THIS is what they call a solution?

Forrest is safe. After several days on death row at the Denver shelter, city officials agreed to release Forrest.  While Forrest is a mixed breed of dog, a mutt, a Heinz 57,he was set to join over 1600 dogs that have been killed in Denver over the past three years because of how he looked.

Denver's solution is a bit odd though. Instead of returning the dog to the owner, Chris McGahey (who is not a resident of Denver), they are releasing the dog to Best Friends, who will then be transporting the dog to a rescue in St. Louis where he will be up for adoption. McGahey was forced to sign paperwork stating that he would not own the dog again.

"We understand that Mr. McGahey is not abusive and Forrest has posed not danger," said head of animal control Doug Kelly.

So what sense does this make? The dog is not a danger, and not being abused, so the owner is never allowed to own him again?  Why is this a solution? The city is now going to allow this to be an option that if a dog is taken because it is a 'pit bull', it can be transferred to an out-of-state rescue.

I'm thrilled that Forrest is safe. Most dogs aren't this lucky (including the other 1600 they've killed in Denver) But this type of judgment, where basically you're just taking someone's dog away for the heck of it, is pretty absurd.

Heck, even the newspaper has realized the absurdity of the law...it usually takes them awhile.

Realizing that the dogs are not dangerous and thus can be shipped out of state is a good first start. They are at least realizing the dogs aren't dangerous. Soon enough they'll realize it makes no sense to remove non-aggressive dogs from the city.  It will be a realization that can't come soon enough.

Comments

[s kennedy]

This is a political move to try and make less of the fact that society does not really want innocent dogs killed because of the way they look, and the protest was right in the beginning of the Demo convention. How bad would it look for every traveler to know that Denver kills dogs like that? Denver using a plastic surgeon for the Dog Fanciers case and the Plaintiffs botching the trial caused this mess. We have a long road to hoe. Owner of Forrest can move out of CO and go and get his dog via some 3rd party, anyone can see that. I dare them to file against the guy/take the dog. They don't have jurisdiction in other states.Don't tell me they will spend $10,000 to pursue that?

[Dawn]

Per an email update I received from Roverlution, it turns out that Forrest isn't going to Best Friends but to Stray Rescue in St. Louis, MO. Guess if your are a pit bull and you don't come with $$(how much money did each Vick dog come with?)and PR Best Friends isn't interested in taking you.

[Brent]

Dawn,

Best Friends is still pulling the dog -- but they're doing a trade-out with the rescue in St. Louis. St. Louis is getting Forrest and Best Friends is taking a couple of the St. Louis dogs. Not sure of all the specifics, but it is Best Friends that is pulling Forrest and then sending him out to St. Louis. So they're still very much involved, even if the dog isn't going there.

[MichelleD]

What a waste of time and resources - not even a HINT at doing anything that promotes public safety. This is all about a sick twisted power play by serial killers. The "people" in Denver are beyond unfair, they are sadistic.

City's pass BS laws and the rest of society has to clean it up with their time/money, blood/sweat/tears. If people would get off their duff and FIGHT/VOTE OUT this insanity we could put an end to it.

For the rest of us BAN DENVER! 50% of the population owns dogs - cutting their tourism by 50% would end this.

[EmilyS]

other than that Forrest gets to live (a good thing), the only positive I see coming out of this is that Denver realizes how incredibly stupid and absurd this "solution" is. They've contorted themselves into such knots that maybe their heads have finally pulled out their a**.

[Brent]

Yes, at some point if you're admitting that all the dogs that look like this are not aggressive and many can be shipped to other places, it certainly makes the legislation seems kinda pointless doesn't it?

[SocialMange]

How's the oxygen count in Denver city hall? Must be pretty low. This proves their legislation is bullshite, and they have killed 1600 dogs for no good reason. I'm happy for Forrest, that he gets to live, but why is he not being returned to his owner? Why is he safe to be in St. Louis but not in Denver? I think of poor Buddy in Denver, a lovely, family, senior dog who I believe died because of his shape.

This is such a huge political game, just as Ontario's breed-specific legislation was a political game. Owners and dogs are nothing but pawns to politicians.

