Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Puppy seized from family in UK and destroyed

Posted on 10/27/2012 9:12:31 AM PDT by Altariel

Today marks the birthday of a puppy named "Fudge."

The guest of honor would be two years of age today, but her life was ended before she even reached her first birthday.

Back on March 22, 2011, Fudge, who was just five months of age, was seized from her family in Liverpool because she was considered to a "dangerous dog" based upon nothing more than her looks.

Within one hour of being seized from her family, the beautiful puppy with the silky, soft fur and the captivating eyes, was dead.

Even though the young puppy had never hurt anyone or anything, her life was cruelly cut short thanks to breed specific legislation - the same type of legislation which ended Lennox's life this past July in Northern Ireland.

Today, Fudge's still grieving family is launching The Fudge Foundation in honor of their beloved companion who was taken too soon.

The primary goal of this foundation is to spread awareness about the unfairness and pointlessness of BSL, and about the rights of those affected by BSL.

Nothing can ever bring back the happy-go-lucky puppy who loved everything and everyone, but her family can work to save the lives of others who may be destroyed by the same legislation which ended her beautiful life.

Fudge's family wants to honor their puppy's memory and fight for others like her.

Today, in honor of Fudge's second birthday, please consider "turning Facebook pink," with the "turning pink for Fudge" photo which is included in the slideshow accompanying this article.

Visit Fudge's Facebook page here.

A final thought from Fudge's loving guardian, Carole, who said:

Fudge’s toys remain scattered around the house, a memory, a reminder of a life tragically and arbitrarily cut short, like so many dogs’ lives are every year, under the unjust, outdated and cruel practice that is BSL.



TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Pets/Animals
KEYWORDS: dog; doggieping; puppy; puppycide; uk; warondogs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

1 posted on 10/27/2012 9:12:37 AM PDT by Altariel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Way do people there expect? The UK died to freedom an delivery a while back..it will only get worse...you are NOT free there and you have no rights nor anything nearing the ideal of private property.


2 posted on 10/27/2012 9:14:50 AM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Way do people there expect? The UK died to freedom an delivery a while back..it will only get worse...you are NOT free there and you have no rights nor anything nearing the ideal of private property.


3 posted on 10/27/2012 9:15:07 AM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; Titan Magroyne; Badeye; SandRat; arbooz; potlatch; afraidfortherepublic; ...
WOOOF!

Computer Hope

The Doggie Ping list is for FReepers who would like to be notified of threads relating to all things canid. If you would like to join the Doggie Ping Pack (or be unleashed from it), FReemail me.

4 posted on 10/27/2012 9:15:07 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Breed Specific Legislation:

It’s not about government employees protecting us from dangerous dogs.

It’s about government employees finding new ways to commit puppycide.


5 posted on 10/27/2012 9:15:19 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel; Sidebar Moderator

Link is something needed here


6 posted on 10/27/2012 9:16:47 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

Breed Specific Legislation laws are here as well.

Let’s just call them what they are: Government-Employee-Authorized-Puppycide laws.


7 posted on 10/27/2012 9:17:51 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

What was the breed of this dog? There are some breed of dogs I wouldn’t want as my neighbors. While a dog Is a dog not all dogs are equal in behavior and friendliness..


8 posted on 10/27/2012 9:18:28 AM PDT by Ramonne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Exactly who seized this dog?


9 posted on 10/27/2012 9:18:36 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle; Sidebar Moderator

http://www.examiner.com/article/puppy-seized-from-family-uk-and-destroyed

Whoops. Apologies.


10 posted on 10/27/2012 9:20:39 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
UK friends....

You need to decide now...
...Where are the "RED LINES" of cancelling your freedoms???
....What WON'T you tolerate in the name of political correctness??

When will you SPEAK UP...?

Where will you TAKE A STAND...?
...What will you FIGHT for -- if it becomes necessary??

When will you DECIDE TO REMAIN FREE???... or not...??

11 posted on 10/27/2012 9:20:50 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramonne

What does that matter? Why should a government employee be permitted to seize and put down a *puppy* that is no threat to anyone?

By the way, are you equally as willing to allow your neighbors to decide if your preferred breed(s) are dogs “they would want as [their] neighbors?”


12 posted on 10/27/2012 9:24:10 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

“Unqualified police officers”

*****
http://dangerousdogsact.blogspot.com/2011/04/fighting-for-fudge-outrage-as-puppy-is.html

Fighting for Fudge – outrage as puppy is killed.

