71 



experienced operator— and the weight of evidence is that once the horn is severed 

 the acute pain ceases. It is impossible to gauge the amount of suffering involved 

 in the healing process, but the fact that farmers who claim that they can tell at 

 a glance when their cattle are sick are unable to see any marked difference in their 

 condition as a result of the operation, is strong presumptive proof that there is 

 not much severe pain. It is a well authenticated principle among dairymen that 

 whatever interferes with the health and comfort of the animals will affect the 

 quality and quantity of their milk, and the fact remains after many careful 

 experiments that dehorning does not materially diminish the milk secretion nor 

 impair its quality. 



Some of the witnesses put forward the view that man is not justified in 

 inflicting pain, even though the object sought is the increased value and useful- 

 ness of the animal as a servant of man. No amount of money, they held, could 

 be weighed against pain, and where an animal was ungovernably vicious and 

 ordinary remedies failed, it should, they thought, be isolated o» slaughtered. Others 

 again, while opposed to dehorning for a commercial advantage, were willing to 

 concede that vicious animals might be dehorned. Bearing in mind the purpose 

 for which cattle were given to man, the Commissioners consider that, provided 

 the pain inflicted is not excessive or of unreasonable duration, and the object is 

 adequate, the operation cannot be held to be a contravention of the Act governing 

 the prevention of cruelty to animals, either in letter or spirit. In cases of this 

 kind, where the question of cruelty is concerned, we believe that the motive 

 should have due consideration, and that where temporary pain is inflicted in the 

 honest desire to attain a desirable end, such an act should not be placed in the 

 same category with the pain and mutilation so often inflicted in moments of base 

 and ungovernable passion. To deny the right of man to inflict pain for wise and 

 reasonable ends is to accord to the lower animals an exemption which the human 

 race does not claim for itself, for we all know that operations of the most painful 

 and crucial character are daily performed upon little children, as well as upon 

 men and women, to remedy physical defects, and give greater enjoyment in life. 

 Then we would call attention to the fact that operations of an admittedly more 

 painful character than dehorning have long been permitted, so that no new 

 principle is involved. The spaying of animals in which the acutely painful oper- 

 ation of removing the generative organs of the female is performed, has been 

 declared by the courts of England as not coming within the meaning of the Act 

 regarding cruelty to animals, and the castration of male animals, also an opera- 

 tion involving great suffering, is by general consent and long-established custom, 

 allowed to be performed. Then, as is shown in evidence, the infliction of 

 unnecessary pain upon an animal means in nearly every case a direct loss to 

 the owner; a benefit to the animal means a benefit to the owner, and v/here an 

 animal is not benefited it will deteriorate, and the consequent loss of product, 

 will cause the farmer to speedily abandon the practice. 



