And just what is THEIR proof? Saying it, doesn't make it so. (as I'm sure Mr. Dove would be more than eager to agree, were we discussing Mr. Wierwille's rape victims)
I wasn't aware our laws apply in French controlled territories.
Yes it is a crime
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
Again I never said our laws applied anywhere that is your assumption.
And just what is THEIR proof? Saying it, doesn't make it so. (as I'm sure Mr. Dove would be more than eager to agree, were we discussing Mr. Wierwille's rape victims)
and local authorities. Guess you missed that part that means those who have the job of determining such cases those who have experience in determining the probability of such cases.
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
Again I never said our laws applied anywhere that is your assumption.
Cheranne's utube post exemplifies exactly my point.
Lots of handwringing and legwetting, but NO actual proof of anything EXCEPT the picture of the poor doggie with the (barbless) hook in his nose. The dog was found -according to the text - wandering around on shore near where fishing takes place. The assumption the folks that put the video together would like you to make is that the dog was used for fishing - AS BAIT! But what PROOF is there that that happened? Wouldn't it be more likely (as I've proposed numerous times already) that the dog simply - and tragically - ate the baited hook and got entangled in the adjacent fishing gear?
But, AGAIN, that doesn't make for a heartrending story (or open up an wallets).
Read the snopes snippet again. The article from the French newspaper states that it WASN"T likely that the dogs were being trolled around with hooks in their noses. Jeezus people, can't you tell when you're being stroked? Just use a modicum of common sense and put your emotions on a back burner for a minute.
If this really was the story that's trying to be sold, wouldn't ANY of the major new's shows jump all over it? Rather than having the vignettes of poor impaled doggies (with violin accompaniment), wouldn't it be nice to have some proof that anything really nefarious happened to begin with?
If I remember Berne correctly, this one's called "Ain't it awful"...
Her utube video is the same one I posted earlier. It is meant to raise awareness for the incident not as a defense in a court to prove a case. A case which did go to court (I suppose you simply forgot that and resulted in a guilty verdict by those who require such proof be met. The burden was met
Read the snopes snippet again. The article from the French newspaper states that it WASN"T likely that the dogs were being trolled around with hooks in their noses. Jeezus people, can't you tell when you're being stroked? Just use a modicum of common sense and put your emotions on a back burner for a minute.
It said nothing of the sort it said it was minimal not non existent
Did you read the article you presented as proof of your point?
Let me refresh your memory.........
Quote Snopes ....Based on a Reunion newspaper article which acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, We'd have to say that there is some truth to the shark fishing claim........
The French Embassy in Washington D.C. has also maintained that although the practice is not unknown its occurrence is not as prevalent as recent news reports have made it seem
In your letter that you referenced
Quote "We would like to emphasize that the practice of using live dogs or cats as shark bait is exceptional and isolated It was never widespread nor traditional but intruduced by ruthless individuals."
Introduced meaning that it did in fact go on...case closed
" The facts that elicited your complaint are the act of a few isolated individual parties that are being sought after by police and will be brought to justice."
Sounds like they don't share your view that it did not happen there George. Nope sought after and brought to justice sounds just a little like they think it might have been done.
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
Again I never said our laws applied anywhere that is your assumption.
If you want me to agree that animal cruelty is appalling, you got it.
But please don't fudge my words to make it appear as if I said something that I didn't.
Criminality is relative to the jurisdiction where it occurs.
waysider said:
It's a crime?
I wasn't aware our laws apply in French controlled territories.
Those were your words you were not aware ,not mine ,I never said that the laws apply anywhere in fact I never mentioned application of the law period that was your statement., What I said is that it was a crime which according to the French law it is. Your the one who came up with the idea that "I wasn't aware our laws apply in French controlled territories" I never said,mentioned or implied that they were. Your question indicated that you thought I did. You thought wrong.
QUOTE
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
You questioned that , but that is what the law reads. And by the way the crime occured where the juristiction is ,I suppose that's why the guilty verdict.
What exactly is the point of this thread?
On to a new topic since you can't prove your case?
