THE S.P.C.A. AND SHEEPDOGS.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20736, 22 December 1932, Page 9

THE S.P.C.A. AND SHEEPDOGS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PSESS. Sir, —I noticed in the report of the meeting of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals published in your paper that it has relegated the responsibility for the welfare of sheepdogs to the Sheepowners' Union. What a joke! The sheepowners are the chief culprits where ill-treatment of dogs is concerned. A shepherd may l° ve " 1S dogs, but he does not own the sheep his dogs should eat nor the means or shelter for them, so if the owner withholds these, what can the shepherd do. "Is the sheepowner likely to lift a stick to break his own. back by condemning himself for his cruelty? 1 can tell Mr Nicholson that cruelty to sheepdogs is not a rare but a very common occurrence. 1 have spoken to different farmers about how sheepdogs should be fed and they all agree that one meal a day would never make a sheepdog too fat because of his strenuous work. It is the Society tor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that should take the matter in hand, not the Sheepowners' Union. T nm sorrv the names of the members of the S.P-C.A. who voted in favour of that ridiculous arrangement were not published. I trust others besides the Sheepowners Union will keep a watchful eye on proceedings. As the public usually expect a good return for money spent I cannot understand their apathy towards the work of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That Society lias fl3 000 at its back, and a goodly income annually from subscribers. Having all that •wealth, it ought to be in a position to pay two inspectors and do infinitely more work. I trust the subscribing public will wake up and demand a better return for their money.—Yours, etc., defender of the faithful. December 16th. 1932.