THE MUZZLING ORDER.
[TO THE EDITOR OF TER "Firm-nal:m.4"J read the letters from your two correspondents on the subject of "The Muzzling Order," in the Spectator of July 27th and August 3rd. I was in hopes that, as a sort of appeal had been made in the paper of July 27th to the Dog- Owners' Protection Association, one or another of the gentle- men who belong to the executive committee would have considered it their duty to reply. But as no reply has been offered, and as I observe another letter on the same subject in the Spectator of August 3rd, I venture to hope you will allow me, though lam only a member of the Society living at a great distance from London, to say a few words as to the action of the Society in the matter referred to. The muzzling order —if it exists at all, which, according to a leading article in the Standard of August 1st, appears to be a doubtful matter—is certainly, in the opinion 'of all the members of our Society, most cruel and tyrannical, and the remarks of Mr. T. Warrington entirely coincide with our views in every way. Perhaps he will be glad to hear that the alternative which he proposes of licences with metal labels and registered collars is, and has been for some three years, the favourite idea of most of the prominent members of the committee. The late Lord. Mount-Temple, who was President of the Society, endeavoured —though, unfortunately, without success—in 1887 to pass a. measure in the House of Lords, which would have carried out Mr. Warrington's proposition ; but the idea has not been abandoned, and it is more than probable that, through the instrumentality of friendly Members in the House of Commons, some such measure may be eventually carried. Their Excel- lencies Sir Augustus and Lady Paget used their influence at the Court of Vienna about this same matter, and prevailed on the authorities to give the system of registered collars a fair trial, and I have been told by Lady Paget herself, who kindly wrote a letter to one of the papers on the subject, that the success of the trial was all that could be desired. No sooner did dog-owners understand that they themselvea would be held responsible for any dog belonging to them who was found at large in a rabid condition, or in any other dangerous condition, than they became alive to the necessity of exercising careful vigilance over their animals, who, if neglected as formerly, might bring upon them the punishment of very heavy fines, and even, in some cases, imprisonment. Muzzles were done away with, and hydrophobia, by a strange coincidence, became very rare. And surely this system of making owners responsible for their dogs is most fair. Persons who have no leisure, and who consider it a nuisance to sacrifice some amount of time and attention to the dogs they choose to keep, should neglect them at their peril. A dog is not a machine that can be wound up in the morning and absolutely neglected for the rest of the day. His food, his health, even his individual character, must be considered by his owner,— that is, if he is to be kept in a healthy state. What snits one dog perfectly, will often be highly injurious to another ; and. as an unhealthy dog is dangerous to the community at large, persons are to be severely censured who choose to keep these animals, while at the same time they are culpably careless of all precautions which the keeping of them necessitates. Nothing will so effectually strike at the root of the evil as this system of registered collars and labels, could it only be introduced. Allow me to add that the Dog-Owners' Protec- tion Association have opened a new office at 19 Great George Street, Westminster, where the Secretary will answer any questions that any of your correspondents may wish to ask as to the future plans of the Society.—I am, Sir, &c.,
AN OLD MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY.
Previous page