Wouldn't it be more likely (as I've proposed numerous times already) that the dog simply - and tragically - ate the baited hook and got entangled in the adjacent fishing gear?
But, AGAIN, that doesn't make for a heartrending story (or open up an wallets).
Not likely, Exactly what are the odds of a dog eating a hook and then installing two more hooks in each paw not in random spaces mind you, but in roughly the same spot on each paw?
OH Gee let me think...... I'd say about the same as the wind blowing through a airplane parts hanger and assembling a perfect 747.
Despite the fact that you have your personal theories on how to fish properly for sharks You have no, none, evidence that this story is not true. You offer only theories on this and that. Typical
No, I think what I've done is simply offer a reasonable explanation for an otherwise UNBELIEVABLE story. Unbelievable in that, it just doesn't make any sense. Why would somebody fish in such an absurd and inefficient way? How did the doggie (who seems to be quite well-groomed, and neat and tidy despite the horrific conditions he MUST have been in, no blood, no dirt, and freshly brushed it seems) get away from the evil fisherman? Did the line break and he swam to shore? How did the dog NOT drown if he was being trolled behind a boat? How could the hook possibly hold the dog when simply poked through the skin of his nose(!)? And HOW in the hell would the evil fisherman manage to get that hook put through the dogs nose without being bitten (SERIOUSLY bitten. To test this concept out yourself, go find a stray dog and try to push a meathook through his nose - I'll wait)
But lets look at the real facts- (not theories on how you would fish)
As opposed to fake facts?
1. The French Embassy had this to say
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
The embassy maintains these are "very isolated cases and authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation
Exactly what WOULD you expect a government agency to say in a public statement? That they ENDORSE animal cruelty?
Exactly what would they be monitoring if there were no cases?
Well, let's see. How about complaints from animal rights groups that don't approve of fishing, or eating meat, or using animal products in ANY fashion whatsoever? Gee, maybe, huh?
2. The animal was treated by a vet ,video taped and returned to it's owner when healed, as it was not a stray. The vets name is supplied.
O.K., and what did the vet SAY? And how would a vet know, any better than anyone else, how the dog got a hook in his nose, unless he WITNESSED the incident?
3. Several animal groups on the ground in Reunion have said that they have found dogs and cats hooked.
WOW! Stop the presses! Animal rights groups complaining about the way animals are treated? Who'd a thunk?
4. National Geographic a well known magazine who I have serious doubts that they would print a story without first checking out the validly, did in fact do so.
And yet they credit their information first off to animal rights groups. I haven't yet seen any firsthand accounts of anything like they're proposing happened to the doggie in the video.
5. This story now some 3 plus years old to date has not been disproven as a hoax. Why do you suppose that is?
Nor has anyone followed up on it, from what I could tell. No one has disproved the "Bat Boy" story from the "Weekly World News" either...
6. And the best for last:
Earlier this month the first court case was held involving a person charged with using live dogs as bait.
Is that what the actual charges are?
Authorities had found a seven-month-old puppy on John Claude Clain's property in July with three fishing hooks in its paws
and snout.
I guess the idea that a stray dog could eat a baited hook, impale itself on that hook and then further impale itself on hooks in other fishing gear in the proximity while jumping around in pain from the first injury is just TOO fantastic to be considered?
Those are the facts! apparently the judge does not share your theories on how fishy the story is , and rumors abounding on the high sea. I guess that real evidence just got in the way.
WOW! FACTS! But what are the REAL things that Monsieur Clain did? I've read what there is of the story online and can only find that he was charged with "Animal Cruelty". But WHAT did he actually do? I guess it doesn't matter...
Everything about this story just SCREAMS "bull$#it" to me. The melodramatic music in the video, the photo of the doggie (whose obviously been groomed before his photo shoot), and the dialog of the heartless foreigners fishing in an absurdly cruel (and ineffective) manner. A non-stop assault on one's emotions.
The story is fishy. I stand by that assessment. (Where does your skepticism go when you're not defending Mr. Wierwille, anyway?)...
