ERADICATION OF HYDATIDS

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22823, 23 September 1939, Page 10

ERADICATION OF HYDATIDS

REPLY TO CORRESPONDENTS THE ECONOMIC ASPECT Dr, E. W. Bennett, who has been contributing a series of articles to “The Press’’ on the subject of the eradication of hydatids in dogs, writes the following personal reply to criticism that has appeared in the correspondence columns of the paper: Recent ■ correspondence in your columns on the eradication of hydatid disease has. I think, made out an increasingly strong case for the introduction of legislation, whereby it would be defined as an offence to allow dogs to feed on offal. There has been a little misapprehension concerning my personal functions, and I have been charged with making admissions and excuses and the like, but at present I wish merely to make it clear that what follows is a personal comment which does not commit any of the departments or other bodies in any wdy._ Your correspondent .303 inquires whether the Government has been asked to pass such legislation. The answer is that the matter *has_ been kept in mind all along, and that it was given especially detailed consideration before the introduction of the arecoline scheme. One point about the latter was the advantage of placing literally in the hands of the public the means of combating the disease, but subsequent experience has shown that even this is not enough for certain dogowners, both in town and country. Some have failed to react, others have become rather needlessly alarmed at the way the dogs react, many for one reason or another have defaulted. Yet if legislation of this type, which does not impose bans but provides a service, is confronted with such difficulties, what are the prospects for restrictive legislation that aims to stop an established custom? The fact that it is established counts for more, on the part of some people, than the demonstration of the fact that to allow dogs to be scavengers and to go undosed sets a deplorably low standard of hygiene and cleanliness, such as we might expect to find in parts of Asia but not in New Zealand. Too many of us are Glugs who sleep with our toes to the west because our Glug forebears always did so. Education v. Legislation The view stated by Mr G. W. Graham, that education is more potent than legislation, has hitherto been taken largely as a guide, and I would add that in this sort of legislation, where so much must still be loft, as another correspondent puts it, to the whims and fancies of a minority, education is an indispensable accompaniment of legislation. That is, the legislation is of limited value unless the reasons for it are made abundantly clear through public instruction: there must be education, whether there is legislation or not. The comparison by .303 with smallpox requires qualification, for the legislation in that case was for the purpose of enforcing use of a service that had already been supplied, and the counterpart in the present case would be rather the compulsory dosing of dogs. Your correspondents mostly refrain from discussing areocline, which I suspect is rather a sore point with some in the cities. A better comparison would be with the legislation in England and elsewhere, whereby eradication of hydrophobia or rabies was achieved, though there was an advantage in that case in that it was obvious at sight whether dogs were muzzled or not. in accordance with the regulations, whereas it is no- more possible to tell by inspection whether a dog has had his _ arecoline than whether he has had livers. The Annual Loss But the situation has changed, and perhaps a new view might now be taken. The difficulties of providing the necessary man-power and financial (support have now increased suddenly, but on the other hand a better _ response to war-time necessities might be expected. Economy and conservation of our resources are now urgent, and one of our most important functions at present is to supply the Home country, with a maximum output of food products. It has often been computed on a very conservative basis that the condemnation of livers of sheep with hydatid disease cost us some £50,000 a year. If we do not want the five pr six million livers that go down the chute every year to the destructors we could make a present of them to the Home country, provided we cleaned up the dogs before the lambs that are liow appearing have begun to nibble. This one economic issue alone might be thought a sufficient basis for a new policy suitable to the needs of war conditions. It is no longer a matter <pf cleanliness and hygiene alone; it is no longer ,a matter merely of wilful perpetuation of human and animal disease. The economic saving will result, if at nil, from the action taken within the next few weeks. If anyone purposes to let his dogs feed on livers, let him pour a gallon of petrol down the drain for good measure, and shoot a few sheep without worrying too much whether there are children within rhnge also. Let him understand that one liver given to a dog costs a dozen or 20 livers when his lambs or sheep are slaughtered, not to mention other effects of the disease. . If he wants to be economical, let him destroy the livers and give the dogs, prime lamb. This is- not rhetoric or exaggeration, but a certainty. We find ourselves expected to supply foodstuffs for export. i and we are anxious to comply, and we have let half of the_ animals on i which we depend become infested witt a dog-spread disease that makes, say ’ the kea and deer problems look trivial in comparison. With or without legislation, it is a gross offence to al- : low dogs to scavenge, and perhaps i • will be thought an appropriate war t time measure to define it as such.