The owner of a puppy in Liverpool has been left heartbroken after Merseyside police destroyed her 5-month-old crossbreed pet. Carole Eden, 61, claims that unqualified police officers attended her home at 9.45 pm on 22nd March and informed her that her puppy “Fudge” was a banned pit bull type.

Ms Eden says

“Fudge was asleep when they arrived but woke up wagging her tail and looking for a fuss. The police officers told me she was a pit bull and they were going to seize her. I was told to sign some forms but didn’t have my glasses so went to get them. One of the officers placed a hand on my arm to stop me and informed me the forms were simply to say I wasn’t coerced.

I believed them. You are meant to trust the authorities. I believed Fudge was being seized yet half an hour after Fudge was taken I received a phone call telling me she was dead. The forms I had signed had been to agree to have Fudge destroyed. She was just 5 months old !

This has left a whole family devastated. Fudge was part of the family and my grandkids came daily to see her. The little ones played with her and the bigger ones walked her - all under supervision, as you should do with any dog. I can honestly say I haven’t seen my family as upset as this since their dad died.”

The following day Ms Eden approached Endangered Dogs Defence and Rescue who in turn contacted DDA Watch and solicitor Tina Hay from Wheldon Law. Ms Eden was advised that as Fudge was not yet fully grown and under 9 months of age, it would be impossible to accurately determine if Fudge was a banned type or not.

An independent Breed Expert was appointed to carry out an assessment on Fudge who concluded that at present, Fudge did not have the substantial number of characteristics needed to be a pit bull type. It may be that Fudge would have grown into an illegal dog however she also had many characteristics of legal breeds and we will never know what Fudge would have become.

Ms Eden has lodged a formal complaint. While it is too late for Fudge Ms Eden is fighting for a change in law and procedure to ensure this never happens again.

A petition has been set up to repeal the breed aspects of the Dangerous Dogs Act and to push for a “48 hour cooling off period” when a sign over disclaimer has been signed until the current law is changed. This will give owners the chance to seek independent advice and to change their minds if they wish to fight for their dogs.

Alison Green from DDA Watch backs Ms Eden’s campaign to change the legislation.

“Sadly this is not the first time we have been approached by owners who did not know what they were signing. Many do not fully understand what they are signing or that they can legally keep their dogs even if the dog is deemed to be a banned type. There needs to be more transparency about the options available to owners and allow those owners the time to ensure they are making the right decision.
Had a 48 hours cooling off period been in place already, Fudge would still be alive. “

To view and sign the petition please see here: http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/justiceforfudge

End B.S.L.


13 posted on 10/27/2012 9:28:39 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

It’s England. What do you expect?


14 posted on 10/27/2012 9:29:45 AM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church shows up at your funeral)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
I notice the authors of the article don't bother to mention the breed of dog. I'm sorry but I don't like the anthropomorphizing of animals, not even dogs.

As far as rights, restrictions on animals have been around for a long time. The only question is what constitutes an unsuitable pet. I understand that they would also seize the innocent little furry kitten below:


15 posted on 10/27/2012 9:30:20 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

You are comparing a wild animal to a domesticated one.

Breed specific legislation has nothing to do with restrictions on ownership of wild animals.


16 posted on 10/27/2012 9:32:50 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ramonne

Thank you...not one mention of the dogs breed. Just a warm, lovable puppy. Some breeds grow up to be anything but.


17 posted on 10/27/2012 9:34:14 AM PDT by Conservative4Ever (The Obamas = rude, crude and socially unacceptable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Old Chet would be pleased


18 posted on 10/27/2012 9:35:10 AM PDT by wardaddy (my wife prays in the tanning bed....guess what region i live in...ya'll?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Sorry, that argument doesn’t fly very far.

In both cases the government passed laws saying that certain animals are too dangerous for people to be allowed to keep.

You can make a case, possibly a very good one, that designating certain breeds of dogs as being inherently too dangerous is not the place to draw the line between dangerous and non-dangerous animals. You can also make an argument, though not as good a one, that the government shouldn’t be making such laws at all.

But the principle, dangerous animals not allowed, is exactly the same.


19 posted on 10/27/2012 9:40:26 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
You are comparing a wild animal to a domesticated one.

