CONNECTICUT -- Buddy, the golden retriever condemned to die, will have his day in court. A hearing has been set for Sept. 6 in Milford Superior Court on whether the dog must be destroyed or will be allowed to go to an out-of-state kennel.The Milford dog has been impounded since October after he bit a person trying to intervene in a fight between Buddy and another dog. The state Department of Agriculture upheld the order by the Milford animal control officer that Buddy be destroyed.
Victoria Stillings, the dog's owner, said Tuesday night that she has been appealing that order ever since. "Buddy is a good dog and a great pet and I want him to live," she said.
Under the compromise being considered, Buddy would be sent to a handler trained to re-acclimate dogs to people and animals. Stillings said that she has agreed to sign over ownership of Buddy to the out-of-state facility. "It breaks my heart, but I don't want him to be killed," she said. "I got him out of the pound in Westport seven years ago, and someone will adopt him from the pound again."
Burns said that volunteers from the Lexus Project have not been able to visit Buddy or to have him examined by an independent veterinarian. The 9-year-old golden retriever has been in a 6-by-12 foot cage that the animal rights advocate described as "solitary confinement."
But Rick George, the city's chief animal control officer, said Buddy has been seen by a vet twice since October and gets daily walks and attention. "You can say he is under house arrest, quarantined, but he has an outdoor run and he can see and hear other dogs," George said.
(CTPost - Sept 4, 2011)
HISTORY ON THIS DOG:They've created a Facebook page to document their plight. In it, they say that in October 2009, the dog got loose and attacked a neighbor's dog, which was being walked on a leash. Animal Control comes out and makes a report. They probably gave him a simple citation or a verbal warning about Buddy's animal aggressive behavior. Strike One for Buddy.
Just five months later, the dog 'bolts' from its owner who's attempting to walk it on a leash. Buddy yanks the leash out of her hands and attacks the other dogs. At this point Animal Control comes out again, takes him to court, and it appears they deem Buddy Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous. These designations come with restrictions that the owners must follow (e.g. muzzling dog when off the property, having a kennel installed on the property). Strike Two for Buddy.
Nine months after this designation, the dog gets out AGAIN! People see the dog struggling in the ocean and, probably thinking he's drowning, attempt to help him. One of the Good Samaritans has her dog with her. Buddy comes out of the ocean and promptly attacks her dog. She is injured trying to protect her dog.
At this point, Animal Control has had enough. Strike Three for Buddy. They seize Buddy and a court judgment comes down saying Buddy needs to be put to sleep. Now the owner and some rescue group have the half-brained idea to let the dog live, but to banish it to another state. How does this make things better? You're only putting other people and their pets at risk of being attacked.
It's only fair to apply rules across the board. Pit bull defenders insist it's not the breed, it's the deed. And they're absolutely right in this case. Your natural reaction is to give this dog yet another chance, b/c we know Goldens to be sweet, loving and mild-tempered. But you have to apply the rules evenly across the board. This dog needs to be put down.
