The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1884-06-07
PROTECTING SHEEP AGAINST DOGS.

The Belair 1Egis makes q report of the meeting
of the Deer Creek Farmers Club, from which we
take some extracts: "Mr. S. B. Silver said: Every
farmer knows the value of small bunch of sheep,
and it is necessary to have some protection for
them. His sheep are housed every night, but he
has frequently been aroused in the night by the
barking of dogs around his sheep pen, and been
obliged to get up and drive them away. 1t is
well to have good shepherd dog to assist in
driving the sheep from one part of the farm to
the other. Sheep increase rapidly and the wool
and lambs are profitable. A neighbor, John Carr,
had sold S119 worth of lambs and wool in one
year from or 10 sheep. On account of dogs
sheep must be housed every night, but they do
better in the fields. In warm weather they feed
chiefly at night. They huddle together on the
knobs, which are always the poorest spots, and
enrich them by their droppings. Sheep are few
in number in comparison with other branches of
farming, but if we had some protection from dogs
every farmer could have few and find them a
source of great profit. He did not know what
measure of protection to suggest, a majority Of
persons seem to prefer dogs to sheep.
II
dogs should be assessed and be made respectable
animals in the eyes of the law. If the owner can
not be taxed, from not having o sufficient amount
of property, let the dog be outlawed. Owners
ought to be responsible for damages done by their
dogs. Dog laws are unpopular because there are
ten dog owners to one sheep owner. Encourage
people to raise more sheep and dog law would
soon become popular. In Cecil county no man
could go to the Legislature if he were opposed to
dog law, while in Hartford the reverse is the
case. We have dog law in Hartford, but it is
u ~ .sss BIO vvuusv IL 10 not u guou
law. The keeping of sheep would be profitable
to the individual and also to the community.
"Wm. Webster said he had wondered for %
years, how such an intelligent class of people as
the farmers of Hartford county have had patience
to permit so many Legislatures to pass without
demanding dog law. Thirty years ago it might
have been unpopular, but it is not now. He was
friend to the dog, but greater friend to the
sheep. Dogs are not property, and if they can be
allowed to deprive us of our property and taxes,
there is something wrong. Dog laws work well
in the Western States and in Cecil and Chester
counties. Why not in Hartford Mr.. Webster had
read letter from the editor of the Elkton Wing,
who spoke of the efficiency of the dog law for that
county. In 1888 the sheep awards amounted to
$500 and $3.50 was turned over to the school
fund.
'The Cecil law imposes tax upon owners of
dogs upwards of two months old of 81 on each
male, and 81 on each female dog, to be collected
by the tax collectors. All dogs upon which no
tax is paid before the LIST of April, must be killed
by the collectors under penalty of from $40 to
500. The fee for killing dogs, and the awards
for sheep destroyed injured paid out, of the
dog tax fund.
"Mr. Webster said the law was so popular in
Cecil that no one could be elected to the Legisa-
tnrs if opposed to it, In Chester county foy
hunter whose hounds frightened some sheep and
prevented them from feeding properly afterwards,
was fined 5000. IF we had dog law we could
afford to keep fine sheep. IF more sheep were
kept here it would be better for the farmer, the
mechanic and everybody. Sheep are benefit to
rich land and greater benefit to poor land. He
would put these words in every farmers mouth
until the next Legislature meets: Give Us dog
law 2"