Despite the fact that you have your personal theories on how to fish properly for sharks You have no, none, evidence that this story is not true. You offer only theories on this and that. Typical
No, I think what I've done is simply offer a reasonable explanation for an otherwise UNBELIEVABLE story. Unbelievable in that, it just doesn't make any sense. Why would somebody fish in such an absurd and inefficient way? How did the doggie (who seems to be quite well-groomed, and neat and tidy despite the horrific conditions he MUST have been in, no blood, no dirt, and freshly brushed it seems) get away from the evil fisherman? Did the line break and he swam to shore? How did the dog NOT drown if he was being trolled behind a boat? How could the hook possibly hold the dog when simply poked through the skin of his nose(!)? And HOW in the hell would the evil fisherman manage to get that hook put through the dogs nose without being bitten (SERIOUSLY bitten. To test this concept out yourself, go find a stray dog and try to push a meathook through his nose - I'll wait)
But lets look at the real facts- (not theories on how you would fish)
As opposed to fake facts?
1. The French Embassy had this to say
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
The embassy maintains these are "very isolated cases and authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation
Exactly what WOULD you expect a government agency to say in a public statement? That they ENDORSE animal cruelty?
Exactly what would they be monitoring if there were no cases?
Well, let's see. How about complaints from animal rights groups that don't approve of fishing, or eating meat, or using animal products in ANY fashion whatsoever? Gee, maybe, huh?
2. The animal was treated by a vet ,video taped and returned to it's owner when healed, as it was not a stray. The vets name is supplied.
O.K., and what did the vet SAY? And how would a vet know, any better than anyone else, how the dog got a hook in his nose, unless he WITNESSED the incident?
3. Several animal groups on the ground in Reunion have said that they have found dogs and cats hooked.
WOW! Stop the presses! Animal rights groups complaining about the way animals are treated? Who'd a thunk?
4. National Geographic a well known magazine who I have serious doubts that they would print a story without first checking out the validly, did in fact do so.
And yet they credit their information first off to animal rights groups. I haven't yet seen any firsthand accounts of anything like they're proposing happened to the doggie in the video.
5. This story now some 3 plus years old to date has not been disproven as a hoax. Why do you suppose that is?
Nor has anyone followed up on it, from what I could tell. No one has disproved the "Bat Boy" story from the "Weekly World News" either...
6. And the best for last:
Earlier this month the first court case was held involving a person charged with using live dogs as bait.
Is that what the actual charges are?
Authorities had found a seven-month-old puppy on John Claude Clain's property in July with three fishing hooks in its paws
and snout.
I guess the idea that a stray dog could eat a baited hook, impale itself on that hook and then further impale itself on hooks in other fishing gear in the proximity while jumping around in pain from the first injury is just TOO fantastic to be considered?
Those are the facts! apparently the judge does not share your theories on how fishy the story is , and rumors abounding on the high sea. I guess that real evidence just got in the way.
WOW! FACTS! But what are the REAL things that Monsieur Clain did? I've read what there is of the story online and can only find that he was charged with "Animal Cruelty". But WHAT did he actually do? I guess it doesn't matter...
Everything about this story just SCREAMS "bull$#it" to me. The melodramatic music in the video, the photo of the doggie (whose obviously been groomed before his photo shoot), and the dialog of the heartless foreigners fishing in an absurdly cruel (and ineffective) manner. A non-stop assault on one's emotions.
The story is fishy. I stand by that assessment. (Where does your skepticism go when you're not defending Mr. Wierwille, anyway?)...
The facts prove what he did. You just don't like outcome they detail.