Breed specific legislation has nothing to do with restrictions on ownership of wild animals.


The line between pure domestic and pure wild is a fuzzy one. Some breeds take better to domesticity to others. Some dogs are cross-bred with wolves, or cats with servals (wild cats), etc. There are hundreds of wonderful dog breeds. Why do people insist on having a specific breed when there are so many needy dogs who don't have such a miserable track record?
20 posted on 10/27/2012 9:43:35 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Conservative4Ever

Will you accept the same argument when your breed of choice is named under BSL thanks to the activism of PETA and other groups?

Such a progressive stance: approve of government seizure of a *puppy* which has never committed a crime.


21 posted on 10/27/2012 9:45:03 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Today it is dogs, tomorrow it will be us.


22 posted on 10/27/2012 9:47:00 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

If this was a pitbull, I have no sympathy. The only difference between drunk driving and owning a pitbull is that one is a crime and the other ought to be.


23 posted on 10/27/2012 9:47:23 AM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
Will you accept the same argument when your breed of choice is named under BSL thanks to the activism of PETA and other groups?

Straw man argument. Besides, the PETA folks are more likely to give the dog the house and the keys to the pantry and euthanize the humans.
24 posted on 10/27/2012 9:48:01 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

There is a legal distinction between a domesticated and a wild animal. You are ignoring it because it undermines your fallacious argument.


25 posted on 10/27/2012 9:49:10 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

While we are “cousins” with the British and share much in common besides (for the most part) a language, the mentality of the two peoples are quite different and in many ways opposite. We are citizens, they are subjects. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to awake and revolt.


26 posted on 10/27/2012 9:50:08 AM PDT by katana (Just my opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

“Why do people insist on having a specific breed when there are so many needy dogs who don’t have such a miserable track record? “

Such a progressive train of thought undergirding this sentiment. How dare other people select a dog breed based on their personal temperaments, needs and preferences. They should pick one of the breeds *I* find acceptable.


27 posted on 10/27/2012 9:51:45 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ramonne
It was a mutt.

Apparently if your dog has "certain physical characteristics" it is killed even if it is not of any banned breed.

Just like a pistol grip makes a legal rifle into an "assault weapon".

Why not remove dogs that bite without provocation and leave the rest alone?

I guess that would require thinking. Something that is not encouraged by governments.

28 posted on 10/27/2012 9:54:54 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Fate plays chess and you don't find out until too late that he's been using two queens all along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
There is a legal distinction between a domesticated and a wild animal.

Once you concede that the law can distinguish between legal and illegal animals, you also concede that the law can determine which supposedly domestic animals are too dangerous to breed. The problem isn't just wild vs. domestic. The REASON to control (not necessarily outlaw) ownership of wild animals is because they are DANGEROUS. The same motivation can be used in BSL.

This law has been in place now for 20 years. The breeder should be charged. How dare that breeder breed a dangerous, illegal breed, KNOWING that he is putting the puppies' lives in danger?
29 posted on 10/27/2012 9:54:54 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Clearly you are ignorant of PETA’s dog-killing proclivity.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/documents-peta-kills-more-than-95-percent-of-pets-in-its-care/

“More than 95%”.

PETA likes to kill puppies too. But, of course, they’re not your puppies, so it doesn’t matter, does it?


30 posted on 10/27/2012 9:57:02 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
They should pick one of the breeds *I* find acceptable.

No, they should not pick one of the hundreds of breeds that are legal. You cannot pretend that the distinction between a pitbull and a papillion is arbitrary. There is no need that a pit bull satisfies that cannot be satisfied as well or better by many other types of dogs.
31 posted on 10/27/2012 9:58:54 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

There is no such animal as an “illegal animal”.

The law differentiates between *wild* animals and *domesticated* animals.

When you are ready to compare apples to apples—domesticated animals to domesticated animals, let me know.

But at present, it seems the best attempt you can make is to make a fallacious argument.


32 posted on 10/27/2012 9:59:24 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

One less pit bull.


33 posted on 10/27/2012 10:01:17 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

“Pitbull” is not a breed. American Staffordshire Terrier is a breed. American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed.

Papillion is a *breed*, a breed that is a “spaniel type” dog.

“Pitbull” is a type, just as “spitz” or “spaniel” is a type.

