The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1901.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 3608, 6 July 1901, Page 2

The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1901.

A telegram which we published a day or two ago stated that the Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had passed a resolution that the Government be asked to introduce a Bill making the dehorning of cattle illegal, and providing penalties for breach of the statute, on the ground that the practice is cruel. We. are glad to observe that this action on the part of Wellington Society has not been allowed to pass unchallenged. Mr William Miles, who is inspector for the Canterbury Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has written to the Christchurch "Press" deprecating any such legislation. Mr Miles is careful to let is be known that he Tvrites on his own account and not on

behalf of the society in whose employ he is. He, however, gives his own opinion very clearly, and what he says is worth listening to. He is. right in his statement that the dehorning of cattle is becoming more general; and he feels sure that, although there are still two opinions on the subject, as there always have been, " the opinion in favour of the practice is rapidly gaining ground amongst persons who deal with or own cattle." That seems to follow as a matter of course if year by year the number of dehorned cattle is becoming larger. Mr. Miles frankly admits that the operation is a painful one, and he adds that in the case of aged cattle, when the horn has to be sawn instead of napped off by proper shears, the shock must be great, and the operation is to be justified only by the beneficial results which follow. We never yet heard any one acquainted with the subject assert that the results are not beneficial; the contention of those who are opposed to the practice is that the subsequent benefits are not of such magnitude as to justify the infliction of the pain caused by the operation. Mr Miles thus sums up the case in favour of dehorning. He thinks that general experience teaches these lessons :—"(l.j That dehorning, although painful at the time of operation, really minimises suffering by depriving animals of the power of inflicting injuries, and so reduces suffering as a whole. (2.) That the operation, should be performed before the age of, say, eighteen months; proper nippers to be used; suitable stopping to be applied to the wound, and no operations to be performed during the frosty weather of winter or the heat of summer. (3.) That the best and least painful manner of dehorning is by the application of caustic to the embryo horn of the calf before it shows through the skin." Mr Miles quotes from a writer in a Melbourne paper the following directions for the operation: —" Cut the hair with scissors round the bare spot where the horn will be, moisten the skin, rub with caustic, protecting the fingers; keep rubbing until skin is removed and a little white spot (embryo horn) appears; rub this a little, and the job is finished. The outer skin must be rubbed through, and the white spot touched, or partial or complete failure will result." . The method thus described is said to have been highly successful, and if that is so, the ground is completely cut from under the feet of those who have been opposed to dehorning; except, oi course, the exceedingly small minority who hold it to be wrong to inflict any pain on animals, no matter. how great may be the benefits resulting both to the animals themselves and to man. There is not much probability, we should say, of the Government yielding to the wishes of the Wellington Society for the Prevention oi Cruelty to Animals; but the society aw apt to be persistent in their efforts, and that being the case it would not be amiss if the advocates for dehorning were tc take steps to make the Government fullj acquainted with the other side of th< question.