42
I am unable to accept the view that the present laws mentioned in the re- port have on the whole any value as anti-rabic measures. Nor can I agree that the elimination of any class of dog (except rabid dogs and contacts) can be recommend- ed as an anti-rabic measure. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that the proposals made by the other members of the Committee would tend to defeat their object.
All animals (wild or otherwise) and human beings are liable to rabies, if ownership or freedom of movement is used as a test as to whether an animal should or should not be destroyed as an anti-rabic measure, cats, rats, mice and all other animals should equally be liable to destruction.
I should have hesitated to disagree with other members of the Committee on this matter had it not been for the opinions expressed in the Official Reports on the subject from the United States.
These reports emphasise the difference between general anti-rabic measures and the need for special methods to deal with dangerous outbreaks, they also emphasise the need for plans to prevent any outbreak becoming dangerous. Methods of control are also discussed, and from the terms used it appears clear that all such plans should be based on scientific and professional advice.
The same reports lay great stress on the need for the co-operation of the Public, and on the fact that the Public will not co-operate if irksome restrictions are retained for too long a period; and in particular emphasise the need for short sharp campaigns and that long and less intensive campaigns are ineffective.
In my opinion, Government should take the best scientific and professional advice available, and on that advice should prepare plans for dealing with any outbreak of rabies which may appear to be in danger of spreading.
The ruthless elimination of all stray and ownerless dogs was recommended to the Committee. "Ruthless" has more than one meaning it is true. But I think the fact that the suggestion was made justifies the expression of my opinion that ruthless- ness, cruelty and inhumanity are to-day much more dangerous than any other disease, and that ruthlessness, cruelty or lack of humanity in dealing with animals on the part of Government or officials in particular are always resented by a considerable section of the community, and no anti-rabic campaign can be successful unless it is conducted humanely.
Government not being prone to explain its actions, and not being protected by the laws of libel, is particularly liable to unfair and misleading attacks, particular care therefore should be taken by Government to ensure that the success of any anti- rabic campaign is not endangered by apparent indifference to the need of dealing with all animals in a humane manner.
Again, in my opinion, the enforcement of the muzzling lead order has never been of any real value in this Colony as an anti-rabic measure, and cannot be of any value for this purpose, except as part of a well-thought plan for the specific purpose of preventing the spread of any particular outbreak. Muzzles in any case do not prevent the dog from being bitten by a rabid dog, and the origin of the bite remain- ing unknown, give a false sense of security. In any case the muzzles in use in the Colony in the main are either cruel or ineffective. The real objection to the retention of muzzles and leads is that to a great extent the order is never strictly enforced, with the result that the law is brought into contempt. Leads and strict quarantine may be necessary in the case of emergency, when they could be strictly enforced.
In order to prevent possible misconceptions, it may be proper to add that the Committee have only been asked to make recommendations in respect of the control of rabies; the control of dogs and other animals for other purposes is an entirely different matter, the problems are entirely different in urban and rural areas, and are essentially matters on which the views of the local residents are of the greatest im- portance, providing the over-riding consideration of humanity are not lost sight of.
In my view, where I differ from the other members of the Committee— ·
Page 210Page 211