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a reminder of a life tragically and arbitrarily cut short, like so many dogs’ lives are every year, under the unjust, outdated and cruel practice that is BSL.
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.
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.
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.
Breed Specific Legislation laws are here as well.
Let’s just call them what they are: Government-Employee-Authorized-Puppycide laws.
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..
Exactly who seized this dog?
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...??
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?”
“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.
It’s England. What do you expect?
You are comparing a wild animal to a domesticated one.
Breed specific legislation has nothing to do with restrictions on ownership of wild animals.
Thank you...not one mention of the dogs breed. Just a warm, lovable puppy. Some breeds grow up to be anything but.
Old Chet would be pleased
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.
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.