The moment you make the argument that a type (or breed) should not be allowed, you have opened the door for someone who does not like *your* breed or type to demand to make that type or breed illegal.


34 posted on 10/27/2012 10:05:51 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
Interestingly, many people really don't know much, if anything, about actual pitbulls (American Staffordshire Terriers). They make assumptions based vaguely on how a dog looks. I personally am not a fan of pitbulls, but I think it makes more sense to encourage good breeding, good care, and spay/neuter than to put down what may well have been a perfectly good dog.


35 posted on 10/27/2012 10:06:35 AM PDT by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

Exactly. The same “rationale” some people here are using to ban Dogs they Don’t Like is the same “rationale” these same people would mock progressive for using concerning “scary” “assault weapons”.


36 posted on 10/27/2012 10:07:43 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: visualops; Salamander

Aha! Bandit has *doberman* blood.

Everyone knows those are/were the Drug Dealer/Gang Banger dog of choice—dangerous and untrustworthy.

(I think I’m in trouble. :) )


37 posted on 10/27/2012 10:11:29 AM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
Back on March 22, 2011, Fudge, who was just five months of age, was seized from her family in Liverpool because she was considered to a "dangerous dog" based upon nothing more than her looks.

Could we judge LIBERAL WOMEN on their looks?? Think about it....would you rather see Laura Ingram or Helen Thomas in a BIKINI? Conservative women are much better looking!!!

38 posted on 10/27/2012 10:15:45 AM PDT by ExCTCitizen (Yes, Obama, I had help with my business. MY CUSTOMERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
The moment you make the argument that a type (or breed) should not be allowed, you have opened the door for someone who does not like *your* breed or type to demand to make that type or breed illegal.

I dont pretend to be up on breeds. My own dog is referred to as a rat terrier/chihuahua mix, and "rat terrier" is not accepted as a breed by the AKC, even though the type is distinguishable.

I do agree that any law that prohibits the breeding of certain breeds or types should have a rational, objective standard for meeting those criteria, and that markings aren't enough. The last I heard coming up with such a method is not always easy. The original article opposed to concept of breed specific legislation, which is much different than opposing the specifics as to how it is determined that a specific dog meets those criteria.

The moment you make the argument that a type (or breed) should not be allowed, you have opened the door for someone who does not like *your* breed or type to demand to make that type or breed illegal.

No, no more than making it illegal to have dogs with wolf in them. I don't like rottweilers. A friend of mine who owned one pretty much demanded tribute (usually ham) to let me pass from one room to another even though I was well-known to the household and wasn't particularly fearful. Eventually "Emily" took a nip at a little girl at a birthday party and the family had to dump the dog or lose their insurance.

I also recognize that properly trained rotts have a less awful track record, and serve certain functions very well. I don't like them, but would not want to ban them. I do take issue with the idea that making a distinction between the pit bull type and, say a Labrador or German Shepherd, is completely arbitrary.

You could, I imagine, make the argument, that if you could make all of the pitbulls go away, that the bad owners would just take rottweilers, dobermans and shepherds, and turn them into monsters and breed them for meanness. Maybe this is what happened with pitbulls, as I do not recall them being such a problem in the '60s.

I am not so attached to any particular breed of dog that I would have a problem with restricting ruined breeds or types. Punishment of bad owners beforte things got that far would be ideal.
39 posted on 10/27/2012 10:36:37 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
There is no such animal as an “illegal animal”.

The law differentiates between *wild* animals and *domesticated* animals.


That's like saying there is no such thing as an illegal alien.

When I say "illegal animal", it is a shorthand for an animal that is has restrictions on ownership, such as breeding, selling, owning, gifting, etc. There is nothing inherit in a non-wild animal breed/type deemed to be dangerous that wouldn't make it subject to restrictions. Even completely domestic dogs cannot roam free, yet domestic cats in most jurisdictions can. Raccoons are wild, but are often allowed to be kept as pets. The wild/domestic distinction is one. Dangerous/non-dangerous is another. I see no principle that would elevate the rights to keep or breed an American Pit Bull Terrier over a contained raccoon.
40 posted on 10/27/2012 10:42:51 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
Clearly you are ignorant of PETA’s dog-killing proclivity.

