The Manawatu Times. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1877.

Manawatu Times, Volume II, Issue 99, 29 September 1877, Page 2

The Manawatu Times. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1877.

A case important to sheep-farmers has recently been decided m the R. M. Court at Lyttelton./ A man named Buckriall,- having had 35 lambs : destroyed by trespassing dogs, determined to protect his flock from further ravages by destroying the destroyers. After duly advertising his intention, he poiaoned a couple of carcasses, and left tliem at si distance, as he afHrmedf, of not less than three chains from the 1 feface. A neighbour's dog was afterwards found dead near one of the carcasses which had by some means been moved close to the fence. The owner of the dog instituted proceedings, and Bucknall was fined £10, the value of the dog,, besides the cost of the suit. It seems very hard that this man should, m addition to having his sheep cruelly destroyed, be punished so severely for his effort to protect them from further molestation: yet we believe the action of the Court to be perfectly just, and that it will have a very salutary effect. It is perfectly clear that effective means should be taken to destroy all dogs who wari* tonly destroy sheep. ' Consideration's of humanity are on this point m perfect concord with those of profit and loss. But the case we have instanced shows what extreme care should be exercised m poisoning predatory dogs. Mr. Bucknall was fined, not for laying poison, but for laying it negligently. It availed not that he advertised m a public paper, sent messages round to his neighbours and placed the poison at the stipulated distance inside his fence. The case turned against him on the fact that the poisoned meat was found near the fence. It waa his duty — as. it is the duty of every person who places poison for dogs — not merely to put it at a proper distance froto his fence, but to secure it there ; to employ a stake and cord, or some means equally effective m confining the bait for the use of trespassing animals only. Any person who places baits loosely about his land, deserves to be punished, since he deliberately risks poisoning an unlimited number of non-marauding animajs. It may be. that the first trespasser will drag the meat close to the fence, so as' to be smelt from beyond it, and then of course there is no protection to the most innocent canine that trots after his master on the Queen's highway Considerable unpleasantness has arisen m this district from time to time between -neighbours, thrpugh the laying of poison for dogs. Without doubt this is, m some cases, due to th'e carelessness of the poison layers. Complaints have reached us of valuable dogs being destroyed- by baits which they have picked tip oil land altogether uninclosed, arid m, some instances putrid meat has been' drugged, evidently with the intention ! of attracting the animals by; its smell. These are cases that might [ well be dealt with by the Eesident I- Magistrate. At the same-time owners of sheep and cattle should not hesitate to protect themselves from loss, and their stock from being torn m ; pieces by ferocious dogs. The worrying and mangling of sheep is now a. matter of almost weekly occurrence, -m this district, and owners sometimes complain of a wholesale slaughter being made m » single night. A man is something worse than a simpleton if he allows ravages of this kind to go on m his flbt-k, and leaves any legitimate means untried for their protection; The 7 law approves of his poisoning the ravaging dogs » on the same principle that' it would approve of his poisoning a pack of ravaging wolves ; and if ne is alive ■ either to his self-interest or the tender quality of mercy he will do it. But let him learn from the case we have cited how to avoid either poisoning the wrong dogs or having to ; pay for poisoning the right ones.