Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1880-01-30
Farm and Household.
sheep or Dor....wh,eh shaiiunet

sheep or Dogs.--Vyh ich shall Nc net
By the census Of 1870 Maine had 434, COG
sheep; New Hampshire 24s, 700; Vermont,
6S0,3 Massachusetts,, IS, $50; Rhode Is
land, %, 1913 Connecticut, SO, 1884. We shall
soon have the returns of the tenth census,
and in all probability they will show q reduc-
ton Of the numbers Of sheep kept now, over
ten years ago, in nearly all the States men,
toned. In Vermont there has been steady,
though not q rapid, increase in the numbers
of sheep kept, because the Vermont merinos
have been much sought after as reinforcers,
SO to speak, Of the fine wooded breeds in all
parts Of this country, and there has even
been demand for them outside of our own
land. In that State, without doubt, the com
ing returns will show an increase Of the par
ticular breed raised, but so far as the other
States and common breeds are concerned,
we look for a great reduction in numbers, If
such facts and figures as have been coming
to us, bearing upon this point, during the
past few years, may be taken as giving an in
dication. And what are these That in
most of the States of New England the great
increase in the damage and loss ocoasioned
by dogs, and the extreme difficulty of secur-
ing just and proper legislation for the protec-
ton and encouragement of this great agricul-
tural industry are fast killing out branch
of husbandry for which New England pos
sesses greater advantages than any other sec
ton of our country. In many parts of Maine,
as we know from personal knowledge not
half the sheep are now kept that were kept
ten years ago-in many towns and on farms
near large villages no sheep at all being kept,
where formerly were good sized hocks. Here
is also n significant fact from single town,
Lebanon, in New Hampshire, as stated in the
last volume of Mr.. Adams report In 1868
that town returned y, 263 sheep on its valua-
ton books, and in 1873 il returned but 57Gl.
In another part of the report, Mr.. Francis
Eastman of Weare, in speaking Of his having
discarded sheep husbandry for another line
of farming, said he was driven out of it
mainly by the ravages Of dogs"
Some most startling facts concerning the
ravages of dogs among sheep are given in the
report on the agriculture of Connecticut for
1871 1t is there stated, from answers made
to special letters of inquiry sent to every
town, that more than three thousand sheep
are killed annually by dogs in that State, and
more than SIG, 900 paid out each year for loss
occasioned by such depredations And to
this loss is to be added the consideration that
the damage to the flock from worrying by
dogs is never compensated in simply paying
for the killed and wounded sheep while a
still greater drawbac is the discouragement
" ohNNp hNsbhhuig NhiOuBhOub lub Quilt
for farmers will not engage in an industry
which is subject to such large losses, the
compensations for which are always uncer-
tain and never adequate.
Mr. James s. Grinnell, in the agriculture
OF Massachusetts, for 1889, gives some facts
which relate SO closely to this subject, that
we make use of them again. for they will
bear stating over and over. The returns up
ON which Mr.. Grinnells statements have been
based are so accurate that they are entitled to
the greater consideration. In 1850 this State
had ia, 900 sheep and 1l2, 900 dogs. In 1878
the number of sheep had been reduced to 3D.
600, with no evidence whatever to show that
the number of dogs had decreased Indeed,
MIR. Grinnell states that without doubt Mas
sachusetts has two, perhaps three, dogs to
every sheep, and this in a State where agri-
culture and manufacturing interests are sup
posed to be cared for and protected
These are significant facts and they may be
taken as representing the real condition of
sheep farming in New England, in reference
to its most serious and alarming drawback.
II facts could be obtained from other States,
and from all parts of all the New England
States, we have little hesitancy in saying they
would be of the same general import. Now
what is the remedy for this evil? We answer
an imperative State tax rigidly enforced, and
not left at the discretion of towns to be en-
forced or not. In some States the dog tax is
left to the towns for enforcement, in others
there is no dog tax whatever. 1t is certainly
an evil day for this leading agricultural in
dustry, one which holds in itself so great pos
sibilities for the development and improve
ment of New England agriculture, when it is
allowed by our legislators to be checked and
discouraged through an interest in so worth
less an animal as useless cur-for we recog-
nize there are valuable dogs which are pro-
lection to property, while generally they are
miserable, prowling animals, the terror of all
sheep farmers. Can it be that this leading
agricultural feature of our Eastern States is
to be forced to succumb to the dog? That,
for the worship of, and interest in this ami
NAL, as pet, the source of the greatest agri-
cultural wealth in all New England must be
kept from its proper development, and from
assuming its true place in our rural econo-
my? We do not, cannot believe that such
short-sighted policy on the part of our law
makers is to prevail. With fifteen thousand
sheep and lambs required every week for the
supply of Boston market, to say nothing of
the demand for foreign consumption, we do
not believe the farmers of New England are
to be content to let their neighbors keep
dogs, while the great West and Canada fur
nish the lambs and mutton consumed in Bos-
ton. Dogs or sheep must prevail in New
England-whch shall it be ?-Neio England
Farmer.