View report page

82
RAT REPRESSION.
The Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, which became operative on
January 1st, 1920, involved the Corporation, the citizens and occupiers of premises
within the City in additional responsibilities in connection with the suppression of
rats. The first section of the Act reads as follows:—
"(1) Any person who shall fail to take such steps as may from time to time be neces"sary
and reasonably practicable for the destruction of rats and mice on or in land of which
"he is the occupier, or for preventing such land from becoming infested with rats and mice
"shall be liable to penalties."
Section 3 of the Act makes the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries the
Supervising Central Authority, and also vests this Ministry with executive powers
in case of default by the Local Authority. By Section 8, the expression "land"
includes any building or any other erection on land, and any cellar, sewer, drain or
culvert in or on the land. Section 5 empowers the Local Authority to do the
necessary work and recover expenses where the occupier on whom a notice has
been served under Section 1 fails to take the necessary steps for the purpose of
destroying rats and mice or of preventing the land from becoming infested with
these vermin. Apparently the owner of the property is involved in no responsibility
unless the land is not occupied by any tenant, in which case the owner is
regarded as the occupier.
The subject had been interesting the Sanitary Committee for some considerable
time prior to the passing of this Act and numerous reports had been
submitted for their consideration. Up to the present the work carried out has been
more or less of a tentative or experimental character, and the time has now arrived
when a definite decision as to future procedure should be arrived at. In deciding
on a course of action it may perhaps be advisable to refer briefly to previous
reports.
The subject of viruses first received attention and the virus used at the Central
Meat Market was investigated in 1913 by the City Bacteriologist, who reported
that this particular virus was inert though it was stated to contain a modified
Loeffier's bacillus, possibly the bacillus typhi murium of Loeffler.
The virus question was again enquired into in 1920, when three samples were
obtained. One proved to be identical with Gaertner's B. enteritidis, the second
resembled Gaertner's bacillus and the third was similar to the first. The conclusion
arrived at, after considering the subject at some length, was that Gaertner's
bacillus was not a natural inhabitant of the intestine of either rats or mice, but
tljat both these animals might be infected by these organisms and the result
might be death or recovery, or the animals might survive as carriers. It was
further suggested that there was a possibility of a carrier animal gaining access to
food and thus contaminating it. The question therefore arose whether the use of
virus should not be prohibited.
In November, 1918, a report was presented advising the appointment of an
inspector whose sole duties should be concerned with the problem of control of
vermin. This report was acted upon and Inspector Mayne was accordingly appointed
as a temporary inspector for this purpose. In this report I also drew attention
to the information which I had obtained, though I was unable to vouch for
its accuracy, that rats in the City had increased considerably since the prohibition
of the sale of live rats for rat baiting. I was informed that in former days sewer
men carried sacks about with them in which to put rats they caught and subsequently
sold, but to-day there is no market for live rats and no attempts are now
made to catch them as each rat becomes an incubus to the catcher from the point
of view of disposal.
In March, 1919, I submitted a report prepared by Major Fullerton on the
"Protozoal Parasites of the Rat with special reference to the occurrence of Spirochetal
Jaundice in man and to the London rat as a natural reservoir of Spirochceta icterohæmorrhagiæ."
This report was a most useful contribution to the subject and added
to the known iniquities of the rat.
In April, 1920, a lengthy report on rat repression was submitted in printed
form. This dealt in a fairly comprehensive manner with the natural history of the
animal, the circumstances which contribute to the prevalence of rats in the City,
and the available methods for attacking the problem.