Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-03-04
z
DIVISION OF STATISTICS.

NASHlNGION, ID. e, teD. -, 1871.
Dear Sir.-We have your favor OF the
10Th instant. The estimated number OF
sheep killed by dogs in Virginia in 1893 Is
l0,5i5. This number is exceeded by Ohio
only. The total number OF sheep killed by
dogs In the United States during the past
year is 1880. These. estimated at the
average price OF sl.9s, would make the
total loss for the country s2i2.332. We
inclose you our report, which may be OF
use to you.
Trusting that your efforts to secure
"dog-law" may be successful, l am,
Very truly yours,
HENRY a. ROBINSON,
Statistician.
j. c. Featherston. State Statistical
Agent United States Agricultural De-
partment, Lynchburg, Va.
But this is small proportion OF the
loss sustained by the State from this
dog-nuisance. Think, for moment, OF
the increase in the number of sheep
which would inevitably follow the pas
sage Of law which would give to the
owner indemnity against loss by dogs.
There Is scarcely a farmer who would
not at once engage In sheep-husbandry.
Every section of the State can rear
sheep TO profit. There are some sections
which can rear no other stock probably
because OF sparseness OF grass and other
forage crops; but sheep. being close
grazers and omni-herbivorous. or virtually
so, are at home In these lands, and do
we'll when undisturbed Shall these lands
remain a waste, and all for dogs?
A GENERAL LAW.
Urge the General Assembly to enact a
general dog-law AMI Try its efficacy. If
a. fail GA m
ture be repealed and the dog restored to
his former advanced position. 1t will
not require much tire for him to again
be in position to rule the State. judging
the future by the past.
IL is to be regretted that our Lawmakers
should hesitate as TO the course they
should pursue in matter OF such vital
Importance to the prosperity OF the state.
In these same official circulars from the
various counties the criticisms are Sc
we're on the Legislature for not passing
dog-law.
WANTED TO COME BACK.
once heard a member of the Legisla-
ture give at least an honest reason for
opposing this law. He said: MIR. Speak
er. | cannot vote for this bill, though IT
be a necessity. for l am satisfied that
more promising young statesmen nave
been wrecked by voting against dogs than
any other one thing, and | want TO come
back here" 1t Is unnecessary 10 say
that he had rather be President than
right.
NV sheep on my farm in Bedford paid
me for the past year 100 per cent. ana
should have kept double the number IL
had any guaranty against ravages by
dogs. IL such were the facts there would
be thousands where there are now nun
dreds or none. Virginia is az well. II not
better adapted 10 sheep-raising than any
State In the Union. They are subject 10
no local diseases as in some other states
Virginia wool and mutton are unsurpassed
anywhere. as Is evinced by the efforts
made 10 procure Il and the prices paid
In all the markets for II.
PROSPERITY.
II the Legislature will give protection 10
this. the most profitable branch OF farm
ing. Virginia would, In my opinion. soon be
In a more prosperous condition than ever
before. our farmers would be more con-
tented and our revenues greatly Increased
I personally know OF several prosperous
western farmers who have expressed
themselves as anxious to settle In Vir-
pinia and engage in sheep-husbandry II
our laws would give them protection
against this nuisance. Can you not I'M
press upon the Legislature that there IS
every reason why this law should be en-
acted and none against 1t?
j. c. FEATHERSTON,
& s. A.. L.. s. Agricultural Department.