No, I am not. When dogs are brought to them, they kill them, because they don't particularly like any animals in captivity. In my example, I had PETA giving the dogs run of things with no humans involved. PETA would be okay with that, especially if the dog could ultimately turn feral.
41 posted on 10/27/2012 10:45:20 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

“I don’t like the anthropomorphizing of animals”

Who’s doing that? Okay, so it’s a stretch to say the dog was a member of the family. But since when can we only be upset when humans die?

“As far as rights, restrictions on animals have been around for a long time”

So? There have been restrictions on guns for a long time, too Eries that mean fake cops can storm into your house and seize then, lie to you about giving them back later, then melt them down behind your back?

This to me us a property rights issue.


42 posted on 10/27/2012 10:48:00 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
“I don’t like the anthropomorphizing of animals”

Who’s doing that? Okay, so it’s a stretch to say the dog was a member of the family. But since when can we only be upset when humans die?


From he linked article:

Fudge's family wants to honor their puppy's memory and fight for others like her.

Fudge’s toys remain scattered around the house, a memory, a reminder of a life tragically and arbitrarily cut short,

save the lives of others who may be destroyed by the same legislation which ended her beautiful life.

We don't use this type of phrasing for a seized gun or even a cut down tree or a crushed car.

Now, dogs are definitely higher on the scale than these things, but they still aren't people. There are all sorts of legitimate restrictions on property ownership (I can store my small pox samples in a densely populated city). As far as I can tell, these laws are based on real injuries and deaths suffered at the paws of these types of dogs over a long period of time., not primarily out of the nanny-statism that we so often rightly associate with the UK.

Breeding of a handful of dog types has been illegal for over 20 years. So the original purchase or transfer was the real problem, as the dog was only five months old. NOW, if the owners want to say that their property (the dog) doesn't meet the specifications of the law, and that therefore their property was illegally seized, I might join them on that. They are not. They are arguing against the legitimacy of the law itself.
43 posted on 10/27/2012 10:59:36 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
Breeding of a handful of dog types has been illegal for over 20 years. So the original purchase or transfer was the real problem, as the dog was only five months old.

Why do I get the feeling that the people who bought this dog did so just to have a little puppy face to go with their Facebook money-raising anti-BSL enterprise.

Fudge is probably doing just fine in some other city and if not then shame on these dogowners for bringing him to a place where he would be at risk.

44 posted on 10/27/2012 11:34:30 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
You must not be a fan of the "Carl" books...

My son had a Rottie mix: 3/4 Rott and 1/4 Irish Setter, although Lance looked just like a pure bred Rott, except his head was not quite so blocky. Lance was a wonderful dog, although my DIL is a great animal trainer. He died way too young from cancer.

45 posted on 10/27/2012 12:18:57 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
"It’s England. What do you expect?"

They do the same thing in the US where breed specific legislation has been passed. This is what they do in Denver if some bureucrat decides your dog looks too much like a pitbull:

Article

46 posted on 10/27/2012 12:30:08 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
"Besides, the PETA folks are more likely to give the dog the house and the keys to the pantry and euthanize the humans."

Dr. S., you've been on this board for some time, and I've always found your commentary to be well informed and insightful, but in this case, you know not of what you speak. PETA and a number of their affiliates have been huge advocates of breed specific legislation. They view it as an incremental step to ultimately banning human ownership of animals altogether. Of course they choose pitbulls because it's an inflammatory subject and people can be easily swayed on an emotional basis.

But once the pitbulls have been banned, there will no doubt, be a new *most dangerous* breed, be it Rotts, Shepherds, Dobies, Chows, etc.

Give them an inch, they will eventually take a mile.

47 posted on 10/27/2012 12:36:29 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
PETA and a number of their affiliates have been huge advocates of breed specific legislation. They view it as an incremental step to ultimately banning human ownership of animals altogether.

I am aware of their desire to get rid of pet ownership altogether. This is from my post #41:

When dogs are brought to them, they kill them, because they don't particularly like any animals in captivity. In my example, I had PETA giving the dogs run of things with no humans involved. PETA would be okay with that, especially if the dog could ultimately turn feral.

I was not aware that they specifically endorse BSL legislation as low-hanging fruit. That in and of itself doesn't make that bad legislation, as there have always been restrictions on animal ownership in populated areas. The PETA folks are certainly disgusted with the ideas of "breeds" in general. In another above post I did note the possibility that new bad breeds may be targeted as bad owners will latch onto something.

Dogs are in a funny position. The owners are almost always mainly to blame when there is a problem, but unlike guns and SUVs, they are quite capable of acting on their own volition.

