Charlevoix county herald. (East Jordan, Mich.) 189?-1953, 1914-06-13
DOGS AND OUR
MUTTON SUPPLY


of mutton and lamb and the high mar
ket prices for sheep there has been no
increase in the number or size of flocks
in the farming States.
We have only to glance at British
agriculture to appreciate the fact that
as land advances in value and better
business methods are adopted the place
of the sheep upon farms becomes an
increasingly important one.
The superfluous dog in villages and
on non-sheep-raising farms constitutes
very serious obstacle to the logical
development of farm sheep husbandry
in the United States. The Bureau of
Statistics has recently received from its
county crop correspondents very in
teresting and suggestive set of replies
to questions prepared by the Bureau OF
Animal Industry.
One of the questions asked for an es-
innate of the extent to which the pres
ent number of sheep might be increas-
ed without displacing any other farm
stock. A great many of the correspon-
dents gave 1000 per cent in answer to
this question. Answers to this and SIM
liar questions were summarized for &c
States. In q States the correspond
ents state. that there might be an in
crease of over 100 per cent in the num-
ber of sheep kept without displacing
other stock.
When asked to name the things that
prevent more general raising OF sheep
80 States give as a large majority OF
their answer "dogs." Six States an
swer: fences" indicating a lack of
working capital as hindrance to sheep
raising. The total replies from the 30
States referred to are distributed as
follows: Dogs, 526; fences, 19l; price of
wool, 122; miscellaneous, 63.
Competent opinion seems well
agreed that the dog stands in the way
of an increased supply of one of the
chief kinds of meat. In answer to this
arraignment of the dog, it is sometimes
stated that owners of sheep killed by
dogs are compensated for their losses
from the dog-taX fund of the municipal
ity. 1t is true that considerable num-
Der of counties do compensate owners
of killed sheep, but the rate of COM
pensation practically never exceeds
the actual meat value of the animals
killed. Such redress, while it may al
leviate the seriousness of the sheep
owners immediate loss, is in no way
conducive to the stability or extension
of sheeep raising.
Compensation for damage done by
dogs seldom takes account of injury to
that part of the flock not killed. These
are often manned and rendered so un-
easy and unthrifty for months that the
lamb crop of the following spring is
seriously lessened In addition to this
uncompensated loss, there is the dis
couragement of the owner and the
spread of the idea among other farmers
that sheep raising is unsafe and un-
satisfactory.
The treasurer of one county in Ohio
reports that 649 sheep were paid for in
1913 as having been killed by dogs.
In one Indiana county having $4,000
sheep, 300 were killed by dogs in 1912.
This probably means that sheep were
killed by dogs in one-fourth or one
fifth of the flocks. In the course of
10 years the flock that has not been in
vaded by dogs is the exception. News
of such loss makes a far deeper i'm
preston upon non sheep raisers than
does anything they may hear in regard
to profits from flock so fortunate as
to escape the attack of dogs.
When the States levy taxes sufficient
ly high to curtail tn e number of un.
necessary dogs and put upon the dog
owner the burden of keeping the ami
NAL off of other peoples farms, then
the sheep industry will have fail
chance to contribute as it should to the
nations meat supply,