Early Australian rabbit-proof fences: paling, slab and stub fences, modified dry stone walls, and wire netting

IF 0.3 2区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY Rural History-Economy Society Culture Pub Date : 2021-06-15 DOI:10.1017/S0956793321000145
J. Pickard
{"title":"Early Australian rabbit-proof fences: paling, slab and stub fences, modified dry stone walls, and wire netting","authors":"J. Pickard","doi":"10.1017/S0956793321000145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Fences were critical in the fight against rabbits in colonial Australia. Initially, domestic rabbits were farmed in pens or paddocks fenced with paling fences or walls. Wild-caught rabbits imported from England escaped and became serious pests from the 1850s. As their status changed from protected private property to a major pest, the functions of fences changed to fencing rabbits out. Legislation requiring or specifying rabbit-proof fences lagged several years behind recognition of rabbits as a problem. Most log and brush fences in infested districts were burnt to destroy rabbit harbour. Dry stone walls were modified in many ways; paling, slab, picket and stub fences were all tried, but were unsuccessful, and by 1886 netting was standard. Using examples from the rich agricultural Western District and the considerably poorer Mallee Region of Victoria, this article describes the many forms of rabbit fences used between the 1850s and the mid-1880s. All of the experimentation with different structures was by individual landholders, with colonial governments conspicuous by their lack of involvement until they erected rabbit-proof barrier fences.","PeriodicalId":44300,"journal":{"name":"Rural History-Economy Society Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0956793321000145","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rural History-Economy Society Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956793321000145","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fences were critical in the fight against rabbits in colonial Australia. Initially, domestic rabbits were farmed in pens or paddocks fenced with paling fences or walls. Wild-caught rabbits imported from England escaped and became serious pests from the 1850s. As their status changed from protected private property to a major pest, the functions of fences changed to fencing rabbits out. Legislation requiring or specifying rabbit-proof fences lagged several years behind recognition of rabbits as a problem. Most log and brush fences in infested districts were burnt to destroy rabbit harbour. Dry stone walls were modified in many ways; paling, slab, picket and stub fences were all tried, but were unsuccessful, and by 1886 netting was standard. Using examples from the rich agricultural Western District and the considerably poorer Mallee Region of Victoria, this article describes the many forms of rabbit fences used between the 1850s and the mid-1880s. All of the experimentation with different structures was by individual landholders, with colonial governments conspicuous by their lack of involvement until they erected rabbit-proof barrier fences.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期澳大利亚防兔围栏:栅栏、板式和短柱围栏、改良的干石墙和铁丝网
在殖民地时期的澳大利亚,围栏在对抗兔子的斗争中至关重要。最初,家里的兔子是在围栏或围场里饲养的,用栅栏或围墙围起来。19世纪50年代,从英国进口的野生兔子逃脱并成为严重的害虫。随着它们的地位从受保护的私人财产变成了一种主要害虫,围栏的功能也变为将兔子挡在外面。要求或指定防兔围栏的立法比承认兔子是一个问题落后了几年。受感染地区的大多数原木和灌木围栏被烧毁,以摧毁兔子港。干石墙在许多方面进行了改造;栅栏、石板、尖桩和短栅栏都尝试过,但都没有成功,到1886年,网已经成为标准。本文以富裕的农业西区和相当贫穷的维多利亚马利地区为例,描述了19世纪50年代至19世纪80年代中期使用的多种形式的兔子围栏。所有对不同结构的实验都是由个别土地所有者进行的,殖民地政府在竖起防兔栅栏之前缺乏参与,这一点很明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Rural History is well known as a stimulating forum for interdisciplinary exchange. Its definition of rural history ignores traditional subject boundaries to encourage the cross-fertilisation that is essential for an understanding of rural society. It stimulates original scholarship and provides access to the best of recent research. While concentrating on the English-speaking world and Europe, the journal is not limited in geographical coverage. Subject areas include: agricultural history; historical ecology; folklore; popular culture and religion; rural literature; landscape history, archaeology and material culture; vernacular architecture; ethnography, anthropology and rural sociology; the study of women in rural societies.
期刊最新文献
Pre-industrial ‘charity land’ and the dynamics of rural poverty in south-west England, 1656–1739: a case study The ‘pheasant of the future’: Encountering and imagining Reeves’ pheasant in Britain, 1831 – 1913 RUH volume 34 issue 2 Cover and Back matter RUH volume 34 issue 2 Cover and Front matter A Rebato: Popular uprisings and the striking of the bells in eighteenth-century Castile
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1