Pretty illegal in pink

I'm not an "animal rights" activist, but I do think this is cruel.

the only problem is this person is a sociopath. the breast cancer thing is a total hoax and is completely despicable. it's funny how everyone can and will use this opportunity to lash out at boulder county, meanwhile, ironically, the community has reason to be concerned. if investigated i think it will be found the dogs were dyed using chemical hair dye and that the "breast cancer dog" facade will equate to perjury.

The notion that dyeing your dog's hair is "cruelty" within the meaning of the law is perposterous, which I suppose explains why it's apparently the case in Boulder. That the Humane Society is empowered to issue citations is equally troubling.

But just imagine how much trouble someone up there would be in if they displayed a pink AR in support of breast cancer awareness. (Or a pink Glock, AK, etc.)

Rose: What makes you think it's "cruel"? Do you have even a scintilla of evidence that Cici is harmed in any way? Or even a plausible argument as to how this might be harming her (other than being embarrassing, that is)? Or is this just something you "feel"?

aften mortenson: Let's suppose just for a moment that your accusation about "chemical hair dye" turns out to be true -- that would be the same "chemical hair dye" that tens of millions of men and women use on themselves (or have a salon use on) them every month, right? Without any cruelty or suffering on anyone's part.

In any case, I suggest you think twice before throwing terms like "sociopath," "hoax," and "perjury" at someone who isn't a public figure. Those are slanderous statements unless you can prove their truth -- and I suspect you don't have a shred of evidence for any of them, only your prejudices. Your IP address is recorded when you post on a public forum.

Jed: I'm sure you can special-order a pink AR from somebody. For a handgun, you can buy the Pink Lady from Charter Arms off the shelf.

your assertations are correct. i don't take the idea of slander lightly at all; i actually have better things to do than make up negative comments about people and post them on a random forum. your article's a sharp reply based on the information you've been given; i assumed--since you allow commenting--that my opinion, based on my information, would be welcomed. i am simply using this medium to express my depressed outrage regarding this topic.

of course the law is ridiculous in this application, but it's very in-line with a lot of the ideals boulder is known for. i somewhat doubt using chemical dyes on dogs is dangerous (i just think it's stupid). additionally, in reply to your comment, dying animals different colors because humans think it's 'cute' isn't really analagous to covering your gray. the woman has operated in boulder for three plus years, all the while with pink dogs. do you honestly think *all* of the people who complained, as well as law enforcement, were just bored?

that being said, i think it will soon become obvious there is a larger issue here. in fact, if you do about ten minutes of research, you'll find others offering similar (and seemingly grounded) skepticism.

simply put, anyone who's been inside that salon within the past three years will know it has not a thing to do with breast cancer. the dog is pink because the salon is pink. it's a marketing tool, not a donation-raising tactic.

is this a waste of resources? yes. is the law overstepping here... likely. that alone is not enough to make me snarky, unlike many others. feigning a donation organization and repeatedly using it to try to get out of a $1000 ticket (frivelous or not) is absolutely dispicable by my standards. if she goes into court and uses the term breast-cancer-awareness dog, i hope she's asked to prove the legitimacy of the donation claims.

where you got the idea i was prejudiced is unclear to me. i suggest people look around just a bit before accepting spoon-fed truths. maybe when you accuse me of slander and offer my IP to the public, I'll just say it was in support of multiple sclerosis--then everyone will support me. with hopes that my sarcasm is not taken out of context, my points are that it is my personal opinion that the city is not being overzealous regarding a pink poodle, and that defending one's self under a cancer donation guise in order to justify ridiculous personal discretions is completely and utterly disgusting.

Aften, your opinion is very welcome, but that doesn't mean I won't challenge it or say something snarky. :-)

"Stupid," "despicable," and "ridiculous" are opinions. But when you call someone a sociopath and accuse them of a hoax and perjury, those accusations are potentially libelous (especially when the subject is not a public figure). I didn't "offer" your IP to the public or to anyone else, I simply warned you.

The servers that host this blog (like servers everywhere) record your IP and save that information. It's sitting there on a server in Scotland, and whether I like it or not (in fact, without my even knowing), it will be turned over to anyone with a subpoena (or whatever other justification Blog-City management requires).

People, remember -- unless you take extraordinary precautions to prevent it, every email you send, comment you post, and site you visit can be traced back to you. If you keep that in mind, it's merely annoying. If you forget it, it could cost you the governorship of New York. ;-)

point taken.

I caught the gist of this situation in the LA Times....and traced the discussion to this site. Perhaps, we should also ban those doggy hair-doos, as well, while we are spending tax money, time and mental energy on animal cruelty. Pet owners are like parents. I don't see the law enforcement folks championing the outragous haircuts, clothing, entertainment, ads (you get the idea) that are visited on our equally helpless citizens. If we elevate this discussion to the right of, then the answer to the dilemma is apparent. Coloring one's dog is nobody's business unless it is green for St. Patty's Day, reindeer ears and bells on Xmas, or flag-wraps on July 4.......As for the argument of protecting our beloved pups from toxins, numerous toxins and pollutants that are far more dangerous and prevalent proliferate this world. Commonsense has disappeared into the abyss of pettiness.