Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, June 18, 2009
News That Makes Sense
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:29 PM
AP:
Officials at a New Mexico animal shelter say they'll euthanize more than 50 dogs and puppies this week to make room for 12 pit bulls from an unresolved dog fighting case.
They have to kill 50 dogs and puppies to make room for those 12 lovable pits because the pits, on account of their "aggressive nature," have to be housed one-to-a-cage at a shelter that usually houses more than one dog per cage. I have a bias and everything, I realize, but still: wouldn't it be fairer to put down the 12 pits and let the other 50 dogs and puppies live? Or am I missing something?
4
They can't euthanize the pits because the dogfighting case is "unresolved". Until the case is resolved the dogs are considered evidence. It is also possible that the owners did not willingly surrender the dogs, this would mean that if they (the owners) are found not guilty, then the dogs would have to be returned to them.
5
While it would be more fair to put down the pit bulls, it would be less legal. The 50 other dogs are all abandoned/seized property. They belong to the State/municipality. The 12 pit bulls still belong to the alleged dog fighter.
If that person is proved not-guilty then they get their dogs back, most likely. If the state destroyed them, that alleged dog fighter would have a very good case against the state for seizing and destroying his property without just cause. Then the state would end up paying his legal fees, paying to get him new dogs, and probably paying for his emotional trauma at having so many of his beloved pets cruelly ripped from him by the State in such a permanent way.
It sucks, but it's the truth.
If that person is proved not-guilty then they get their dogs back, most likely. If the state destroyed them, that alleged dog fighter would have a very good case against the state for seizing and destroying his property without just cause. Then the state would end up paying his legal fees, paying to get him new dogs, and probably paying for his emotional trauma at having so many of his beloved pets cruelly ripped from him by the State in such a permanent way.
It sucks, but it's the truth.
7
As per the "unresolved" explenations, this has little to do with them being pitbulls. Would presumably have been the same for schäfers or great danes. Of course, if they had a reputation as being a penile enhancements for wankers, then this series of posts would have an anti-great-dane bias.
Yaddah yaddah owner not dog yaddah yaddah
Yaddah yaddah owner not dog yaddah yaddah
10
Bummer. Maybe the publicity will encourage people thinking of getting a pet to go out and adopt some of those 50 dogs.
But, keep in mind, that this type of thing happens on a much smaller scale every day in shelters. New dogs come in, unadopted dogs are euthanized. So, if this case upsets you, next time you're looking to get a dog, visit a shelter instead of a breeder...
But, keep in mind, that this type of thing happens on a much smaller scale every day in shelters. New dogs come in, unadopted dogs are euthanized. So, if this case upsets you, next time you're looking to get a dog, visit a shelter instead of a breeder...
11
@6 has a point in that "evidence" should be treated differently than other animals, hence they should not be housed in a facility for shelter dogs. The Justice System should pay to put these animals in kennels, not shelters. Outrageous.
12
I get the legal issue, and normally I'm a bit of a pit bull apologist (only a bit, though - I think the breed does have a nasty streak, but that a consciencious owner knows how to train and handle them), but that just isn't right.
14
Okay, I'm an advocate for pit bulls, but this is absurd. Obviously the aggressive dogs should be the ones put down if it's an either/or situation. No brainer.
15
Gotta ask the obvious stupid question: where's PETA? Obama swats a fly and they're on it like he burned down a home for orphaned kittens. 50 dogs and PUPPIES are gonna be put down for 12 pit bulls and nothing? This is an opportunity that is just begging them to exploit it.
More serious question: where's the Humane Society or SPCA?
More serious question: where's the Humane Society or SPCA?
20
This is sad..none of the dogs should be euthanized.
Maybe an outside pit bull group/ rescue org. could help with this..say BAD RAP out of San Fransisco or even Best Friends in Utah.
No pups should be killed needlessly.
Maybe an outside pit bull group/ rescue org. could help with this..say BAD RAP out of San Fransisco or even Best Friends in Utah.
No pups should be killed needlessly.
21
PETA is anti-pitbull.
http://www.peta.org/about/hottopic007.as…
http://www.realpitbull.com/peta.html
http://www.peta.org/about/hottopic007.as…
http://www.realpitbull.com/peta.html
24
4
5
you girls are wasting your time trying to explain the finer points of the law to Dan...
Just pat him on the head and move on.
5
you girls are wasting your time trying to explain the finer points of the law to Dan...
Just pat him on the head and move on.
25
In an apparently unrelated story: because of overcrowding at the county jail, 50 guests at the Edgewater Hotel were euthanized to make room for 12 inmates who required solitary confinement. Sources say solitary confinement cells were unavailable at the jail and this was the only viable solution. Sheriff Andy Taylor refused to comment when pressed for a response.
27
@6 has a point in that "evidence" should be treated differently than other animals, hence they should not be housed in a facility for shelter dogs. The Justice System should pay to put these animals in kennels, not shelters. Outrageous.
