ST8R

What is your opinion of making making very costly legal efforts to "save" dogs who no one disputes were involved in severe or deadly attacks?

There are dozens of examples, but probably the best example is Mickey, a pit bull in Arizona who severely attacked a child and was court ordered to be euthanized when the Lexus Project stepped in to overturn the euthanasia order. They succeeded -- Mickey was neutered, defanged, and will spend the rest of his life in a jail cell, his care paid for by Arizona taxpayers.

Here's the ASPCA's Emily Weiss on Mickey's welfare:

"I find watching Mickey quite difficult. I struggle watching him from a few perspectives. First, Mickey seems to have developed some stereotypies – you can see him move from front to back of his cell in the same pattern over and over. Mickey spends a significant amount of time door watching, waiting for someone to come. He cocks his head, and his body softens and he wiggles when he hears footfalls or other sounds. He is obviously a curious dog who has a strong pull for human contact, and this is where he lives – with quite limited human contact...the resources and emotions spent on Mickey feel blind to the plight of the vast majority of shelter dogs who don’t leave the shelter."

The Lexus Project attorneys essentially crowdsource their paychecks by raising donations from the public to appeal euthanasia orders for dogs deemed dangerous by a court. In many cases, there seems to be no dispute that the dog was involved in a highly injurious or deadly attack on a human or nonhuman. Also in many cases, it seems that the facts of the case are fabricated or embellished in order to elicit sympathy from donors. For example, in Mickey's case, someone fabricated a story in which the child victim was attacked after trying to take a bone away from the dog, thereby blaming the child for provoking the attack.

In Mickey's case, I believe the amount of money raised for the dog's legal defense was well into the tens of thousands and possibly into six digits. He even has his own webcam which someone purchased for him for $1,000. Presumably, Arizona taxpayers are also on the hook for the bandwidth on this webcam. To top it all off, the dog now has cancer, for which he is receiving treatment.

As a vehement death penalty opponent, I also oppose the notion that any animal "deserves" to die -- never mind the fact that a dog cannot comprehend our justice system or being "sentenced" for anything. However, Mickey is dependent on humans for his care, and yet he is so risky that he has no real quality of life. He is also too aggressive to have contact with other animals. He lives alone and as Weiss noted, has developed clear signs of distress.

Moreover, what about the ethics of pouring tens of thousands of dollars into an aggressive and now sick dog when millions of perfectly friendly, healthy dogs and cats are euthanized every year in shelters for simple lack of space, time, and/or funds to care for them?

If someone knows about an issue that an investigative reporter should look into, what's the best way to approach him or her? What gets you fired up about investigating a story?

Hi Jackson! Love the show! Thanks for helping cats train their people!

What are your best strategies for introducing a new cat to an established cat who's never lived with another cat before?

Also, humans often forget that nonhumans may not appreciate our displays of affection such as hugging, kissing, etc. What are the best cat-approved, species-appropriate ways for people to show affection to their cats?