Mr. S. Stephens, continued,

1184. Your opinion, then, is that fencing is a great preventive, if not an absolute preventive?—Yes; there is no doubt it is a great preventive.

1185. Do you know what we may call the rabbit-infested areas of this State?—No.

1186. You can see by those red marks on that chart, Mr. Stephens, what parts, are far as we know, are rabbit-infested?—Yes.

1187. Do you know that portion of the country?—No; I have never been there.

1188. What portions of this State do you know?—I have only been up on the goldfields.

1189. Which goldfields?—Coolgardie and Kalgoorlie, up as far as Menzies, and to the East of Menzies, as far as what they call Dunky Rock; that is between 70 and 80 miles North-East of Broad Arrow, and about 20 miles a little East and South of Coolgardie, to what they call the Wouga Dam.

1190. What other portions of the State do you know?—East Kimberley. Of course, I have not travelled much over this portion of the country.

1191. At all events, you have seen a fair amount of the State?—Yes.

1192. Is there anything in the grasses or shrubs or the general character of the country, from a pastoral point of view, to lead you to suppose that rabbits will not devastate this country if they are left unchecked, as they have done the other parts of Australia? Is there anything in the feed?—Do you mean to stop them?

1193. To stop them?—I see nothing to stop them.

1194. And if you were dealing with this matter as a private individual, you would consider that the erection of a fence is the most advisable means to proceed with in the first instance?—Yes; certainly. That is, a main trunk line of fence going through it.

1195. That is what I mean. When you go into settlement, if you can subdivide and refence again, it follows it all the same?—I should be inclined to adopt the same plan as the South Australian Government; allow people to erect their own fences, and advance money.

1196. Speaking from a national point of view, would you like to allow the rabbits to get on to the confines of settlement in this State before you started fencing at all, or would you rather fence away in the uninhabited parts of this State and check them there in the first instance?—Yes; that is the plan I should adopt; run a main line through somewhere where you are certain there are no rabbits, and keep them back.

1197. Before they get within a hundred, two hundred, or three hundred miles of the settled districts?—Yes.

1198. You would not think it advisable to wait till rabbits reached the settled districts before you made use of this, perhaps, cheaper means of fencing?—Certainly not; because if any of this country, even the pastoral country, gets overrun, there is no doubt the rabbits will increase, and numbers of pastoralists would leave the ground.

1199. What is your opinion of the damage the rabbits are likely to do to the agricultural interest of the State, supposing they were unchecked?—The damage would be considerable. I really could not estimate it.

1200. I do not mean pounds, shillings, and pence; but, generally speaking, speaking, what do you think would be the effect on the agricultural industry?—I think, in time, they would clear most of the farmers out; farmers would be compelled to leave.

1201. It would not tend to the advancement of agriculture?—Certainly not.

1202. What, in your opinion, would happen to the pastoral country?—No doubt it would injure the pastoral, the same as it has done in South Australia. Runs which used to carry 50,000, 60,000, and 100,000 sheep will now only carry 10,000 or 20,000. For instance, take Paratoo Run. Paratoo, with the out-stations, use to show, if I remember aright, between 100,000 and 150,000 sheep. I think, if the same country were occupied now, it would not keep 20,000 with the rabbits there.

1203. What would you say would be the carrying capacity per acre; or how many acres per sheep would Paratoo carry?—I really could not say from memory.

1204. Can you, roughly speaking, give us an idea, so as to compare the carrying capacities of those parts and these parts?—No; I never went into it.

1205. What would be the acreage of Paratoo, with the out-stations you mentioned?—Roughly speaking, three or four, or possibly five acres would carry one sheep; about five acres to a sheep. I think it would take quite that.

1206. Would it have paid the owners of Paratoo to have rabbit-proofed fenced their runs?—I think in the first instance it would provided they had a long lease of it. Of course, there were certain people in those days in South Australia who had a great idea that the squatter should be driven off the ground, not only by the rabbits, but other means, and the consequence is I doubt whether the proprietors in those days would have laid out a lot of money. But I think that, if they had got the property, say, on an extended lease, and had their lease protected so that they could not be driven out, there is not the least doubt it would have paid them to fence it in with wire netting. If people are going to spend money, they want a guarantee that their lease will not be interfered with.

1207. By Hon. R. G. Burges: Does that affect the smaller holders very much?—Yes.

1208. By the Chairman: Were you employed at Paratoo?—No; I was there prospecting on Paratoo, Olena, Tetalpo, Otalpo, and on as far as Mount Gibbs, over the border at Broken Hill, after I gave up farming.

1209. I see Mr. Waite, who was part owner and manager of Paratoo, says that in 1889 it took 16 acres to a sheep?—1889?