Floyd Boudreaux ACQUITTED of all dog fighting charges!

The sad thing is that people are missing the fundamental principle that RETROACTIVE criminal laws are not enforcable and are unConstitutional. Everyone knows, I gather from the posts, that he WAS a dogfighter. (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't followed this closely) That he WAS, when it was legal. That might be morally reprihensible, but it is not a crime. You can not punish people for things they did before it made illegal unless it fits in the "crime against humanity" category. Dogfighting is repugnant, but not a crime against humanity. He's gone straight, he's not breaking the law now, and I get the impression has done a lot for the breed. HSUS needs to get off this punative kick of theirs in general, but they really need to get off it when the law is NOT on their side.

We're kinda contrary, aren't we, Baha?

Even I know enough to realize that without the old ones like Mr. Boudreaux, we wouldn't have the remarkable dog that is the gamebred APBT. And I will tell anyone that listening to the old school dog men and seeing the love in their eyes when they talk about their dogs . . . well, they aren't the monsters they're portrayed to be.

Society changes and people change and the way we perceive things changes along with that. The day of the old school match is past and done, and that's a good thing. This new breed of dog fighters, though . . . they are an entirely different breed. They are brutish and loathesome.

Many of the people who BYB have "love in their eyes" too. Frankly, I think people should be judged on their actions rather than if they "think" they're doing the right thing.

Ever heard the concept of condemning the action, rather than the person? There are times - for all of us - when we can only hope that others understand that.

Granted, there are some who - for example - are guilty of BEING stupid, cruel, petty, greedy, etc., but there are rather more of us guilty of ACTING stupidly, or cruelly, in a petty manner, or greedily.

Judged? Feel free. But convicted of a crime he did not commit all because some think it's morally wrong? Regardless of one's feelings towards the oldtime dogmen, what they did when they did it was completely legal. I find it disturbing that some think he should be punished anyways regardless of the fact that he has done nothing illegal.

:hail::hail::hail:

I have been following this and am OVERJOYED that he got off. THe people that I know are as well. I still cant believed they euth'd all his dogs when he was blantenly not in the practice anymore and they were happy, well adjusted dogs.

No, I don't believe he should have been found guilty (as indeed he was not) because of past actions, nor do I think his dogs should have been killed.

But I also think it's ridiculous to act as though the "old time dogmen" were some kind of heroes. Their DOGS were the heroes for putting up with the crap they did and suffering for no reason than to entertain.

No one's making them out to be heroes. They are what they are. Human beings who lived in a different era. But they ARE the reason we have the superbly athletic, loving, affectionate, funny, passionate, beautiful little rogue electrons we know and love as the gamebred APBT today. For that, they DO deserve credit.

Honestly, though, I don't think that anyone who uses an animal in such a way as to put that animal in the line of fire to save their own skin - i.e. law enforcement, military applications, is acting in a manner any less reprehensible than matching dogs.

To miakoda

Miakoda can I cross post the defense post to Molosser talk pls?

thanks jd

i worked on a dogman's yard as a kid in TX right at the time it was finally being outlawed in all the states. i can tell you honestly i NEVER saw the kind of cruelty that the AR nuts try to portray. I never saw the dogs sicced on puppies & kittens. I never saw bait dogs. all dogs were rolled against other game pits in a controlled way to train them for the pit (not the term i was taught but it eases confusion when talking to people w/o that history). you really can't force a dog to fight the way these dogs do it. it's something they really want to do. i was never disgusted by any fights i saw until i stumbled into some vick style idiots at a park in VA when i was in high school. there was no honor integrity or love for the dogs in these guys and they did the disgusting things the HSUS & petaphiles invented for their legislation campaigns. just another example of how they create the misery they claim to be against.

Boemy
look at it as a breedworthiness test. it was the ultimate way of proving which dogs genes were the best choice for preserving and passing on. they weren't heros. they were guys who grew up in a different time & way. they had different idea of what was desirable in a dog. they proved it in the dogs they bred and because of their demanding method of proof we have the amazing breeds we have. the dogs were glorious. some of the men were breeding geniuses the likes of which are hard to find now. while they weren't heros they also weren't the hateful embodiments of evil they are often thought to be. they loved their dogs and in many ways treated them better than people. they were just men doing what was right to them. no matter the words used you can't REALLY understand w/o having been there. even my understanding is miniscule because my experience was limited.

Oh, I doubt they "created" those practices. Its just the difference between oldtimers, who have a different idea of dog ownership than we do, like many country folks I know to this day (though none of them fight dogs), and young thugs who do this to be bad. Its a different mentality. One is about a sport, if a sport that our society has rightfully condemned. The other is about an image, and that image is to be as bad and violent as possible.

I think this is an entirely different thing, actually. What about Service dogs? They are helping people to "save their own skin" in a way by helping them survive day to day life.

Maybe a new thread should be started so that you can clarify what you mean by that? I am curious...

Service dogs aren't there to take a bullet for a human - they are caretakers and assistants, not being used for something we don't want to risk.

I have a good friend who just got back from serving a tour in Iraq. She was a MP K9 handler. Her job was to go out with her K9 every day and search for IED's and other dangerous things. This dog could smell explosives that, of course, humans can't. She saved dozens, possibly hundreds of lives by sniffing something out that was invisible, undetectable, etc to humans. She and her handler, my friend, had an incredible bond. I don't think she'd be very flattered to hear that some would think what she and her dog did every day is even remotely comparable to people matching dogs for any reason. I know if she felt her dog was in danger, SHE would've put herself on the line for the dog.

I just don't see the comparison. K9 officers are there to perform duties, just as human officers are. They're not just there to soak up bullets. They have qualities that are invaluable that just surpass anything a human is capable of.

I'm frankly disturbed by the comparison. Maybe I'm just tired and not seeing it in the context in which is was meant...

The context is that I strongly object to animals being USED to save our asses from messes we create ourselves.

Animals don't voluntarily and with knowledge enlist.

Animals don't commit crimes, bury landmines, set explosives - people do. One of the things I intend to try to do is make sure that dogs from Kharma's lines NEVER end up working as civil servants in any endangering capacity. SAR I have no problem with - crime and war? Nope. We're the ones who like to kill each other - they've, to borrow an old phrase, got no dog in that fight.

Hmm, there is a thread about this same subject on another forum I'm on aswell, very mixed emotion's.

heres a link to the pictures that got chucked up. Maybe not velvet sushion but clean, safe, healthy looking dogs, yep.
http://www.pet-abuse.com/case_images/3994/

I figure if Miakoda has met him and trusts him, I think your word is good enough for me because I know you truely do only have the dogs best interests at heart.

That picture of the rednose dog behind bars isn't one of Floyd's dogs. I think it's a stock photo.

I thought it looked odd, I've seen it so many times before.

yup. i whole heartedly agree.
good post
and i'm THRILLED to know he was acquitted.
wish the outcome was better for the dogs tho....