Jan. 18, 1896, 
57 
with the State Fish and Game Commissioner, has been 
very active and efficient in prosecuting offenders in this 
county. The arrests made have been 124, convictions 106, 
cases pending are 10, fines collected $630 — a much larger 
showing than has ev^r been made in this county. 
In his report he showed that the museum and library 
were in an excellent state of preservation. Numerous 
visits have been made by citizens and schoolchildren, 
and he took occasion to remind members, their families 
and the public that the museum is always open free to 
visitors, and strangers in the city are especially welcome. 
The large and fine collection of birds is well worthy of a 
close inspection. The additions to the museum are: One 
red-throated loon, from Mr. J. H. Miers, of East Columbia 
City, which is the only specimen ever taken here; 
one gannet, presented by the club's president, Mr. 
Clay Culbertson; one young owl, from Mr. Ralph 
Kellogg, of Avondale; one case of ring pheasants and 
partridges, from Wm, Longmead, city; one albino quail, 
from the Sabina Rod and Gun Club, of Sabina, O.; one 
prickly ray, a curious fish, from J. E. Frey & Co., city; 
one barn door skate, a Florida fish, from Mr. Culbertson; 
one mounted cat in case, an odd variety, from J. D. 
Fahnestock, city; a series of crustaceans and marine in- 
vertebrates collected in Florida, Mr. Culbertson; one egg 
of crocodile from Florida, presented by Mr. Culbertson; 
one egg of alligator, also from Florida, from Charles 
Dury, of this city, and on deposit a series of nine rare birds 
not before in the collection. 
The officers elected for the year 1896 were: Alexander 
Starbuck, President; J. M Dohi rry, First Vi^e-President; 
Henry Hanna, Second Vice-President; P. Roach, Third 
Vice-President; Trustees: Capt. C. M. Holloway, E. G. 
Webster. 
he Mmnel 
FIXTURES, 
BENCH SHOWS. 
Feb. 19 to 22.— Westminster Kennel Club's twentieth annual dog 
show, Madison Square Garden, New York. James Mortimer, Supt. 
March 3 to 6 — Oity of the Straits Kennel Club. R. Humffrey 
Roberts, Sec'y, 6 Merrill Block, Detroit. 
March 10 to 18.— Chicago.— Mascoutah Kennel Club's bench show 
John L. Lincoln, Sec'y 
March 17 to 20.— St. Louis Kennel Club's show, St. Louis. W. 
Hutchinson, Sec'y. 
April 20 to 23 —New England Kennel Club's twelfth annual show. 
D. E. Loveland. Sec'y 
May 6 to 9.— Pacific Kennel Club's fifth annual show. H. W, Orear, 
Sec'y. 
FIELD TRIALS. 
Jan. 20.— Bakersfleld. Gal.— Pacific Coast Field Trial Club. J. M. 
Kilgarif, Sec'y 
Feb. 3.— West Point, Miss.— U. S. F. T. C. trials. W. B. Stafford, 
Sec'y. 
Feb. 10.— West Point, Miss.— The Field Trial Champion Association's 
first trial. W. B. Stafford, Sec'y. 
Sept. 2.— Morris, Man.— Manitoba Field Trials Club. John Wootton, 
Sec'y. 
Oct. 28— Greene county, Pa. — The Monongahela Valley Game and 
Fish Protective Association's second annual trials. S. B. Cummings, 
Sec'y, Pittsburg. 
CROPPING. 
In Forest and Stream of last week was a letter from a 
gentleman of long experience in all matters of the kennel 
world — Mr. Harry L. Goodman. 
Discussing the matter of cropping, he says: "The only 
way to abolish it is through the medium of the public. 
When the public refuses to purchase dogs with cropped 
ears and docked tails, the breeders of these breeds will 
themselves discontinue the practice, but neither the A. 
K, C. nor any body of men can force anything upon the 
public that it does not want," etc. 
True. Cropping, for instance. 
Here Mr. Goodman palpably takes a wrong view of the 
matter. He bases his argument entirely on a commercial 
consideration that is not the true consideration. 
There are many matters which society will not tolerate, 
aside from all consideration of traffic. If society consid- 
ers that cropping is cruel it may not disapprove of it in 
the passive manner suggested by Mr. Goodman. Instead 
of saying, "We will not buy your dog because we think 
it is cruel to crop his ears," it may say, "Cropping a dog's 
ears is a cruelty and we will not permit it." 
