DISEASES OF GOATS, DOGS, AND CATS 656 



muzzling. How is this to be accomplished? This question seems to 

 be almost insurmountable. A national dog-muzzling law is some- 

 times proposed as a solution, but the power of the Federal Govern- 

 ment in dog muzzling, as in other matters, would be confined to 

 those cases where the interstate dissemination of the disease is in- 

 volved. The Secretary of Agriculture under present law could 

 quarantine States where the disease exists, but it can readily be seen 

 that it would be impracticable to enforce such a quarantine further 

 than to require that all dogs transported interstate by common car- 

 riers should be muzzled. This, however, would have no material in- 

 fluence in the eradication of the disease. Practically all the States 

 are infected, and the great majority of the serious outbreaks of rabies 

 are entirely within the confines of particular States. 



It is necessary, therefore, for the States and municipalities to 

 take action and for the public to be educated to the importance of the 

 disease and the value of dog muzzling. Dog-pound service should be 

 increased in all the large cities. This results in the destruction of a 

 large percentage of homeless and ownerless dogs, which class of ani- 

 mals are mainly responsible for keeping the infection of rabies alive. 

 The importance of this service is shown by the effect which it had in 

 Washington in 1900, when 2,771 more dogs were impounded than 

 during the previous year, with an immediate and marked decrease in 

 the frequency of the disease during the following year. 



To secure individual State legislation in regard to dog muzzling, 

 Federal co-operation, and the equally important education of the 

 public will require concerted and unceasing action on the part of 

 professional men and sanitarians, with the co-operation of the general 

 public and the press. With such State legislation, the Bureau of 

 Animal Industry could co-operate with the State authorities by plac- 

 ing officers within the confines of a State in case of an outbreak 

 where the disease was spreading beyond the control of the State au- 

 thorities. A large percentage of homeless and ownerless dogs could 

 be impounded and humanely destroyed. No dog would be seen on 

 the streets of cities or loose in the country without a muzzle. Animals 

 developing the disease would be unable to transmit it, because they 

 would be either muzzled or confined. Financial loss, suffering, and 

 death due to this disease would rapidly decrease from the beginning, 

 and in a few years' time rabies would be unknown in this country. 



Once our country becomes free from the disease, we could easily 

 prevent its reappearance by enforcing a prolonged quarantine of all 

 dogs coming into the United States from foreign countries where the 

 disease prevails. 



RESULTS OF MUZZLING DOGS IN OTHER COUNTRIES. 



To prove the practical value of these repressive measures we have 

 only to observe the results obtained in foreign countries. Prior to 

 1875 rabies had been prevalent in Berlin for many years. In that 

 year a law was enacted, including the whole of Prussia, which pro- 

 vided for the killing of dogs suspected of having rabies, and the 

 muzzling and leading of all dogs when in public places. This led to 



