Puppy seized from family in UK and destroyed

[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a reminder of a life tragically and arbitrarily cut short, like so many dogs’ lives are every year, under the unjust, outdated and cruel practice that is BSL.

[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?

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

[Jack Hydrazine]

Today it is dogs, tomorrow it will be us.

[stinkerpot65]

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.

[Dr. Sivana]

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.

[Altariel]

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

[katana]

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.

[Altariel]

“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.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

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.

[Dr. Sivana]

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?

[Altariel]

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?

[Dr. Sivana]

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.

[Altariel]

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.

[Age of Reason]

One less pit bull.

[Altariel]

“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.

[visualops]

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.

[Altariel]

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”.

[Altariel]

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. :) )

[ExCTCitizen]

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!!!

[Dr. Sivana]

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.

[Dr. Sivana]

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.