1907. j DISCUSSION. 263 



I suggest that it be considered along the following lines, first, 

 that the attitude of the Sheep Breeders' Association should be 

 made known towards encouraging the destruction of vicious 

 dogs as expressed by a bounty offered to anybody for the 

 killing of dogs worr}^ing, chasing or killing sheep. That 

 bounty, as most of you know, used to be ten dollars, but we 

 were compelled to scale it because the income of the associa- 

 tion was not adequate. I do not know whether it is generally 

 known that the board of directors, realizing that we would be 

 confronted with this condition, appealed to the last legislature 

 asking for an increase of our appropriation so as to be able to 

 maintain the ten dollar rate, and that appeal was unsuccessful. 

 That is why we had to come down to five dollars instead of 

 ten dollars. Of course there is room for a difference of 

 opinion regarding the wisdom of such action, but let me point 

 out to you that the State of Massachusetts some two years 

 ago increased the rate of bounty from ten dollars to twenty- 

 live dollars for every dog found worrying or chasing sheep, 

 and then another question came up, as to the feasibility of 

 asking for legislation to restrain .the liberty of dogs. It seems 

 to me that it is a very debatable proposition whether the dog, 

 simply because its owner pays a dollar for a license, should be 

 allowed to roam all over creation and I am compelled to care- 

 fully fence in a cow that is a much less harmless animal, or 

 why a hog has to be restrained, or a calf or a sheep. That 

 leads to the question of fences. The legal definition of a 

 fence has not been prescribed, I believe, but should not a fence 

 for this purpose be described as one of sufficiently strong 

 construction to confine the sheep and exclude the dogs, and 

 would it not be a good proposition, if the State, by allowing a 

 town to collect revenue from dog licenses, in return for which 

 the dogs are allowed to roam at will, should assist in main- 

 taining fences of sufficient character to keep the dogs out? If 

 it is not right that the State should do that, then the town that 

 gets the benefit from the dog license fees, I think, should be 



