WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. 867 



lu a recent editorial Gorman's Rural World says: 



Missouri has owned more sheep than it does to-day, but never was in a better con- 

 dition to take hold and build "it up to greater proportions than ever. Nothing in 

 the world is preventing our farmers from going into the business on a large scale 

 but the night-prowling, wolfish dogs, and most certainly they should be denied the 

 privilege of limiting and retaiding the development of so great and important an 

 industry. This evil out of the way, the farmers would at once stock up with flocks 

 proportioned to the size of their farms and their means, and make Missouri a mut- 

 ton and wool producing State second to none in the country. The uncertainty of 

 wool values in the past is now remedied by the certainty of a first-rate market for 

 mutton and lambs, both of which are to-day paying better than beef and have a 

 more certain and better settled market. With a fair-sized flock of graded sheep 

 one has something he can realize on any month in the year, besides his \vool returns 

 early in the spring before he begins farm work proper. 



An experienced writer in the American Agriculturist says: 



The one great drawback, however, and it exists in all thickly settled countries, 

 is the ravages of worthless curs. Two or three dogs in a single night will destroy 

 good sheep and lambs enough to offset the greatest prospective profit for an entire 

 season. If there is any one evil that requires more stringent legislation than 

 another it is the dog nuisance. There is hardly any family so poor as not to be rich 

 enough to own a dog, and the pleasure and comfort of that useless cur they will 

 protect by every means possible, always ready to deny the possibility of any injury 

 by their dog. One of the best means for protecting the flock against the attacks of 

 dogs is by using a liberal number of bells. If the flock numbers forty or fifty, at 

 least a quarter of them should have each a small bell, and as noisy a one as pos- 

 sible, attached to her neck. If the flock is small a greater proportion should pos- 

 sess bells. The reason why bells are a good protection is because sheep-killing dogs 

 are naturally sneaks. They are afraid of detection, and the noise created by a flock 

 of sheep wearing bells will cause them to desist. I have never known a flock of 

 sheep wearing bells to be injured by dogs. We need more stringent laws for the 

 protection of sheep. 



Iii all of the agricultural States the sheep-owners are clamoring for an 

 effective law that will lessen the depredations of dogs and furnish suit- 

 able indemnity to those whose stock shall be injured by them. These 

 worthless curs range from farm to farm and are frequently the agents 

 for the dissemination of contagious diseases among sheep and other 

 stock. Dr. Cooper Curtice, in his "Animal Parasites of Sheep," says: 



The relation of the dog to sheep husbandry is too important to be overlooked. 

 Were it not that the definition of parasites excludes such animals as can be consid- 

 ered beasts of prey, the dog would be placed at the head of the list of parasites, as 

 being the most destructive. Though this be unmistakably apparent to a large ma- 

 jority of sheep-owners there are many who believe that the dog is man's most faith- 

 ful friend and that he is of great use even on a sheep farm. It is unfortunate for 

 the dog that the mass of testimony on this subject is against him. It is not from 

 the standpoint of the dog as a beast of prey, however, that this work is written, but 

 it is from the more technical standpoint of the dog as a carrier of parasites danger- 

 ous to sheep and man. 



The Ohio Farmer says the total damage to sheep by dogs in that 

 State last year was $152,034, notwithstanding the precautions taken 

 by the flockmasters to prevent loss. 



