John Strong Speaks Out About 5 4-Legged Dog

Here's the question humans need to ask themselves whenever any animal question like this comes up: What would happen to this animal in the wild if humans had nothing to do with it? In the case of the abused elephants at Ringling, that's easy. It wouldn't happen, so it shouldn't happen. In the case of this dog, he would have been attacked and killed by his own kind for being a danger to the rest of the pack. So, why is it humans always feel the need to act as if we know what's best for these animals? If you have prior knowledge of John Strong being an animal abuser, that's one thing, but I have a feeling that you don't. I bet you could ask everyone working for him and they'd tell you what a great guy he is. Instead, you have a knee-jerk reaction to something you know nothing about, and then spout your opinion on here. If you believe differently, then you're just fooling yourself.

Dogs have been domesticated as household pets in this country for a long time now - I doubt the ancestors of Precious that truly lived "in the wild" are within even ten generations of this case. And given the growing rate at which people here are known to dote on their pets, it's not really any wonder that somebody would speak up on the behalf of the health and safety of a puppy born with an abnormality - I find this gesture much less disturbing than that of dropping $500 on a designer dog sweater.

Not saying I agree with the beheading of John Strong, but I think you have a poor counterargument in your wilderness philosophy as applied to long since domesticated animals. Elephants? Yes. Somebody's dog, cat, hamster, goldfish... Not so much. And if Mr. Strong is the sort of man to make money off the exploitation of animals with debilitating health problems, then it seems like those working for him wouldn't speak very highly of him anyway. Especially since, according to the news anchor, Strong's highest grossing employees include "a two-headed cow, and various other examples of Mother Nature's mistakes."

Good move cutting the first part of the sentence off in your response to it: "After seeing the above video, do you think the pup would have been happy living at a freakshow with an extra leg?"

I assume Jen includes that prerequisite because, in the clip, the dog appears to have significant difficulty with mobility and whimpers while dragging his extra leg slowly behind him. To your point, I agree - he probably WOULD be "happy anywhere as long as he gets to eat regularly, gets some attention, and has some room to run around once in a while", but that video coverage doesn't make his prospects for running around once in a while very hopeful in a freak show that requires he keep that extra leg.

Plus that dog would have suffered in the long run, what with the arthritis in the hip and the daily struggles with that fifth wheel.

Yep, but my point was that they were going to do it next week. But when he started talking about going to court they moved it up -- getting it done before he might have been able to get a restraining order to prevent it being done before a trial to determine who should be the legal owner.