[SocialMange]

Good editorial in the Rocky Mountain News about Denver...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/28/denver-should-target-dangerous-animals-not-an/

[Kaylee]

No Chris was not abusing the dog, but I saw a number of things in news stories that make me think St. Louis is a better place for him. The first is that while Chris was making waves over Forrest, his other two dogs were picked up running loose less than a week ago. The second is that when Forrest was picked up for the second time, it was with another of Chris's dogs, who his wife admitted got out from her Denver address. What are the chances that Forrest and this other dog both got out on the same day from two different addresses? I don't agree with the ban, but he obviousy lied about the dog being in Denver. Good luck to Forrest in Missouri.

[Becky]

Surely whatever stupid 'legal' papers this owner has to sign that he will never again own Forrest, would not be valid or hold up somewhere else, I would think. Once he and his dog are out of that stupid jurisdiction, what kind of power would Denver have over him, if he readopted Forrest? Once Forrest is out of there, I would hope that there is nothing left of any of Denver's business w/ him. So I don't understand what the heck kind of papers he's being forced to sign. No sense, no sense at all in any of this.

[Caveat]

To me, this is even more bizarre than the usual Denver killing machine.

What's the usual fine for a dog at large, assuming there is one? What's wrong with just fining the guy until he gets it? Or do they do this with all owned dogs who escape their property?

They don't say he can't own a dog, just that dog. That's what strikes me as really, really weird, not that it would stand up anywhere of course, including in Denver itself.

These people are deranged.

[MichelleD]

Yeah, Caveat. Since when is running at large a death sentence? That Levine idiot in CA kept using the seat belt law as an example of how MSN would be passed - SOOOOoo since when does a seat belt violation get your car seized and destroyed?

I see in Kaylee's response something really scarey: The guy had his dog in Denver so he asked for this! No, the guy should be able to let his dog visit his ex-wife. No, destroying the dog should NOT have been on the table. No, this guy should NOT be punished with destroying/seizing his dog for a LEASH violation.

It is so frightening that we are so entent on PUNISHMENT for even the most minor vioations - punishment with death of the victim! Please list another area of the law that is even close to being so punitive?

In KCMO, you have an unaltered pit bull you will get a $100 fine, the dog will be seized and you better come up with the money for s/n within 5 days or the dog is murdered. But on the flip side animal abusers also get a $100 fine. All I can say is WTF!?!

[Caveat]

What bugs me is all the 'pit bull' owners who castigate others who get caught in the injustice of these programs.

They claim they are not being responsible.

Thing is, these laws are totally stacked against 'pit bull' (or other banned shape) owners from the get-go. They are not your grandmother's laws, to borrow a phrase.

They mandate that 'pit bull' owners must be absolutely perfect, while letting other dog owners get away with far more irresponsibility.

If these laws which are completely geared to death are so great, why aren't they being applied to ALL dog owners equally?

Don't worry, I already know the answer to that.

[skennedy]

Whatever he signed I assume Bresline ok'd it. But it's pretty worthless. I assume if one lived 100 miles from Denver/dog got out then the rule applies? (I didn't read the ordinance)For example if you live in a city that requires you to list a dog lic number in an ad when selling a dog, and you advertise in that city but dont LIVE in that city, they don't regulate you because you don't live there. Caveat do you know the answer? I wonder if it's written that it actually regulates anyone from any place.

[MichelleD]

Wouldn't stand up in court...you can't force someone to sign a contract and it be leagally binding. He is being forced to sign it or his dog dies. Hell, I think I could lawyer this case.

[franya]

If dogs get loose but no harm is done - SO WHAT???

I don't give a damn how many times. It's assinine and fascist to go kill the dog.

FIne the owner. Make him build a fence. Solve it the right way.

A city has no business killing harmless dogs for the sake of some lame notion of law and order.

Especially since we all know how unsafe cities are for WOMEN. Dogs don't rape women; men do. Every few minutes. Over and over.

We don't even think to muzzle their penises, let alone kill them for it.

So who are they to go around killing dogs?

[John Simmons]

As a dog owner in Denver and the
father of a child that was attacked by a
Denver Dog, I can understand some of
the pre-cautions but profiling like this is unreal. It is unfair, and I dont
understand the purpose of it, especially if the
Dog is not posing a threat.

[Denver Dog]

I think this is a sad story. I cannot believe this is going on in Denver.