Iron County register., 1889-08-08
RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS
Few Words About the Fence Question
and the Dog Nuisance,

| Few Words About the Fence Question
| and the Dog Nuisance.
The owner of land has rights which
| should be respected as much as the
owners of houses or other property.
| What man purchases and pays for
with the proceeds of his own labor
| should be held inviolable. in whatever
| form it may be. A mans field or gar
den should be as inviolable as the
house of another man and should not
need costly protection to preserve it
from trespass and damage by other
persons. Hence garden or field of
| corn should no more be required to be
fenced for protection against wander
ing stock than any house should be
fortified with stone walls and barred
| windows to keep out tramps and
| thieves. And inasmuch as this was at
one time an incident of lawlessness and
semi-barbarity, when every mans hand
was lifted against his fellow who owned
any thing desirable to the lawless rob-
ber, so now it is an incident of equal
lawlessness and barbarity that a mans
crops should be overrun and destroyed
by the cattle of his neighbors unless
more than the value Of these cattle is
spent in fencing them out.
Pastures only need to be fenced for
the purpose of taking care of the farm
stock. ALI road fences and arabic
field fences should be unnecessary. In
many cases the relief from the cost of
making and keeping up fences would
be the difference between poverty and
pecuniary ease. No doubt the other
benefits resulting from such a just and
proper system as economy Of land,
less difficult destruction of weeds, etc,
would still further better the farmers
condition and make his life more
pleasant. AS it now is, where the
absurd and unjust practice of permit
ting cattle to roam at large prevails,
the farmer is obliged to guard himself
against every other man and to watch
and ward his property in the fashion
of the middle ages, while every other
man in permitted to harass and injure
the farmer with impunity. And per-
haps the most glaring injustice of all
is the wrong done to farmers in per-
mitting dogs to roam over his premises
away from home and from the care of
their owners, and so worry and destroy
the sheep as to wholly prevent the
existence of this profitable industry of
keeping them over the greater part of
the most desirable portions OF the
country. In fact the owner of dog
adv l,n
joyment of them-which are most dam
aging to the business of the shepherd,
and yet popular sentiment is all on the
side of the dogs, whose entire extinc-
tion at a blow would not injure in the
least any material interest of society,
while sheep are producers of wealth
and conducive to the welfare and pros
perity of the human race.
And yet no one proposes the ex-
tinguishment of the dogs, in spite of
their positive dangerous character and
the painful experiences Of their fire.
quent vicious, ferocious and rabid at
tacks upon human beings, as we'll as of
their habit of killing sheep. All the
sheep-keeper asks is that public senti-
ment and law should hold the dogs
safely so that they may be kept in
charge of their owners and not be suf
fered to trespass on the property of
other persons. And as the farmer is
forced to keep his sheep at home and
prevent them from running the gar
dens and crops of other persons, so the
errant proclivities of the dogs should
be restrained and these animals be al
ways kept on the premises of their
owners, where they can do no mis-
chief. This is bare justice.-N. Y.
Times.