But don't think I don't see potential dangers, and not just from the bad behaved dog side. What if, say domestic cats, who are more and more the focus of legislation from the PETA types because they are outside the feral world but still kill birds because it's what they do, are treated like cigarettes or peanuts because some people are VERY allergic? I could picture cats being banned from apartment buildings, severe restrictions on them getting outside where they could spread germs, toxiplasmosis and dander to people's front porches and gardens, not to mention the aforementioned bird slaughter. Maybe mandatory spaying of long-hairs ... etc.

When I ran for state rep in CT, the Dem in the district adjacent to mine, Mary Mushinsky, wanted to make it a crime to feed a stray cat. Oh how i wish I had lived in her district. I could have had a LOT of fun with that proposition. That was over 15 years ago, and things are worse now.

The BSL language in England has been in place over 20 years, and similar legislation has been in place stateside in various jurisdictions, and in Ontario for a shorter period (where it is routinely ignored).

Once we allow the state to put restrictions on animal ownership (e.g. breeding, where you can bring them, selling , etc.) based on them being dangerous or a health hazard, I don't believe you can say that the state (in the U.K., the whole country; stateside, individual states) does not have the authority to enact specific legislation that could extend to certain types of dogs.
48 posted on 10/27/2012 1:39:08 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
The comparison/contrast between *certain* dogs, SUVs, weapons etc. is a curious one. Certainly, no firearm or SUV can act of it's own accord, but after that distinction is made, the argument falters as it still becomes one of responsible ownership. An 'evil assault weapon', when handled improperly or used irresponsibly, has far more potential to do far greater damage than a brown bess musket, but conservatives point out the absurdity of punishing responsible owners. Similarly, an Hummer H2 is almost certainly going to create more damages than a smart car when driven irresponsibly, or even if it mechanically fails and 'goes out of control.' Again, persons with conservative mindsets should be for punishing the irresponsible owners, not those who exercise all due responsibility in owning something that is potentially more destructive.

There are many, many pitbull owners out there who control their animals, have never hurt anybody, and yet whom many here would happily punish because of the irresponsible acts of a small (but media promoted) minority.

49 posted on 10/27/2012 2:08:13 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Animals definitely fall in a funny area. For instance, if someone wanted to shoot his SUV full of holes for sport, or take a hacksaw to it and cut it in half, as the Rams MLB Jack Reynolds did after a bad day, that would be in his rights.

But to do either to a dog or a cat would be a real crime.

Regarding evil assault weapons, it would take a real 2nd Amendment absolutist to maintain a Constitutional right to have a Howitzer, Stinger or a Bazooka with live ammo. There are a LOT more restrictions on what you can drive on the road compared to what kind of dog you can have. When I was a kid, people letting their dogs run more or less loose in the suburbs was common. I know because I was charged with refilling the knocked over garbage cans. Now it is rare even in the rural area where we now live.

In terms of the U.S. Constitution, arms are explicitly protected, canines are not. So I would put that under the 10th Amendment.

I don’t believe that severely regulating ownership of a dog whose behavior goes out of bounds so much more frequently than other types is no more out of bounds than regulating ownership of a wolf/dog mix.

In the stories posted here that include pit bull maimings and killings, only about half seemed based on a bad owner, unless you consider simply leaving someone unattended with a pitbull bad behavior. Since joining FreeRepublic I have seen dozens of pit bull maimings and killings, one story of a pit bull saving a life, and one of a pitbull subduing the bad guy. Since I accept the principal that there are limits as to what kind of animals you can own, I consider the idea of regulating pit bulls not against the U.S. Constitutional or any basic human freedom. I would also accept the idea of not allowing the manufacture of guns that have a high failure rate (explode on the owner) causing deaths of people other than the one the person it is pointed at. Could such regulations be abused? Of course. But that could be said of anything.

Perhaps the main downside I could think of would be the law of unintended consequences. Just as the stupid outlawing of dropside cribs, will likely lead to more short mothers falling on their babies as they struggle to lift an infant into a fixed side crib, outlawing pit bull type dogs may ultimately lead to the “bad” dogs being mixed in with other breeds by the Michael Vicks of the world.

I don’t think the law is cure all, nor do I see it as a slippery slope.


50 posted on 10/27/2012 3:20:48 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson