368 ANNUAL, REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



liome I had a dead sheep on my hands. Now, the fact is, that under 

 the State law you can't kill a dog. If your neighbor, or his cattle 

 come into your enclosure you can obtain some redress if they do any 

 damage, but when a dog kills your sheep, you have none. You may 

 keep your dog law, but I tell you this: If I catch a dog among my 

 sheep, chasing them, I will kill him if I can get him, regardless of the 

 consequences. They ought not to be running at large at night. I 

 had a case this fall where the hunting dogs chased my sheep until 

 one of them died as the result of it. My hired man heard them in 

 the iiight, but he didn't tell me of it, and in the morning we found 

 them scattered everywhere and it took us some time to get them 

 back again. 



DR. FUNK: How comes it that dogs are not taxed? 



MR. CHUBBUCK: They are taxed; don't you live in Pennsylvania? 



DR. FUNK: I don't know^ anybody in Boyertown that pays tax, 

 and the town is full of dogs. They get out of it in this way, by say- 

 ing they don't own the dogs. 



IMR. CLARK: It seems to me that this comes up at every meet- 

 ing; somebody has something to say about it. We should arrive at 

 some conclusion so that we need not have it up at every meeting. 

 Why is it that we are unable to accomplish anything? Our represen- 

 tatives should surely be able to frame a law that would be satisfac- 

 tory to the people. But, now, there are two sides to the question. 

 I had often heard of these great kennel shows, and for the past five 

 or six years I have attended them. They were a revelation to me. 

 You see there not only the finest animals, but the finest and best 

 dressed and best bred people of the city of Pittsburg. They are all 

 against anything like this; they say, ^'I take care of my dog; I don't 

 allow him to go into your field, or into your yard, and yet you demand 

 that I pay a royalty upon your sheep. I am willing to pay a tax on 

 the dog, but when you expect me to pay a royalty on your sheep, it 

 is going too far. I pay a tax on the dog, and then you expect me to 

 insure your sheep." That is their side. Our side is that we want 

 to prevent these dogs from killing our sheep. We have tried killing 

 the dog, but I don't believe in any such demonstration as that; that 

 ought to be a thing of the past. I believe in punishing the man, 

 and not the dog. I believe w^hen a man has a dog and don't keep 

 him on his premises, except v.'hen he is out with him, w^e ought to 

 make a law to punish the man so effectively that he will keep him 

 on his own premises or kill him. Now, why can't we make a law 

 so strong that it will accomplish this? It will satisfy the man who 

 owns the dog, and the man who owns the sheep. What does our 

 law amount to? Let us go back a moment. In my boyhood days, 

 and even after I grew up, w^e had lots of sheep on our farms, and 

 made money out of them; but I grew away from sheep raising. It 

 was not because of dogs; it was because the timber w^as going, and 

 we had nothing to fence in our land. Again, the timber being 

 gone, new farming land was used, and the result was that the sheep 

 industry died out. The man who raises sheep today can make money 

 ]ust the same as we did in my boyhood days. In my boyhood days, 

 if a dog killed a sheep, we killed the dog. How is it today? You 

 have a sheep killed by a dog and you go to the auditor and he proves 



