View report page

82
FLY NUISANCE.
As in past years, attention was given to the possibility of the spread of infection
by flies, in the summer months.
Leaflets were distributed throughout the City calling attention to the danger
created by the fly and making special reference to the precautionary measures
which should be taken to minimise the danger. In addition to this, your officers,
wherever opportunity occurred, made a special point of directing the attention of
householders to the necessity for the observance of cleanliness, frequent removal
of house and other refuse, and the prevention of access of flies to foodstuffs, especially
milk.
RAT REPRESSION.
The table set out on page 85, indicates the number of investigations and inspections
made and details of work carried out under the Rats and Mice (Destruction)
Act, 1919, during the year ended December 31st, 1923.
From this summary it will be seen that 1,161 buildings were inspected and that
those buildings were occupied by 2,463 firms. Of these premises no fewer than
467 were rat infested. One or other of the rat-catchers working in the City were
engaged by business firms in 108 instances; poisons were laid down by 382 firms,
and traps of the breakback character were used in 321 premises and wire traps in
89. Varnish traps which were used in special circumstances were relied upon in
236 premises. Cats and dogs were found to be kept by 132 firms. Complaints have
been received at the office, or applications for advice, in 139 instances.
The work done in addition to poisons and traps and the keeping of animals,
included rat-proofing in 348 instances and drainage defects repaired in 119 instances.
In this relation it should be stated that rat-proofing cannot be relied upon absolutely
to exclude rodents from buildings, for reasons I have pointed out from
time to time, e.g., the importation of rats into buildings in cases and crates from the
Docks, and ingress through open doors and windows, especially through roof doors
provided for exit in case of fire. But for the following reasons the value of
properly carried out rat-proofing should not be under-estimated—food is protected;
the domestic water supply is guarded; fire risk is lessened; insanitary
defects are remedied, which might otherwise remain undiscovered; rats are
more easily caught as hiding places are eliminated, and absence of hiding places
results in a decrease in the rat population.
I have pointed out in previous reports that the construction of many City
buildings is such as to render rat-proofing practically impossible and, further, that
the only persons competent to deal with these buildings (the owners) are not
responsible under the Act.
Where the owner is also the occupier and is anxious for advice and willing to
make the necessary outlay, rat-proofing can be carried out with good results.
Several instances of this have occurred in the City.
The mode of procedure which the Rat Officer adopts is first to discover which
kind of rat is infesting the building. Occasionally both kind are found in one
building. If the black rat is the intruder, the examination of the building begins
at the roof. If it should be the brown rat, then the inspection begins in the basement
and it is frequently found necessary to test the drainage system.
It may be of interest to cite an instance of a City bank badly infested with black
rats from the roof. Rats were found to be breeding in the space between the wood
casings surrounding the cisterns from which water was obtained. From the roof
they gained entrance to the kitchen—where they fed from the refuse bins, etc.—
by way of the ventilating fan opening. They also gained entrance through the skylight
and the fire exit door when open. The rats then proceeded to establish themselves
under the floors in various parts of the building.