Council must step in to help SPCA
I was concerned to read the Hastings SPCA is under threat of closure due to lack of money. To maintain a service with annual operational costs of $200,000 as stated, there has to be a steady and secure income.
Not easy for an organisation reliant on bequests and donations, particularly in tough economic times.
The problem of cruelty to animals is a community one and, with the increasing propensity for violence, lack of respect and general irresponsibility within society, unfortunately it is a growth industry. One which has now clearly overstretched the financial capability of the Hastings branch.
I believe there is a workable and permanent solution to guarantee the organisation survives without any interruption to its service. Volunteers can only do so much. Trained, paid inspectors and support staff are needed to deal with the lowlife who neglect, abandon or abuse animals.
It is the cost of these salaries that has crippled the organisation. The SPCA's paid staff should be transferred on to the Hastings District Council's payroll and emergency funding made available to make good any shortfall until such time as the SPCA's own reserves recover.
Currently, the council employs seven animal control officers to ensure that regulatory requirements laid down by central government are carried out. Their role does not stretch to animal welfare. However, if the unthinkable happens and the Hastings SPCA closes its doors, the number of roaming and dangerous dogs and non-compliant owners will increase hugely and the pound will be overflowing. With the resulting mayhem, council, using ratepayers' money, would have the added expense of employing more animal control officers.
While council may not have a legal obligation to bail out the SPCA, I think it has a moral obligation to support this vital and highly valued community service.
Jessica Maxwell, Havelock North
Real lamb prices
As an interested party with some involvement in the farming scene, I look forward to your Heartland section of the Thursday paper.
Of most relevance are articles, particularly those of a positive note, from which I might gain any further knowledge. Accordingly I was pleased to see the headline, Lamb prices brighter, on page 18 (February 23).
The article relates to Federated Farmers T150 lamb goal, this being a target for an average mid-season lamb in the 2013-2014 year.
The author of the article, David Burt, quotes Beef + Lamb NZ figures to claim the value of this lamb has risen from $81 in 2009/10 to $116 in 2010/11 and an estimated $125 in the current season at an exchange rate of US71c.
Sadly this is where the article loses its credibility. As at the time of writing, the average lamb Mr Burt relates to was worth an approximate amount of $103 to the farmer, less if you happen to live in the South Island, and a continuing fall in value on a weekly basis as we approach mid-season.
Added to this our currency is currently trading in the US82c-US84c range which is not even remotely close to the figure suggested.
For the record, lamb is not normally traded in US currency but it is a worthy comparison with regard to the strength of the kiwi dollar.
The article then goes on to suggest "with the resurgent wool price factored in, the $150 target by 2013 is certainly on target to be achieved".
As any farmer will be only too well aware, the labour-intensive job that is shearing is also expensive with lamb wool, in particular, barely covering the costs, even before the farmer's own labour costs are taken into account.
The nett return for shearing lambs would, without doubt, be less than $1/head from wool. It is an accepted fact within the farming industry that lambs are shorn first and foremost for their own well-being and ease of management, with financial returns being a distant last.
While I accept that some farmers have already achieved $150 for lambs this season, that has been for early season lambs with a marketplace a far cry from where it is now and in a completely different supply/demand situation.
Whether Mr Burt's article is supposed to be a positive spin on a negative situation is only for him to know but the figures used and, hence the backbone of his article, have presently no foundation in fact. I would respectfully suggest the mid-season lamb for the North Island to be approximately $100, quite possibly less, and $95 in the South Island.
Perhaps it could be suggested Mr Burt be sure of his figures before putting them to print if he wishes to retain his position of meat & fibre policy adviser.
PS: Sadly, I believe the retailers will see to it that the reduced prices will not get to flow through to the consumer.
Andrew Field, Havelock North