INSPECTION OF STALLIONS.

Otago Witness, 1 June 1910, Page 26

INSPECTION OF STALLIONS.

GOVERNMENT VETERINARIAN'S

SCHEME. {Fhom Oub Special Cobeespondent.) WELLINGTON, May 30.

In outlining his scheme of stallion inspection at the Wellington Farmers' Union Conference, Mr Reakes, Chief Veterinarian, said he fully realised that something should be done to prevent unsound stallions travelling around the country. All thinking men would agree that they could arrive at the end desired without pressing unduly hard on horse-owners. If they would get rid ot unsound stallions they must have some practical and effective way of doing it. It had been suggested that a voluntary system should be introduced. This had been tried in Victoria, and was now being tried in New South Wales. The officer in charge of the work in Victoria had stated that it would not be possible to arrive-at the amount of improvement effected by the scheme until power had been given by legislation to prevent or limit the use of rejected or unsound stallions. The voluntary systems of Australia had oeen good enough up to a certain point. Men owning unsound stallions could -not in many cases sell them, but the system did not prevent these stallions going about the country. In a letter from a New South Wales friend he was informed that one well-known horse—an exceptionally good horse, which had been rejected fo£ hereditary unsoundness—had just done the best season he had ever done. What was the use of such a scheme? With regard to the question of examining mares, that was all right in its way, but the mare was of much less importance than the stallion, seeing that she was only responsible for the birth of one, or, at the most, two foals in each year, whereas a stallion was responsible for many. His belief was that a voluntary svstem was useless. A scheme authorising the issue of a license, this being dependent upon freedom from hereditary unsoundness, should be made "compulsory by" legislation, but the scheme should be so framed that when comina into force it should not be made comoulsory in the case of stallions over three years old at the time. Such stallions could, of course, come up for examination if the owners liked. To bring in a bill which would cause a serious loss to some owners would be perhaps unfair, but with the exemption at the beginning of all horses over three years old the scheme would not press unduly hard upon owners, yet in a few years would have the effect of bringing all 6ires (except those used for breeding racing stock solely) under compulsory examination, seeing that in the second year three and four-year-olds, in the third year three, four, and five-year-olds would have to be examined, and so on. The examination for soundness should be carried out by two veterinarians working in consort with one or two good judges of horses, so that the horses could be also examined from the viewpoint of general fitness. They did not want scrubbers going around. The scheme he outlined would be feasible and reasonable. It would be possible to establish a scheme of insurance against condemnation.

Mr ( Realces explained in answer to a questioner that a stallion used solely for breeding racing stock would not be required to ( come up for examination, but if a racing stallion was travelled ho should bfl insuectedr