CO885-(19-20) — Page 259

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O. 885

ل للسا

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

20 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

88

(2) the Director of Agriculture; (3) the Principal Veterinary Officer. Possibly a report from a fourth man, an agricultural settler, one who has had his shoot-and nothing else days, would also have been valuable. Frankly, although I think the opinion of the Game Warden of a colony on certain aspects of the subject is not only entitled to the greatest consideration but is also indispensable, for severa! reasons' he would appear to be the last man to report on the question as a whole.

I take it that I am not expected to go into every point raised by the Game Warden's report, and I would prefer to confine my remarks to those bearing on epizootiological problems and perhaps one or two others which have only an indirect bearing on epizootiology and agriculture, but about which I acquired a certain amount of knowledge in the exercise of my administrative duties in South Africa.

I may say that in principle I am a game preserver, and as such I am totally opposed to those who try to preserve game in districts where agriculture is being developed. The preservation of game and agriculture cannot thrive alongside each other, and sooner or later the game has to go. Further, under such circumstances it for ever, as it has gone from many parts of South Africa.

goes

I agree with the part of the report which indicates that throwing open the Southern Reserve is not the remedy for the immediate problem, and it seems to me certain that shooting parties would not give much attention to zebra.

I also think, however, that those responsible for the preservation of

game near agricultural holdings should be under an obligation to thin it down to manageable numbers, as they do with deer, &c., in this country, and if this were done, less would be heard about extermination from farmers, who are almost all sportsmen more or less. At the same time, I think very full and serious consideration should be given to the future domestic possibilities of wild species of animals before starting to thin them down to any great extent.

With regard to damage to fences, it seems to be practically admitted. Farmers fence their farms for various reasons. A few do it partly from pride of possession. Most do it as a protection against such diseases as may be carried by travelling stock, and with the full assurance, of course, that nobody is seriously attempting to preserve disease. It is well known that a very medium fence is sufficient for this purpose, and if farmers ask, why they should be put to the much greater expense of fencing to protect themselves against damage from preserved game, I cannot see what answer could be given. In this country it is recognised by the hunts that the damage done by foxes, &c., is to be paid for.

With regard to the suitability of certain districts mentioned for farming, it might be advisable to have the views of the Director of Agriculture.

The damage to crops seems to be admitted, and whether it occurs by the game rushing in or rushing out does not seem to be of very high importance.

With regard to the carrying of ticks by game and the spread of disease, the Game Warden appears to write with rather defective knowledge, and without a full appreciation of the actual problems. It is quite correct, that if the game were removed, the ticks would find other hosts to feed upon, and be carried by, and that they would take full advantage of the farmer's cattle for this purpose. The point, however, is that domesticated stock can be used as collectors of ticks from the land, and the parasites thus lured to their destruction in the dipping tank. There is not much use in carrying out systematic dipping of domestic stock if the game is to have access to the land, and to keep it out seems to mean the fencing of farms with game-proof fences, which does not appear to commend itself as a practicable measure. Further, I would point out that a farmer must some time or other, and even frequently, move stock off and on to his farm to and from other places, and if the animals have to pass over game-soiled veldt they may acquire and disseminate disease, tick-borne diseases and others. I note that doctrines regarding the cleans- ing of disease-bearing ticks which were initiated by Theiler and myself as the result of experiments are advanced to demonstrate that in relation to keeping down disease from this cause game should be encouraged. This is not a valid deduction from the experiments in question, for it was also shown that buffaloes, of which no mention is made in this report, may suffer from and disseminate east coast fever. and that heartwater ticks can be carried without being cleansed. Further, I must mention what does not seem to be generally known, viz., that blue ticks infected with the redwater parasite are not necessarily cleansed by feeding on insusceptible animals. I have obtained undoubted proof of that in my laboratory in England.

Lastly.I think it right to point out that one of the worst features of game has not been considered, viz., that they are heavily parasiticised with intestinal parasites,

89

which are deposited on the pastures, and may often infect domesticated stock with rather disastrous results.

I think it would be monstrous to allow anything like an indiscriminate slaughter of game, but its best friends will be found in those who push for well isolated reserves away from agricultural districts. I do not like the suggestion of an international circulation of the hat to reserve game in a British Colony. It would appear from the report that possibly the sale of specimens to Zoos and dealers, and the sale of products, might cover expenses.

S. S.

2nd September, 1911: .

31644

No. 46.

FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received 30 September, 1911.)

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs presents his compliments to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and, by direction of the Secretary of State, transmits herewith copy of the following paper:-Sir R. Rodd, No. 23, Africa, September 20: (Weight of Elephant Tusks).

Reference to previous letter: Foreign Office, August 11.* Foreign Office,

SIR,

September 29, 1911.

(No. 23. Africa.)

Enclosure in No. 46.

Posillipo, September 20th, 1911. WITH reference to your despatch, No. 24, Africa, of June 13th, instructing me to ascertain whether the Italian Government would be willing to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in raising the limit of weight at which elephant tusks may be traded in or exported from Africă to 25 or 30 pounds, I have the honour to trans- mit herewith copy and translation of a note which I have received from the Italian Government in reply to my enquiry on the subject.

It will be seen that, while approving the suggestion of His Majesty's Govern- ment, they make their concurrence conditional on that of France also being obtained. The Right Honourable

I have, &c.

Sir E. Grey, Bart., M.P.,

&c.,

(Translation.)

&c., &c.

MONSIEUR L'AMBASSADEUR,

RENNELL RODD.

September 16th, 1911.

IN continuation of my note of July 10th, in which I replied to Your Excel- lency's note of June 16th, relative to the measures to be taken by the Governments concerned for the protection of the elephant in Africa, the Governments of Eritrea and Italian Somaliland, whom I have consulted in the matter, have informed me that they concur in the opinion expressed in Your Excellency's note.

The Governor of Italian Somaliland, who recently had an exchange of views on the subject with the High Commissioner of British East Africa, adds that both he and Sir P. Girouard are of opinion that the proposed provisions would have no other effect than to promote and increase the export of ivory from Abyssinia to Jibouti should the same provisions not be adopted by France also.

They therefore think that the provision for raising from 5 kilogrammes to 25 or 30 pounds, the limit of weight contemplated by Article 2 of the Convention of London of May 19th, 1900, should be made subordinate to the adhesion of France.

This Ministry entirely agrees with their views, and I have accordingly the honour to declare to Your Excellency that the Royal Government is prepared to accept the suggestions of the British Government contained in your note of June 16th. provided that France also accepts them.

I have, &c.,

Sir R. Rodd.

&c., &c., &c.

• No. 41.

DI SAN GIULIANO.

231

29746

M