I answered from the story how the dog came into their possession a couple of times ,apparently you know the story better not being there and all of course. What makes no sense is, By your theory I'm sure the dog after impaling itself with a hook in it's mouth said gee that feels so good, then said hey that was fun I think I'll just put a couple in each paw as well. I can use some body piercings they'll look real cool when I hang out on the corner with the boys. That makes perfect sense. and wait let me get these in my paws just right too while I'm doing it. No one in 3 + years has debunked the story if it was so fishy someone like you would have. ALL of the officials as well as animal groups on the ground have agreed (see facts above) that it happened. The man was caught, tried in a court that means representation, argument and all the things that go with a trial. and a judge ruled he was indeed guilty that's not speculation. By the way he was found guilty of animal cruelty in relation to the incident not in a general sense , a part again I guess you forgot. He had his day in court to prove his case he failed. Guilty ...it happened. The paper there said it did, The French government said it did ,the animal groups on the ground said it did, the judge said it did, everybody but George who was not present says it did. That's what is fishy.
The story is fishy. I stand by that assessment. (Where does your skepticism go when you're not defending Mr. Wierwille, anyway?...
I have never defended Mr. Wierwille as in this case I have defended the truth ,and factual documentation. If you have some facts you would like to present on either case we can discuss them but as usual all I have seen are I say so never mind what the record says.. Now if we can just get the (foreigners) Japanese pals of yours to quit violating the 1986 ban on commercial whaling in , under the ruse of research all will right in the world
I would imagine the point was to bring to light a horrible practice that's taking place. George's protests to the contrary, it seems quite clear that even if this practice isn't widespread, it has happened
No, we aren't the world's police force, but that doesn't mean we can't speak out against something like using live dogs for shark bait. This isn't a simple cultural difference, like eating dog meat versus eating cow meat, or having 10 wives vs. 1. I don't think anyone is trying to dictate what other cultures should allow. But I don't get the impression that dangling a living dog from a set of hooks to catch a shark is in step with the culture where this occurred, either.
I'm no extreme animal rights nutcase. I eat meat. I wear leather. I happen to love dogs and can't stand to see them abused. I don't think cows should be abused up until the time they're slaughtered for food, either. Call me a softy, and I am, but it seems to me that humans, who are supposed to be intelligent beings, have a responsibility not to abuse the helpless.
I happen to think I have just as much right to be offended about something like this taking place on foreign waters as if it had occurred in the US. I do believe I have a right to be appalled and say so, as does WhiteDove.
Will that change anything? Probably not. But does it hurt anything for me, or for WhiteDove, to express horror at such a practice? I don't see how.
An extreme empathy for dogs probably is a cultural phenomenon.
Perhaps, although I don't see not wanting dogs to be skewered on a huge hook (that has to be painful) and dangled into shark-infested waters as extreme at all.
"Perhaps, although I don't see not wanting dogs to be skewered on a huge hook (that has to be painful) and dangled into shark-infested waters as extreme at all."
but what about the shark? you know what they do to them? they're more important to the world ecosystems than dogs.
what about the fisherman? they got family to feed?
"Perhaps, although I don't see not wanting dogs to be skewered on a huge hook (that has to be painful) and dangled into shark-infested waters as extreme at all."
but what about the shark? you know what they do to them? they're more important to the world ecosystems than dogs.
what about the fisherman? they got family to feed?
why zoom in on the dog?
Fisherman can feed their family without torturing dogs, in fact most of the fisherman there do so quite well.
"Perhaps, although I don't see not wanting dogs to be skewered on a huge hook (that has to be painful) and dangled into shark-infested waters as extreme at all."
but what about the shark? you know what they do to them? they're more important to the world ecosystems than dogs.
what about the fisherman? they got family to feed?
why zoom in on the dog?
And dogs are more important to the world socialsystem, besides they are far more useful, they help the blind to lead productive lives ,they help the deaf to hear ,they protect our law enforcement officers, sniiff out drugs and bombs, guide the wheelchair bound , they have dialed phones for help for siezure patients, they have gone for help and returned with it for people that have fallen off cliffs or other accidents. None of which I have seen a shark do.
And they are the most loyal things despite our human tendencies to mistreat them and break their hearts and spirit.
You Didn't Even Say Goodbye
"Woof!" I said as you started the car,
"Hooray!" I said, it's my first time afar.
The scents we were passing were all new to me,
For it was my first introduction to this mystery.
As we got out of the car I embraced you with joy,
After all you remembered to bring my favorite toy!
