on August 12, 1930. It was revealed that from 1914 to 1929—96,575,814 pairs of rabbits and hares had been exported from Australia, value, £7,361,885; 1,388,697 cwt. of skins had been exported from Australia, value, £25,442,597. Of this only 152,787 pairs from Queensland, valued at £11,781; 22,478 lb. of skins from Queensland, valued at £3,045. Paragraph 42 of the Commission points out "in order that this may not be misunderstood it is but a trifling recompense for the damage to pastures and loss of natural wealth that the rabbit has caused." Against this sum of £14,826 earned in Queensland from rabbits the by no means small amounts of expen­ diture were placed before the Commission. £ Total assessment of Districts Rabbit Boards 1,569,076 Cost of Private Rabbit Fences 2,000,000 Clost of erection Border Fence 139,872 Queensland contribution to Mungindi Fence (N.S.W.) 3,150 Loans to Boards 218,010 Loans to Land Holders 507,278 Interest on cost of Netting supplied Private Owners (handed over to Boards) 57,186 1216

Expended by Central Board 323,045 Salaries of Inspectors 48,284 Grand Total £4,910,534 This, however, is only showing public money expended, and private costs must have been ten times that amount. Miles The private Rabbit-proof fences mileage was 25,000 Rabbit Board fences 4,600 Border Fence 1,600 Total 31,200 Testimony of witnesses revealed that over the last fifteen years public interest had wained and the early initiative of the Boards had been lost. This was due in some cases to circumstances, but in any case slackness did not extend to all Boards. The Carnarvon Board admitted it was no longer serving a useful purpose. It was commended for its economical administration. The Darling Downs and Moreton Boards were also eflficiently run. (These two were under less expense as their areas contained few rabbits.) Some of the others were not so highly spoken of, however. The Maranoa Board, with its headquarters at St. George, was severely castigated by the Com­ mission. (See paragraphs 49 to 52 from Royal Com­ mission's Report.) The Commission in presenting its report to the Premier (Mr. A. E. Moore) found that while rabbits had not increased to any extent in recent years they would always be of considerable expense to the land holders (of course, they were unable to foresee the effect of myxomatosis). The Commission recommended that the fences in reasonably good condition be sold at a low figure to the lessees (the price was later fixed by the Land Board) and those in poor repair to be handed over free. That the check fence, 880 miles in length, at present under control of the Leichhardt, Darling Downs, and Moreton Boards be placed under one authority. The saving would be in this case £7,000 1217 per annum, while the total saving by adopting the report would be £48,000 yearly, and some revenue would be derived by the sale of fences to the Crown lessees. The last recommendation was that assess­ ments cease, and the Boards be abolished. The recommendations in the report were almost wholly adopted, and the necessary legislation being- passed, all the Boards except three ceased to function on March 1, 1931. The three Boards still in existence are Moreton, Darling Downs, and Leichhardt. These Boards still employ Inspectors, and derive their revenue from our assessment of id. in the £ on the Local Authority valuation of the property. In conclusion, it is only fair to pay tribute to the forty years of fine work performed by the Rabbit Boards, the success of which must have amazed even the most hopeful of their advocates. Their work decisively checked, even if it did not exterminate, the rabbits.