, 1885-07-25

~ RiAO ~ @JSStA IL w
raised to this, but it is necessary to find
some other way to get rid of the great
number of dogs without signs and stray
ing in the towns. The Authorities who
have most to do with that branch of the
public service, the Police, are of the pin
ion that poisoning is the best way to get
rid of such dogs, a practice which has been
in use ever since 1881. 1t is perhaps be-
cause the practice has been in use so very
long, that it appears difficult to the said
authorities to find another more convenient
method, but no doubt it can be found.
He would propose that the amount be LETT
on the Budget. but with the express condi.
ton that it shall not be used for poisoning
dogs, but for paying parties for catching
stray dogs and bringing them to the Police
Office, where, after the lapse of a certain
time, say As hours, if the owners do not
appear to claim them and pay a fine and
the fee for a sign, the dogs are to be killed.
He believed that in that way, which is the
course followed in Europe, we may get
rid of stray dogs. According to Order of
7th June 1881 from the General Govern
ment all dogs are to be provided with
signs, and dogs not so provided are by the
Police to be killed, that order is still in
force, but it has for a long time not been
fully carried out, by enforcing it now in
the way now suggested the revenue OF
the Police fund would be increased and
the number of stray dogs would certainly
become less.
The Speaker (LemmingJ, as he was the
principal party in the Council who brought
up the i'll practice of destroying dogs by
poison, he would beg to make a few re-
marks. Although the Police Authorities
still find the method of poisoning dogs to
be the best way, he believed that no one
but the Police shares that view. and he was
sure all else will agree that it Is not the
best, the safest nor the most humane me.
thod ; but Of course it is the easiest. But
in that way many good dogs are,deStroyed,
while bad dogs, simple ours. escape for a
long time. Complaints have been made;
he himself was personally aware of the
i'll etfecrS of the bad system of poisoning
dogs and as no effect had been produced, he
had brought up the matter here, and the
Budget Committee had made a proposal.
He had then hoped that the Police
Wouid have found out at least some more
humane way of diSposing of the really
worthless and troublesome dogs. AS His
Excellency's remarks seem to indicate
that the Police has found no such practi-
cal way, but at the same time His Excel
lency alludeS to a way by which if the $40
be voted they will MOI be used for procur-
ing d0g-poiSon, but for paying to catch
dogs which then should be brought to the
Police, he woulc beg TO recommend this
suggestion. But the Police itself could
ger the knowledge, without paying for it,
as to where dogs are; for, as the Police
sends around so many lists, and of course
visits yards, it would be easy to get a know
ledge as to who own dogs, and to discover
if signs have been paid for; and if not,
the dogs should be brought to the Police
Office, eventually to be killed. The object
would in that way be achieved.
2nd Member for Fred ariksted'S Country
District (HeoittJ could support the non
Durable Secretary in his remarks on this
matter; the mode hitherto followed of
poisoning dogs is very obnoxious to the
public at large, and it should have
been done away with long ago. In SO far
as it has been suggested that the $40
should remain on the Bill but to be used
for catching dogs, it would seem that the
fines and the prices of the signs could be
more than sufficient for defraying any
amounts required for that purpose. He
would therefore agree that the amount be
struck out.
The Speaker said, if no other Member of
the Committee made any objections, he
would withdraw the Committees proposal
in favour of the proposal from the Govern
mpnt