41
There appears to be little doubt that such inoculation gives a very con- siderable immunity to the dogs concerned. The professional members hesitated to commit themselves to a statement that the immunity is absolute, even under the best conditions, but if a dog is inoculated properly every 12 months (in Hong Kong in the early months of the year) the immunity conferred seems to be considerable. The U.S.A. Federal Government makes a contribution to districts where 60% of the dogs are so inoculated.
There appears to be no question that rabid animals, and animals which have been bitten by another rabid animal, should be destroyed at once or placed in quarantine. The Government Veterinary Surgeon, or some other responsible officer in Government service, should have absolute discretion in these cases, with power to delegate that discretion to other competent persons. Government should enforce this rule with the greatest strictness.
In my opinion dogs which have bitten human beings or other animals should be placed under professional supervision and, if necessary, quarantine. Again, the discretion of the responsible officer should be limited if at all only after the most careful consideration.
In my opinion "contacts" should be placed under such control or supervision as the Government may from time to time be advised.
I think that these views hold good for all times until rabies has been completely eliminated from the Colony.
The Colony having long land and water boundaries, a large floating popula- tion, in my opinion any attempt to eliminate rabies from the Colony in the near future is foredoomed to failure, and the attempt itself might defeat its own ends as tending to bring the law into contempt.
All dogs over 3 months of age in the Colony should be licensed, the cost of the licence is of course a matter for the Government, and is already one of the normal sources of revenue.
The Committee was told that there are approximately 16,000 dogs in the Colony, of which the owners of approximately two-thirds have not paid their taxes — loss to the revenue of, say, $100,000.
It seems immediately clear that one class of taxpayer is escaping taxation at the expense of another class, which is neither fair nor wise. It also seems that if Government adopted especially strict methods of enforcing the payment of this tax, the revenue might benefit. It also seems self-evident that, if anti-rabies inoculation is made a condition of licensing, there is no good reason why the number of dogs which escape the tax and inoculation should not be reduced to negligible proportions, provided the inoculation is either free or relatively small. In my opinion dogs owned by Government or which come into Government possession should be inoculated and licensed.
I see no reason why either charity or Government should not meet the cost where for any good reason the dog owner cannot pay or, for other reasons, should not be asked to pay.
Again, I cannot see how anyone could complain if any dog in respect of which taxes have not been duly paid should not be destroyed provided this is done humanely.
I am therefore able to agree with the other members of the Committee that it is desirable to make the anti-rabies inoculation of dogs a condition of the issue of a Licence, and that this inoculation should be provided by Government either free or a rate which will not encourage evasion.
I cannot accept the opinion that the Urban Council should be given any authority in this matter. I think the Government should retain the control in its own hands, so that it may give such orders to any Department, or official, as may from time to time be necessary.