They were concerned that eliminating the plant could worsen erosion and negatively affect river systems and surrounding landscapes.
Meanwhile, back in 1927, “J.H.C.” wrote to the NZ Herald to clarify confusion between “ti-tree” and “manuka”.
Below is a selection of historical stories on mānuka from the NZ Herald (1927), the Hawke’s Bay Herald-Tribune (1949), and the Gisborne Herald (1949).
Ti-Tree or Manuka?
New Zealand Herald, August 9, 1927
Sir,–With all due respect to “Mercutio,” whose contributions I read with interest, I would suggest that “ti-tree” is not “manuka” (vide Saturday’s Herald), though both appear to be of the same family.
As a boy in Poverty Boy 50 years ago, I was acquainted with a certain old neighbouring Maori who could speak English fairly well.
One day I asked him if ti-tree is young manuka?
He replied: “No; ti-tree is ‘ti-tamiti,’ and ‘manuka’ is ‘manuka.’ Ti-tree is always a shrub and does not grow trees as does manuka.”
I have seen ti-tree and manuka growing together on virgin soil, and observed the difference in size, though the foliage is almost similar.
I cannot imagine a ti-tree plant growing into a large tree 5ft. or 6ft. in circumference, as I have seen manuka.
Half a century ago, Government publications spelt it “ti-tree.”
J.H.C.
“Curse” of Manuka said to outweigh its uses against erosion
Hawke’s Bay Herald-Tribune, February 10, 1949
Disagreement with a suggestion that manuka provides excellent cover to check erosion, a theory of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council, was voiced by members of the Hawke’s Bay Catchment Board today.
In a letter received by the board this morning, the council asked if any successful attempts had been made in Hawke’s Bay to eradicate manuka by infesting it with blight.
The letter stated that there had been no authenticated cases of blight-infested manuka from the South Island being employed successfully to infect areas free of the disease.
However, as manuka was an excellent cover in many districts to check erosion and nurse forest crops, the council viewed with concern the continuation of these attempts.
“While there might be occasions when this method of cleaning pasture land is justified, it entails considerable danger,” the letter added.
Mr. L. E. Harris declared that this was an amazing attitude for the council to take.
The eradication of manuka was one of the worst problems that farmers had to face, and he did not agree that manuka checked erosion.
Experiments on his own property showed that cutting out manuka in gullies and sowing slips in pasture was ten times more effective.
“The curse of this scrub is enormous, ‘ he said.
“If some grub could get to work and eradicate it, we should be very thankful.”
The blight would kill manuka only in small areas, said Mr. R. P. Hill.
It had been established in one or two places in Wairoa, but it would not spread.
He agreed that manuka was the biggest scourge of much second-class hill country.
At Mr. Harris’s suggestion, the board decided to advise the council that a few isolated attempts had been made to establish the blight in Hawke’s Bay, though “unfortunately, they had not been successful.”
Manuka destruction opposed
Gisborne Herald, February 16, 1949
(P.A.) NELSON, Feb. 16.
The Nelson Catchment Board is opposed to the introduction of manuka blight.
The Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council asked the board for details of any attempts to check manuka by infecting it with manuka blight in the Nelson district.
Mr. C. Biggs, conservator of forests, considered it highly undesirable as manuka was needed.
Other members spoke strongly against any attempt to wipe out manuka, which helped to check erosion.
The board decided to reaffirm its previous decision opposing the establishment of blight in Nelson.
– Source: Papers Past