370 MANAGEMENT AND FEEDING OF SHEEP 



dom proved entirely satisfactory when attempted, and in 

 some instances where such legislation has been attempted 

 it has been subsequently repealed. The fact remains, 

 nevertheless, that an industry so important to the mate- 

 rial interests of the state should be protected. The diffi- 

 culty usually met with in securing legislation on the sub- 

 ject arises in part from the far greater numerical strength 

 of those who keep dogs and no sheep than of those who 

 keep sheep. Some legislators at least recognize this fact, 

 and, doing so, they are slow to support a measure that 

 may alienate supporters. It also arises in part from the ex- 

 treme difficulty in framing legislation that will give jus- 

 tice to all and that will give oppression to none. 



It would seem to be true, however, that the strongest 

 reason for opposing such legislation is found in the 

 strength of the sporting instinct in many legislators and 

 also in many of their supporters, more especially those 

 located in towns and villages. This love of hunting would 

 seem to be so strong in many instances as to blunt the 

 sense of justice with reference to legislation that would 

 seriously interfere with conducting the sport of hunting 

 on old-time lines. The dog is, in a sense, an indispensa- 

 ble adjunct to successful hunting. Hence legislators 

 sometimes hesitate to pass laws that may be regarded by 

 those who keep hunting dogs as inimical to their interests. 



Legislation to protect from dogs — No legislation that 

 has been enacted has proved entirely satisfactory. That 

 system, it would seem correct to say, has proved the least 

 objectionable which puts a tax on all dogs outside of cor- 

 porate cities, funds the same in the county in which it 

 is collected, and reimburses the owner of sheep from this 

 fund in whole or in part for loss incurred by dogs. In 

 very many instances the owners of dogs conceal them 

 when the assessment is being taken, and in some in- 

 stances deny the presence of their existence, and in this 

 way they are not listed for taxing. The system has been 

 objected to, first, because it taxes useful and useless dogs 