Mr. Goodman seems to overlook the fact, as have many 
others, that it is the public which is now opposing crop- 
ping actively, Different clubs from different sections 
through their delegates have by their vote recorded their 
opposition against it; a large part of the press opposes it; 
the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is 
against it; the statutes of most of the States are against 
it, etc. There might be those who would continue to sell 
and those who would buy cropped dogs, and the public 
might disapprove of both if they favored mutilation. 
Mr. Goodman further advances the argument that 
"the only way to propagate the individuality of a breed 
of dogs is to leave it in the hands of the breeders. Once 
let the breeders give a breed up for want of popularity 
or favor with the public and it will soon disappear. In 
proof of this note at our big shows the absence of the once 
numerous and popular Newfoundland. From the time 
the first St. Bernard landed in America the Newfound- 
land has gradually disappeared — not, however, from any 
fault of his, but because the breeders could no longer keep 
him to advantage against the more popular St. Bernard. 
So with the cropped and docked dogs, if the public will 
not have them they too will soon disappear." 
This same argument was used by Mr. Wood at the A. 
K. C meeting in December. It has.no relation whatever 
to the subject under consideration. The change cited was 
brought about by the breeds competing legitimately for 
public favor. The question of inhumanity, of mutilation, 
of specialty clubs, of the powers of the A. K. C, had no 
more relation to the victory of one breed over another 
than it had to the victory of one individual dog over an- 
other. There thus is no analogy. 
It surely is illogical to lay down as a proposition, that 
because the St. Bernard by competition won favor over 
the Newfoundland in the esteem of the public, that there- 
fore it is correct to cut off a great Dane's ears. That is 
precisely the proposition when stripped of its fallacy, A 
legitimate competition on one hand, so sound that it never 
was brought into question, is set against a matter of 
mutilation on the other, a matter which is in question. 
Could anything be more irrelevant, incompetent and im- 
material? 
What is the Value of Ears? 
Let us examine the relative value of ears as compared 
to the other parts of the dog valued in the scale of points. 
From the outcry against the action which contemplates 
the abolishing of cropping, and the predictions of disaster 
which is to follow if it is abolished, one would infer that 
the cropped dog's ears held an overwhelmingly large value 
in the scale of points. Indeed, it is easy to imagine that 
with uncropped ears the great Dane or bull-terrier were 
out of competition and undesirable as companions; that 
with their ears on their value ended. 
In "The American Book of the Dog" Mr. J. H. H. 
Maenner gives tlie great Dane standard as follows, ex- 
plaining that it is that of the Great Dane Club, of Eng- 
land, which is the same as that laid down by the breeders 
of Germany, with some differences which are not essen- 
tial. Values in points: General appearance 3, condition 
3, activity 5, height 13; head 15, and this includes the 
ears, of which it is stated that "Ears very small and grey- 
hound-like in carriage when uncropped; they are, how- 
ever, usually cropped." Neck 5, chest 8, back 8, tail 4, 
•belly 4, forequarters 10, hindquarters 10, feet 8, hair 4. 
It will be seen that ears are not considered of sufficient 
importance to give them a special value in the scale of 
points, but are lumped in with the head. Thus it is evi- 
dent that in the values and literature of the great Dane, 
cropped ears are but lightly considered and have not a 
remote relation to the exaggerated importance set forth 
within a recent period. 
In the "German Mastiff or Great Dane Dog," published 
by the German Mastiff or Great Dane Club of America, 
ears are valued at 3 points in a total of 100 in the Ameri- 
can scale, which is said to have had the approval of Herr 
Gustav Lang, of Stuttgart, Germany. 
Under the "German Standard of Points" it treats ears as 
follows: "Ears medium in size, placed high, and when 
cropped running to a point and standing erect." 
The American club deals with the ears in this wise: 
"The ears should not be too wide apart, small, set well up 
and carried high, something like those of the greyhound. 
The ears may or may not be cropped; when cropped, they 
should run to a point and stand erect, somewhat like those 
of the bull-terrier. " 
In short, in the great Dane standards and literature 
there is not the insistence for cropped ears which the ad- 
vocates of cropping so strenuously maintain, nor is it in- 
sisted upon at all. 
The plea that the Great Dane Club should be permitted 
without interference to abolish cropping from its standard 
when it is not in its standard at all, and is not treated at 
all as a matter of type, would go to show that a matter of 
more or less common usage has been confounded with a 
matter of type and club prerogative. 
In "The American Book of the Dog," Mr. Frank F. 
Dole, in writing of the bull-terrier, says: "The bull-terrier 
is essentially a fighting dog," etc. Of the bull-terrier's 
ears he says: "The ears are always cropped for the show 
bench, and should be done scientifically and according to 
fashion." 