The shelter most likely has the city's animal control contract, which would require them to handle animals that need to be held as evidence. So they would be legally obliged to take them in.
29
Morally justifiable: Euthanizing dangerous and harmful animals.
Somewhat justifiable: Euthanizing innocent animals that don't have a place to go.
Morally questionable: Killing animals to eat when it's not necessary.
Immoral: Hurting animals for fun (kicking dogs, hunting for sport, sitting on cats).
Even more immoral: Bypassing cruelty laws in the name of religion (kosher meat).
Horrendously immoral: Willfully torturing animals as much as possible for profit (Quinn's, foie gras, veal).
Morality is very easy sometimes.
Somewhat justifiable: Euthanizing innocent animals that don't have a place to go.
Morally questionable: Killing animals to eat when it's not necessary.
Immoral: Hurting animals for fun (kicking dogs, hunting for sport, sitting on cats).
Even more immoral: Bypassing cruelty laws in the name of religion (kosher meat).
Horrendously immoral: Willfully torturing animals as much as possible for profit (Quinn's, foie gras, veal).
Morality is very easy sometimes.
30
@29..dogs used for fighting (those being called evidence in NM)have endured unthinkable torture: electrocution, near drowning, beating, stabbing, kicking, forced drug consumption,etc.
This story is just all around sad.
This story is just all around sad.
31
The dogs are evidence in a criminal investigation. If you put them down, it's hard to prove that they were being used illegal dog fights. Thus, it's harder to jail their abusive owners. In the long run, if more people who raise pit bulls to fight are put in jail, it will probably mean fewer pit bulls and less dog fighting, which sounds like an overall good thing to me.
32
Looks like they changed the story since you wrote it, no one is being put to sleep now..
That being said, you can't focus on the fact that these are pitbulls, but instead on the fact that they were raised to be dog-fighters. If a dog is trained to fight other dogs, then it would require solitary confinement. Which is part of why dog fighting is so despicable.
And thanks Dan for mentioning your bias. It's always a nice, refreshing statement that is seldom said in the news.
That being said, you can't focus on the fact that these are pitbulls, but instead on the fact that they were raised to be dog-fighters. If a dog is trained to fight other dogs, then it would require solitary confinement. Which is part of why dog fighting is so despicable.
And thanks Dan for mentioning your bias. It's always a nice, refreshing statement that is seldom said in the news.
33
Just find the nearest PETA office, let them loose in there and shut the door behind them. Problem solved!
34
Thank goodness they cancelled their plan. Looks like the community came through for the poor pups.
I'm frankly for a solution that doesn't involve animals dying needlessly, and clearly there was one all along.
I'm frankly for a solution that doesn't involve animals dying needlessly, and clearly there was one all along.
35
I'm sort of curious as to how long those 50 not-aggressive-pit-bulls would have been held before being euthanized, absent the influx of crime-dogs.
But I figure that's one of those "journalism" questions that you don't have to ask when you're an "advocacy" paper.
But I figure that's one of those "journalism" questions that you don't have to ask when you're an "advocacy" paper.
36
Dogs are not people. Perhaps most of the commenters here should stop and reassess with that in mind.
37
I don't 100% agree with you Dan about Pits, but this post is logical. It doesn't make sense to put down 50 animals to save 12. Also I think dogs if at all possible, should be given as many rights as possible. I understand that if it comes to people or dogs, people should be picked, but animals should be be treated as expendable or our property.
38
Dan- Pit Bulls might as well be gay for all the discrimination they face in the media. They are dogs not werewolves and in this case they are evidence. This is America so the cops come into your house and take your dogs and you want them to kill them without a hearing. We still do have property rights and dogs are property plus...most folks love their dogs. Lets stop canine profiling and gay bashing...there are a lot of similarities.
41
@36. Um, what? Dog are not people, so....what? What is your point? That we shouldn't care that 50 of them were going to be killed? That we should be able to kill any animal that is not a person for any reason and no one should bat an eyelash?
I don't think anyone in this thread is overreacting to this situation. 50 (presumably healthy, adoptable) dogs were going to be killed to make room for 12 (presumably non-adoptable) dogs. Completely illogical, as others have pointed out.
I don't think anyone in this thread is overreacting to this situation. 50 (presumably healthy, adoptable) dogs were going to be killed to make room for 12 (presumably non-adoptable) dogs. Completely illogical, as others have pointed out.
42
I am fiercely opposed to breed specific legislation, and even I have to say this is asinine. Putting down 50, presumably much more adoptable animals to house 12 possibly aggressive ones?
Any dog who has been abused is likely to be aggressive. They can be safely rehabilitated, but only in the right hands. An already abusive dog with the wrong owner is really a threat.
Any dog who has been abused is likely to be aggressive. They can be safely rehabilitated, but only in the right hands. An already abusive dog with the wrong owner is really a threat.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS