6 comments to “Clifford – ten years on”

  1. Sharon Corry | March 26, 2014 | Permalink

    The RSPCA should be ashamed of themselves. I work at a refuge & have been shown aggression bymany breeds except pitbull X

  2. kerri braden | March 26, 2014 | Permalink

    RSPCA for animals, what a load of shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Tina | March 26, 2014 | Permalink

    Has anyone looked at Buckley from the lost dogs home lately clearly a pitbull cross. Staff there were told not to fall in love with home and he was hidden from the public, his story got out and the lost dogs home had to go through with his adoption. But if he had never hit the paper I promise you he would has been eurhanised.

  4. George | March 26, 2014 | Permalink

    I have 8 dogs all that I rescued from either the streets
    Or people giving them away . I need to speak with someone in regards to
    Trying to prove that the breed is not dangerous. I have 5 in one backyard and not one bites the other.
    I can prove that the breed is safe. I have physical proof. They eat together. Sleep together. And love eachother. It’s lack of knowledge not the breed. They are the most loving dogs on the market.
    Please some one email me . I’ll be able to prove that the dogs are safe . I have 11 years experience with
    The breed specialising in red nose . But I can rehabilitate . Any pitbull. And why do we have to name them a pit bull. Can’t we just change the name to lovbull or heartbull. ? Anyone that knows the breed knows there is no other dog with the heart they got.

    Whoever you are email me please I believe I’m the only person in Australia who can prove that these dogs are safe. I can show you 8 of all ages living in a yard with no chains no scars and no blood. So there is no way of proving that every ” pit ” is bad. My dogs eat out a baby’s hand like goat at the zoo eat out of children’s hands. Everyone that sees my dogs is amazed . I could have 50 in my yard. But training is key and respecting them and loving them Is why I live.

  5. Imogen Bailey | March 26, 2014 | Permalink

    He was the sweetest boy. He did not deserve to be put down. It broke my heart. I felt helpless. I was only thinking of him yesterday. I am so glad you wrote this. Thank you.

  6. Annie | March 26, 2014 | Permalink

    Poor Clifford :-(

    I know this article has good intentions, but I disagree with the insinuation that every generation has to be made accountable for their forefathers’ mistakes, or that an organisation cannot change its stance without being seen as ‘hypocritical’. At least they are changing their stance, rather than sticking with the conservative views (Tony Abbot case-in-point? :P )

    I have met RSPCA rehomed pit-bulls who have been transported across borders to a state where they were, in fact, allowed to be rehomed. They can be the sweetest dogs and I agree are no more dangerous than any other dog.

    Clifford’s case is sad, but there are many animals that deteriorate behaviourally with time spent within an animal shelter. It’s not just pit bulls. It is, unfortunately, something that happens when an animal is put in a confined space for most of its day, surrounded by strange dogs, and only interacts with people for a few hours at most. Most shelters try their best to rehome animals before that happens, but they have a duty of care to not rehome an animal that they know has even just a moderate chance of causing harm to its owner. An animal shelter has trained animal handlers who know how to read warning signs. If this dog has bitten these handlers on SEVERAL occasions, then how can they say it won’t bite an owner, or an owner’s child, or neighbor? You might be comfortable taking on this dog and putting him in your Fort Knox house, only to interact with specific trained people, but would you be comfortable giving him to someone else?

    Clifford’s facial features very much resemble a Pit Bull, or a Pit Bull cross. I don’t know how savvy people were 10 years ago with breeds but nowadays the media would jump all over him as being a pit bull.

    So then, why would the RSPCA make Clifford front page news? Why would they put him there, write a sad story, if they KNEW they were going to put him to sleep? If they weren’t going try everything they could to help him? They could have made the case when he was found that he was too severely injured and had to be humanely put to sleep, and nobody would have questioned it given the state he was in.

    They wrote that story because they thought it was going to have a happy ending. You ask ANY public relations officer in any industry whether they would deliberately put up a story where in the end the organisation fails. In this case, Clifford could not be rehomed. Do you really think they would make him a poster boy if they did not think he was sweet, loving boy who had a good chance? They would have gotten a lot more good publicity (and donations) from rehoming him (even if irresponsibly given his alleged behavioral deterioration) than they did when they announced his euthanasia.

    If they were strongly advocating BSL I’d imagine they might even have said that his behaviour was BECAUSE he was a pit bull. But that did not happen.

    In your flurry of media references I also note that you omitted the quote:
    “Dr Wirth rejected suggestions for a ban on pitbull terriers”

    I understand your point that the RSPCA played a big part in creating the BSL, and you think they should be trying harder to remove it given that they’ve since changed their stance. I just don’t think that Clifford’s case is a particularly good example of a case where a dog has been euthanased specifically due to breed. Nobody but those who worked directly with him can really say. So maybe these comments should be directed at those who are actually actively trying to promote this atrocious law instead?