The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-01-17
THE CATTLE INTERESTS.
A Few Pointers for the Lawmakers
to Read.


In perusing your Semi-Weekly, l
saw an article about the Legisture be-
ing ready to take their seats, and also
stating that it would be about as well
for cattle owners to try to get good laws
passed for the benefit of the cattle
interests. I am of the same opinion
myself, for if there is any interest that
has been neglected in this Territory it
Is the cattle interest, in which, either
more or less, the population of this
Territory is interested. There has
great deal been said in the papers of
this Territory about improving stock.
We all know it needs improving, the
worst kind. would ask, how can we
improve the stock with the present
laws? Surprising man in settlement.
town or rancho buys a thoroughbred
bull, to improve his cattle. He has got
10 herd or keep mis- COWS off the public
domain, as well as his bulls, or have the
pleasure of having good bulls, and rails
ing scrub calves. | think one of the
main points towards improving stock
IS to have 1t made unlawful for any
bulls to run on the rancho in April, May
and June. think that would do away
With great many scrubs and we would
not be having so many Young calves
born in the winter and frozen to death
l am satisfied, through experience, that
it is cheaper to feed the bulls, during
three months, than it is to nurse, feed,
and take care of poor 20 vs. and weak
heifers, through calving, IN the months
OF January, February and March. An
other thing l will speak about, that is
quarantining cattle. / understand
there were laws passed in regard to dis
posing OF live cattle, but ask how about
the dead carcasses strewn over the
country, every season, freeding death
and disease? Who suffers most from
them-the set sr or the transient? The
setil n may bury his cattleif he wishes
to save his own losses, the transient will
move his herds away from the carcasses,
or disease, and will leave them for the
settler to bury too, or run the risk. City
laws may protect cities, in regards to
such things. but we poor outsiders, or
country jakes, will have to try to get
the Legislature TO help US or suffer
something the same as that | saw by
YOUR paper, the people did down towards
Minersville or Beaver this last summer.
say mpel, every man to bury or
burn. right away, any animal of his that
lies dead whether horse, cattle, sheen,
or swine, AMI let us do away with Thu
disea: breeder. How about branding?
Suppose l have my brand on the right
hip, and l wish to sell an animal. and
do not wish to sell my brand Which
is the proper and lawful way to vent it?
Some say put the brand on the shoulder
for vent. How do l know but some
one hiss M brand on the shoulder for
their brand? l would like to hear the
above question answered lawfully, and
right, either by yourselves or else the
Legislature, so that it would be
thoroughly nCe-stood-the proper
way to vent. How is it that there
is on the law book of the last ses-
sion, or the one before, law prohibiting
any man from killing or selling his own
beef. have always understood, here
tofore, IN this Territory and others, that
a man could put up a scaffold and xii!
for his own use and had the privilege
to dispose of beef by the quarter to
Others 1t comes rather hard on the
man that raises nothing but cattle for |
living to refuse to let him put up a /
scaffold and kill his own cattle. If he |
wants beef himself, he must eat what /
he can and throw the other away.
Please get the Legislature to make the
law general, so that the farmer has to /
take out g license to sell his grain, pota- !
toes, ETC.. by the busheI. as well as the |
cattle man to sell his beef by the quarter. I
There is another law which think
might be amended, and that is the game !
law As tnow stands in regard to deer, \
l believe it is as good as it could be
made, as they are a resident of Utah, 4
more or less, at all seasons of the year,
and need to be thoroughly protected.
1t could, think, be amended in regard
to elk, and I have heard great many
complain, stating that the law could
not have been worse, fit had prohibited
the killing of them at all, for, as it
uow stands, the elk is not
in Utah, when the Law allows
the killing of them, but they come into
theTerritory to winter when the law says
you cannot kill them. Consequently we
are preserving, wintering elk, the no
blest of game, for ou1 eastern nelghbors
to kill and eat. 1 do not wish to see
them cleaned out, but give the boys
chance to have one lawful hunt by ex-
tending the time to the 18th of January,
for the killing of elk and let the deer
law stand as it now is. ll.t
SALT LAKE, Jan. IA, 1886.