KILLING A DOG

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 December 1937, Page 2

KILLING A DOG

ALLEGATIONS >OF CRUELTY According to popular ideas, “a dog’s life” is not all that might be desired, but a dog’s death, which occurred at Greymouth, this week, has prompted a correspondent, writing under the nom-de-plume of “Dog Lover,” to send a letter to the “Star,” from which the following are extracts: — “The whole town is shocked, and rightly so, over the incident of the destruction of a stray dog. Not that the putting away, of an unwanted and unclaimed dog is not necessary sometimes, but the manner of this poor animal’s destruction is, according to accounts, enough to shock and disgust any person with ordinary humane feelings. The dog—a large and strong collie —was battered with a pick handle, or some such weapon, and its piteous yells and howls while the work was being done, horrified and sickened listeners in the vicinity. The destroyer, it is said, is an employee of the Borough Council. May I ask it he was authorised to destroy the animal, and was he allowed to choose his own method of killing? Is there not a representative of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to whom this matter can be referred ?”- OFFICIAL EXPLANATION The matter was referred by a “Star” representative to the Inspector of Nuisances (Mr. H. Lane), who stated that the dog concerned was creating a lot of danger to traffic in the streets. A Borough (Council employee made a complaint to Mr. Lane, and was instructed by him to' get a rope on the dog. The employee misunderstood the instruction, and evidently took it as being permission to destroy the dog. He took it to the Council yard, and struck it with an iron bar. The blow was not hard enough, and several other blows were required to kill the animal. It was quite a misunderstanding that the dog was destroyed in such a manner, said Mr. Lane. When it was necessary to destroy dogs at Greymouth, poison was used, but even that method was not wholly satisfactory, and suffering might be caused. It was difficult to judge the correct amount of poison that should be administered, as the quantity required depended to a great extent upon- the condition of the particular dog. ’ The most satisfactory method was the use of a humane pistol, and it is understood that a proposal will be made, at the next meeting of the Borough Council, for the purchase of such a pistol, for use in disposing of unwanted dogs.' When the prevalence of stray dogs at Greymouth, was pointed out to Mr. Lane, he said that the problem of coping with the nuisance was difficult. Legally, a dog not registered is classed as ownerless, and the Act provides that such dogs should be impounded, hut there are no facilities in the Borough for impounding dogs.