588 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



my acquaintance recently received, in addition to his fee, a very sub- 

 stantial check from an appreciative client to enable him to rise anesthet- 

 ics on animals whose owners would not pay for it. 



This brings us to a very troublesome subject in the protection of 

 animals, namely, the disposition of worn-out horses, homeless cats and 

 dogs and the hopelessly injured. The humane impulse is to destroy 

 them at once. This, so far as we can determine, is the proper course to 

 pursue. It is believed that death is preferable to continued suffering. 

 The question arises, how shall the animal be destroyed? Individuals, 

 and even societies for the prevention of cruelty, frequently impose a 

 method of execution that is not always the easiest for the animals to en- 

 dure. The insistence upon the use of some anesthetic often imposes 

 upon the animal a more disagreeable death than a well-directed bullet 

 would cause. Yet we often find this and other methods of painless de- 

 struction excluded. It would seem that when it is decided that an ani- 

 mal is to be killed the method should be chosen that will give the least 

 suffering. 



The slaughter of animals for human food is a disagreeable task, but 

 one that must be performed so long as meat is used. Many investiga- 

 tions have been made to determine the method that will dispatch the 

 animal with the least fright and pain. The conclusion prevails that 

 with cattle at least the most humane method is to stun them before 

 bleeding. This method is observed except in those packing houses where 

 for religious reasons the methods of the ancients are still observed. It is 

 gratifying to note that in one city through the efforts of the humane 

 society and the federal meat inspection, many of the cruelties of the 

 " Kosher " killing have been minimized. In justice to the large packers 

 it should be stated that they welcome any improvement along these 

 lines. If we are consistent in our contention that domesticated animals 

 should be cared for in a humane manner, should not their slaughter, 

 which is for man's benefit, be as easy and painless as it is possible to 

 make it? With the development of new knowledge and better methods 

 many religious rites have been modified. It is hoped that in the near 

 future the Jewish methods of slaughtering animals that have been 

 handed down from early days to the present may in like manner be 

 subjected to certain revisions. As I have already stated, the cruelties 

 of the method have been minimized in one city. Certainly these 

 changes should be made general. Our people can not be too much in 

 earnest relative to the enforcement of methods of slaughter that will 

 protect as far as possible innocent animals from unnecessary pain. This 

 applies not only to the procedures in the larger packing houses, but also 

 to the small butcher and the individual owner who now and then kills 

 animals for food. In the methods of all these there are opportunities 

 for improvement. 



In the protection of animals there is need for a more efficient ser- 



