http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009......uer.html

So who was going to buy the five legged pup out there in Coney Island--better yet, who lost out to the do-gooders?

Update: further research indicates the pup was destined to go to Mr. Strong.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009......uer.html

From the article:

John Strong, the freak show proprietor in Coney Island, had already offered Owensby $3,000 and sent a $1,000 down payment, but Siegel convinced him to back out and sell her the puppy for $4,000.
"[Precious] wasn't a freak, she was just a dog born with five legs," Owensby told the Daily News. "My girlfriend decided she didn't want to see her in a freak show."
"Strong told us it was an amazing animal farm," Owensby said. "I don't think a dog should go to a freak show."
Strong invited Owensby to visit his "Freaks of Nature" museum on Surf Ave. to prove that he treats all the animals with respect - including the two-headed cow, Nosey Rosey, and the Siamese turtles, Pete and Repeat - but Owensby refused

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world......LsWBkVLa

Wow. The comments after the article are amazing--it seems the only possibility if the dog had gone to JS3's show (or any other, I would guess) is that it would be mistreated, abused, and humiliated. I doubt any of them has even seen the show.

How do they come to the conclusion that someone who displays a curiousity doesn't care about it?

When I adopted my 2-legged chihuahua, the foster owner said several times that she was glad he was going to someone who would love and care for the dog and not exploit it for its differences; I kept thinking, "Why can't I do both?"

And have you?

Yeah...where did that notion come from?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye4YTZOq2fk

Yes, all beliefs about how the world works should be drawn from movies.

Harley, yes; he is a happy, healthy member of our 3 person, 4 dog family, and has been a big hit at his CMSS appearances.

Yeah, and the commenters probably never even heard of Junior before, much less known his history.

So a five legged dog is to be saved and the hearts of humans are filled with unicorns and joy at the prospect of saving said animal from being Lucifer's Pet...so what about Zack and Mack, my two-headed turtle.

I am willing to let the human compassion fill my coffers for say, a quarter of a million or so... or maybe a quarter of a trillion... a million, a trillion, its all the same these days...

Harley--acknowledged; however, the point is that while they don't know that JS3 is walking advertisement for systemic colonics, they *assume* that, because he runs a freakshow, that he is going to mistreat this dog. My reaction is not support for Junior, it is indignation at the knee-jerk punters and la-las out there who are saying how this dog was "rescued" from some horrible fate of being "gawked at". *shudder*

The word "exploit" keeps being thrown out there; people are offended that the freakshow guy is going to put the dog on display for people to stare at, and *gasp* make money off of it. But where is their outrage at show dog owners, agility dog owners, frisbee trick dog owners? They put their animals on display, to be gawked at by the public, and they hope to make money of it. But that's ok.

Further, I haven't heard or read one thing stating that the dog's fifth leg is a health risk, causes pain, or is a problem in any way for the dog; still, they're eager to cut it off, not because it's in the best interest of the dog, but because they're uncomfortable that he looks different. I consider that mutilation. But hey, at least it won't be "gawked at".

And Walker dismounts the soapbox and, yes! He stuck the landing!

Well Stephon, that is my point exactly! I am willing to let my boys be "rescued" for a tidy profit... But then again, maybe not... I am kinda fond of their little green heads...

Stephon, we agree. I have little tolerance for peta-ism. Though, thinking about it, it certainly affirms the success of their PR campaign. Anthropomorphism at its worst.

But we wouldn't want to accuse them of misrepresentation, would we? Especially in a discussion where you admit that a poor tiny defenseless little 2-legged chihuahua could be hit.

But come to think about it. Strong entered into a contract with Owensby, to which Ownesby reneged. I think Mr. Strong has a case in Small Claims Court since Ownesby violated the contract.

This isn't a black and white discussion. It's very gray.

There's a big difference between sending money, and a contract. While many states uphold verbal agreements as contractual, enforcing those agreements is a different matter.

Every time my agents say "pencil in that date", it's a verbal agreement. Not all of them turn into jobs. Should I sue?

It's also an interstate deal, which makes it subject to federal law.

Aside from it being Junior, which guarantees that it's 100% suspect, there's still a lot we don't know.

(And I still think the peta-ites deserve words we're not allowed to use here.)

Well, If he had already sent a grand, (according to the article), then I think he would have standing. If he just "promised" to send a down payment, then he would have no recourse. But its all moot, cause Mr. Strong was "convinced" to let Siegal buy the dog.

The whole thing stinks, especially after reading the comments to the articles...

Yes. It all stinks.

Lumping these ignoramouses (ignoramice?) in with PETA is a compliment; as much as I dislike PETA, at least they're consistent in their wrong-headed condemnation of all types of animal ownership and display--these other douchcakes just jumped on the bandwagon without the slightest thought or consideration. There is nothing I despise more.

I think that too many people watched the movie "The Elephant Man" too many times. From that movie one comes away thinking that all sideshows (freakshows) mistreat their curiosities. That movie portrays these shows as dark and seedy affairs with no care for the people and animals in them. As far as I have been able to gather, the real Elephant Man was treated like royalty by his sideshow owner (the one in London, anyway).

If JS is USDA licensed...and Dogs normal or otherwise...are required to have a USDA Class III Exhibitor License....and He has a USDA Program of Veterinary Care (Also required)...and he has proper cages and transport Facility's...and He has aquistion records of his other animals (Required) and he has copies of Health Certificates at least every 30 days...and he has copies of prior Non-no compliance Documentation from his previous USDA scheduled Inspections...plus a daily Health-log on his animals on Hand....I would think he would have sufficient Federal evidence to show he would be a Good keeper for the Dog...However, I have NOT been to Coney to veiw his other animals...Perhaps someone who did could comment on the Living Conditions of his other animals...as this would give a better picture than just paperwork.....

And Furthermore...I would NEVER show a "lIVE" deformed Dog or Cat for that matter..Being well versed in the USDA and AWA regs...not to mention the outcry from "Pet" owners...As I see it...The ONLY way to show a "LIVE" Dog or Cat would be to have a Luxury Travel Trailer with a glass side where the Public can veiw these critters relaxing on the couch wathing TV in air-conditioning...But, that's just me.....

Curator wrote:

The ONLY way to show a "LIVE" Dog or Cat would be to have a Luxury Travel Trailer with a glass side where the Public can veiw these critters relaxing on the couch wathing TV in air-conditioning...


Now that is a SHOW!

Oops....
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/......nts.html