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a reminder of a life tragically and arbitrarily cut short, like so many dogs’ lives are every year, under the unjust, outdated and cruel practice that is BSL.

[Dr. Sivana]

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.

[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?

“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.

[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?

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.

[Uncle Chip]

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.

[afraidfortherepublic]

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.

[Joe 6-pack]

"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

[Joe 6-pack]

"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.

[Dr. Sivana]

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.

[Joe 6-pack]

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.

[Dr. Sivana]

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.

[SquarePants]

As the “father” of a pit bull myself, this kind of stuff makes me furious. If someone ever wants to take Pugsley away from his family, they’d better come armed.

Pit Bulls are uniquely awesome dogs, and it’s heartbreaking that there are people, even here in this very website, who, every time they hear about a pit bull, say the breed should be made illegal.

[SquarePants]

“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.”

See what I mean? This is exactly the sort of nanny-state deranged BS I’m talking about. Go play God with your own damn dogs and leave other people’s alone.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

You are meant to trust the authorities

---

Hell no.

[Wings-n-Wind]

Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to awake and revolt.

*************

Excellent advice & thanks... of course!
As I watch our UK "cousins" lately....

It seems on occasion there is almost enough of an undercurrent of frustration and yearning for all they have lost --
--even as subjects--
To start a groundswell movement to demand the fullness of their own set of "inalienable rights"--

Within the context of multi-culturalism (aka the muzzie invasion)...
... And the overwhelming rule of "political correctness"

Perhaps an outright "revolt" wouldn't be necessary...

It's painful to watch them circling the drain...
Oh well... call me an idealist...

Enjoy your weekend...

[visualops]

The listed breeds on the bottom are the likely makeup of the “mixed” portion, I think that is at the grandparent level. Some dogs are just too mixed to tell what they are. I have 2 dogs, one big guy we assume is GSD/Rottweiler, and then a mid sized dog that I would love to know what she is. She was billed as a “chow mix” but who knows if that’s right.

[Altariel]

How about the principle that dog owners have the liberty of choosing whatever dog breed they fancy (coupled with the responsiiblity of choosing wisely and caring for their animal’s needs).

Breed Specific Legislation is the “gun control legislation” of the dog world.

I don’t want the government telling me watch dogs I cannot own any more than I want the government telling me which guns I cannot own. Both directives are (surprise surprise) unconstitutional.

That is one reason why I am a conservative.

[Altariel]

BSL does not punish the “bad owners” any more than gun control punishes or restrains criminals.

Both are constraints on the liberty of the law abiding and the responsible.

BSL lists have a tendency to *expand*, and they provide a foot in the door for progressives, PETA, (and just wait until the Muslims get in on BSL—it’s their dream come true—a way to incrementally ban all dogs).

BSL by its very nature does not and cannot provide a “rational objective standard”. If you name physicxal features, you, of necessity, will target many breeds which share those features.

Rid America of BSL just as we work to rid it of gun control.

It is yet another encroachment on our liberty, and must not be allowed to stand.

[Altariel]

That is why BSL is so dangerous. Trust the authorities to identify whether your dog is “dangerous”. Trust the authorities to take care of your dog.

Sign here, good citizen. No, you don’t need to read it, just sign.

This particular lady is waking up; hopefully now she will know better than to blindly trust the authorities.

[Altariel]

Part chihuahua?

A breed stereotyped for being snappy, aggressive, high-strung, and not good with children?

Well, we can’t have that little ankle biter assaulting our dear government employees.

Let’s amend the legislation; I never liked chihuahuas anyway. I’ve known too many people who won’t control those things....besides, that PETA rep will be pleased with the news, and I’ll look more tolerant to the Islamic community....

</end BSL-supporting politician’s perspective>

[Altariel]

This is a Mohammed-approved photo! Lots of dead dogs!

(Seriously, BSL is an Islamic dream come true—it has no place in a free nation. )