Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1864-11-18
DOWN ON THE DOGS.
Mr.. j R. Dodge, 10 the Rural New York
er preuchss sermon from the verse of ST.


Mr.. }. R. Dodge, 10 the Rural New York.
er preachys sermon from the verse Of ST.
Paul
g BEWARE OF DOGS"
We copy the following on The Wastefulnesg
If he cauue indulgence:
The assertion Of farmer that his dog keep
ing costs him nothing, will not bear exaDina-
ion. Farmers who buy little, yet live well,
10 not kno" what their living really COSTS
Their surplus products fud ready market
-verything they eat represents the price for
which it might be sold not the city price, hu
he bcme value. There is no need Of waste in
family sufficient 20 keep q pack of d, gs or
single dog they'will not eat vege'a
Iies except, perhaps potatoes saturated with
crease, 10 prevent starvation and meat is
10 expensive commodity. Besides. this wasfe
# whatever kind, is al available aud valuable
nT pigs. OF much cheaper material is the
eed OF pig than that OF dog that cnmpar-
s"n is scarcely fair yet 5. Edwards Todd.
veil known agricultural wTiIer in New York
has eermnted the cost to a farmer OF keeping
dog one year 60 Iivaleut TO be coast Oi
giving the weight of one hundred pounds to
pig. Al present prices OF pU k, -uch pis
'ould be worth ten dollars at least.
Then, in view Of The price paid Tor board
ing dogs, The cost Of keeping large numbers
# them in cities. their exclusive consumption
# meat, and even comparison with the val
le Of waste" fed 10 hogs, let the estimate q,
went ry-6ve cents pr week be reduced nearly
twenty-five per cent, and let dog raiions be
Ommued al less ban cent per meal, and
all the general average throughout the land
$40 per yeur; then the keeping OF 9bTee
milton of dogs ot the loyal States would De
s30, 100000.
The loss OF sheep by dogs may he closely
,pprnximal ed For series OF wears, Iu Onr,.
hp average ut nsctr aimed damages was S g..
54S per year when : eep were very low 30
Drce. Ia 1853 he aScei aimed loss VS., Sl44
! 65S. The Secretary o. the New York Sac
Agricul ural 5nci~iy rs'imntes the loss a.
New York IT. l862 at $4,000 sheep. wrrlt
81 5000. THIS L. iarp.r loss Hau 'uI. #
Oaio with less uumorr OF sheep. Hi2hcr
proportional estimates than that ol Onin have
also bt en- nude Ter Maine These are eastern
States be western States are still more tx-
posed 10 the ravagrs Of dogs. Then it is a
nodrraie assumption to take Ohio as a bas,s
for tbe country. As Ohio had 4448 .229
heep IN 1862, in he loyal Sta'es % 600 coo
In round numbrrs tht average loss won q be
229 iO2 in killed and similar calculation
upon tbe ba-is Of 25 483 injured in Ohio,
would show iotal ol l432l9 manned Al
he present prices of sheep. an average tor he
entire country caauot reasonably be placed at
less han So which would make the total Ios4
in killed SII45,5lO The damage to the re-
mauder has generally averaged ia Ohio, about
ihrve-fitths of the value uf the animal This
would make the totat loss Of sheep i-jnred
5429. .657 total loss Of killed aud injured. 81 =
SIS, l67 No addition is made tor the in,
crease of sheep since 1862. at least 10000
900, instead of 25,0OO 900 J let The growing
va chlulness OF their interests and he iucreas-
ing restraint apon dogs be allowed 10 counter
balance such increase.
The account against dogs, thus far made
oHt, stands as follows:
Keeping 100000 dogs. ....... 100000 'O0C
Sheep killed. ..............-.. l,l45 5lI
Sheep injured ,............ 429 65I