Of course Mr. Dole meant the fighting dog far from 
literally, as at the present time the bull-terrier is not sup- 
posed to be used for fighting purposes. His ears are 
valued low in the scale of points, and as Mr. Dole states, 
cropping them is merely a matter of fashion, therefore 
not a matter of type. 
Type and Cropping. 
Confounding cropping as a type or a part of type makes 
false reasoning and unnecessary complications. It really 
seems to be one of the evasive afterthoughts. Mutilation 
is no part of breeding. The mere cutting off of the tar, 
or the tail, or the leg, is a mutilation, not a type. 
The kennel world has unqualifiedly condemned all 
forms of faking. Painting, staining, plucking, using 
the knife and other artificial aids to conceal defects or to 
make a dog seem better than he naturally is, in plain 
words practicing deception, is odious to dogmen, and is an 
offense which is ruled against and punishable by dis- 
qualification. Mutilations are closely related to faking. 
Most of all, and in this relation it bears strongly on crop- 
ping, the fact is that the condemnation of faking is a direct 
recognition that artificial changes do not make a type and 
are obnoxious to the fancy. 
But, as shown above, many advocates of cropping, in 
referring to cropping and type, claim more than their 
standards cover, more than they have a title to, and 
more than is claimed by the specialty clubs. 
The extravagant claims seem much more like making 
the best of a bad case than in presenting a good one. As 
cropping is not valued in their standards, the specialty 
clubs have not any claim to jurisdiction over it. 
Canker and Cropping. 
The absurd plea is advanced in favor of cropping that 
it prevents canker. So absurd is this that it scarcely de- 
serves serious reply. 
Of course, it is conceded that a dog cannot have canker 
in the parts of his ears which are cut off. A man would 
not have corns on his feet if the latter were cut off. It 
has thus a ridiculous feature. But cropping is not prac- 
ticed for the purpose of curing canker. The curative 
claim is a crafty evasion. Cropping is to grati/y the 
fashion set by the few. It is entirely a matter of fancy 
When the question of cruelty arose it was necessary to 
trump aip some plea to justify cropping on the ground of 
necessity or utility; and thus is the plea that it prevents 
canker. 
It is not a common nor necessarily a serious disease. 
When it does seriously exist, or exist at all, it is mostly 
the result of neglect and mismanagement on the part of 
the owner. There is no inherent tendency to canker in 
the ear itself. No veterinarian gives long ears as a cause 
of canker. No one of them would make himself so 
ridiculous as to call cropping a remedy for canker. Many 
veterinarians denounce it. If any man will claim that 
canker is common in his kennel, he makes a confession 
of neglect of his dogs. He can find the causes of canker 
as set forth in the works of veterinarians. They are not 
complimentary to owners. 
Canker in the ear is a rare disease with dogs which 
have a reasonable degree of care, or rather with dogs 
which have reasonable opportunities to care properly for 
themselves. The utter feebleness of the argument is 
shown in the rarity of the disease in other long-eared 
dogs — setters, pointers, hounds, etc. 
Canker is an inflammation of the lining membrane 
of the ear and the passage of the ear, and can therefore 
exist in the ear passage even if a part of the ear is cut off. 
The ear is a sensitive organ, as all know, and cutting it 
off deprives it of the protection provided by nature. The 
delicate inner passage is left exposed. Nature does noth- 
ing in vain. 
But supposing that one dog or two dogs in 1,000 have 
canker, is that sufficient reason to justify cutting off the 
ears of the remaining 999 or 998? It is a simple disease, 
easily treated, easily cured, and still more easily pre- 
vented. Such a plea of conceded good would justify 
pulling out the dog's teeth because he might have tooth- 
ache, removing bis eyes for fear of cataract, his legs 
because he might have rheumatism. 
But canker has nothing to do with cropping. It as an 
argument is merely an evasion, a false issue, a far-fetched 
plea to satisfy the humanities. Cropping has in its pur- 
pose no reference to preventing canker, nor is it a proper 
method of treating canker if it were specifically practiced 
for that purpose. Bear in mind cropping's true pur- 
pose; that is, to gratify a whim. Crying on a false trail 
should not deceive anyone. 
Sentiment and Cropping. 
There are trivial sentiments and serious sentiments. A 
sentiment which expresses a determination of the mind is 
simply the expression of the conviction of the individual. 
So with the serious sentiment of society. It is not in the 
realm of notion, or whim, or caprice, or freakishness. 
The statutory law is the sentiment of society as to the 
proper rule of action for all. This is supplemented by an 
infinity of unwritten law which all recognize and obey. 
To disobey carries with it certain punishments, moral or 
physical. 
The sentiment against cropping and other mutilations 
is not the freakish notion of a few individuals. It is the 
expression of a world-wide principle, the principle of hu- 
manity. It differs in degree from that which prohibits 
slavery and maltreatments and cruelties in general, but 
is the same in kind. It is a sentiment resting on a sound 
basis whose boundaries are greater than those of civiliza- 
tion. Its beginning was not with that of cropping. It 
exists from time immemorial. It is a sentiment whose 
material forms hide not in dark corners. It fears not the 
light of day on it or the principles on which it rests. It 
has a solid foundation in statute law, in common law and 
in the better instincts and observances of humanity. 
Nor is it a dead letter. It is forceful, active, gaining. A 
sneer does not check it; a flout does not answer it. To 
refer to it slightingly is to confess an ignorance of its 
force and its importance. Also to refuse to obey the law 
is not a popular act. It is a good thing to heed it when it 
is but another name for society's behests, which have been 
long matured, accepted and established. 
Mr. Burritt on Cropping. 
Mr. Burritt claimed that, the laws of the States being 
different, the A. K. C. should do nothing till there was a 
federal law against cropping. This seemed to have a 
catchy jingle about it which pleased many. Seldom has 
more fallacy been crowded into so few words. In the 
first place, the federal Government can not make such a 
law; its concern is with the affairs of States as States. It 
does not meddle with the strictly domestic affairs of 
States. 
Second, each State in the Union has a law amply com- 
prehensive in preventing mutilations and cruelty, some 
more severe than those of New York. Several of the 
States recently admitted have adopted the laws of New 
York concerning mutilations and cruelties, even to their 
phraseology. This in effect is the same as a federal law 
would be. In the main the humane laws of States are 
alike. 
Third, the laws of the A. K. C. are not founded on 
federal laws. It makes its own laws to conform to its own 
interests and requirements, which are in some few par- 
ticulars different from the laws of the United States, as 
Mr. Burritt will see should he investigate slightly. But 
several delegates adopted Mr. Burritt's views, making 
them their own, of whom were Mr. Brooks, Mr. Thomson, 
Mr. Little and Mr. Morris. 
But there is one feature of Mr, Burritt's argument that 
seems to have escaped the notice of himself and those who 
approved of it, and also those who opposed him; that is 
to say, the reluctance to disapprove of cropping till a 
supreme law, much greater even than the laws of the 
States as individuals, abolished it. Must the law teach the 
kennel world humanity? While Mr. Burritt's argument 
was weak and fallacious as argument, it was strong in 
seeking pretexts to evade a record on the real issue. It 
would seem to be the proper action for the clubs to con- 
form of their own motion to healthy public sentiment and 
statute law, instead of waiting till outside forces made 
observance compulsory. They should be teachers instead 
of students. 
Cropping and Sales. 
It has been pointed cut that if cropping were abolished 
breeders would abandon the breed and it would be lost 
through neglect. In fact, some breeders or breeder had 
sold their dogs in anticipation of the A. K, C. action 
against cropping. Here is a contradiction of terms. The 
breed was being abandoned. A breeder sold his dogs. 
Who bought them? So long as there are those ready to 
buy there is no lack of interest. Twelve men owning 
twelve dogs are more desirable than one man owning 
twelve dogs. There are still people who love dogs for 
their own sake and who may love them none the less if 
they are not mutilated. 
But supposing some breeders do retire, what then? If 
they cannot prevail upon themselves to observe the senti- 
ments of the dog world and the requirements of the law 
is it not better for themselves and for others that they 
should retire? Surely the whims of a few breeders or 
owners cannot be set up against the wishes of the kennel 
world and the law of the land. 
Of course the commercial interests are worthy of con- 
sideration, and have consideration so far as their value 
entitles them, but the business interest of a few and the 
personal fancy of a few are not all of the canine world. 
Dr. Phillips's Letter. 
Much was made of Dr. Phillips's letter to Mr. Higginson, 
and the fact that Dr. Phillips was a special agent for the 
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty was paraded with 
much unction. That letter was not written by Dr. Phil- 
lips in his capacity as an agent of the Society. It was an 
expression of his individual opinion, and in no wise was 
it the opinion of the Society. Moreover, the letter was a 
personal letter and never intended to be used in the man- 
ner in which it was usedi 
t 