You threw it once or twice, of which I retrieved,
But on the third it seemed you were ready to leave.
You threw it long and hard and I chased it like lightning,
But when I turned to bring it back I saw a sight quite frightening.
I gripped my toy hard as I tried to comprehend
What it was I did wrong to make our relationship end.
You walked back to your car as I sat there still loyal.
Why am I subservient and you so royal?
Your engine started, and you peeled out of sight,
You didn't even care about my overwhelming fright.
As I sat in my pose determined you would come back,
The sun faded behind me while the surroundings turned black.
Day after day I stayed in that park,
Lying... waiting... too feeble to bark.
As I lay there dying thinking of you master,
I asked myself how I got into this horrifying disaster.
With my last breath of life, I whispered your name
Then I collapsed in a heap overrun by pain.
Why didn't you love me master? Why didn't you care?
Had I no significance, was I just a clump of hair?
I stayed there master and I waited for you
I guess taking care of me was just too much to do.
I'm gone now master, no more You-and-I
But what I can't figure out is why you didn't even say goodbye...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
23
7
8
Popular Days
Jan 16
32
Jan 18
15
Jan 17
13
Jan 15
2
Top Posters In This Topic
George Aar 10 posts
WhiteDove 23 posts
waysider 7 posts
Bolshevik 8 posts
Popular Days
Jan 16 2009
32 posts
Jan 18 2009
15 posts
Jan 17 2009
13 posts
Jan 15 2009
2 posts
George Aar
From the National Geographic article:
"Live and dead dogs and cats are being used as shark bait by amateur fishers on the French-controlled island of Réunion, according to animal-welfare organizations and local authorities. "
And just what is THEIR proof? Saying it, doesn't make it so. (as I'm sure Mr. Dove would be more than eager to agree, were we discussing Mr. Wierwille's rape victims)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
but those poor, poor fish!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Yes it is a crime
Again I never said our laws applied anywhere that is your assumption.
and local authorities. Guess you missed that part that means those who have the job of determining such cases those who have experience in determining the probability of such cases.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
waysider said:
It's a crime?
I wasn't aware our laws apply in French controlled territories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WD replied:
Yes it is a crime
QUOTE
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
Again I never said our laws applied anywhere that is your assumption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
waysider replied:
I never assumed our laws applied either.
And they don't.
If you want me to agree that animal cruelty is appalling, you got it.
But please don't fudge my words to make it appear as if I said something that I didn't.
Criminality is relative to the jurisdiction where it occurs.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Her utube video is the same one I posted earlier. It is meant to raise awareness for the incident not as a defense in a court to prove a case. A case which did go to court (I suppose you simply forgot that and resulted in a guilty verdict by those who require such proof be met. The burden was met
It said nothing of the sort it said it was minimal not non existent
Did you read the article you presented as proof of your point?
Let me refresh your memory.........
In your letter that you referenced
Introduced meaning that it did in fact go on...case closed
Sounds like they don't share your view that it did not happen there George. Nope sought after and brought to justice sounds just a little like they think it might have been done.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What exactly is the point of this thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Those were your words you were not aware ,not mine ,I never said that the laws apply anywhere in fact I never mentioned application of the law period that was your statement., What I said is that it was a crime which according to the French law it is. Your the one who came up with the idea that "I wasn't aware our laws apply in French controlled territories" I never said,mentioned or implied that they were. Your question indicated that you thought I did. You thought wrong.
QUOTE
The French Embassy in Washington, D.C., issued a written statement condemning the use of dogs as shark bait, emphasizing that such acts are illegal and will not be tolerated in the French territory.
You questioned that , but that is what the law reads. And by the way the crime occured where the juristiction is ,I suppose that's why the guilty verdict.
On to a new topic since you can't prove your case?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Not likely, Exactly what are the odds of a dog eating a hook and then installing two more hooks in each paw not in random spaces mind you, but in roughly the same spot on each paw?
OH Gee let me think...... I'd say about the same as the wind blowing through a airplane parts hanger and assembling a perfect 747.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
didn't dog food be used to be made out of whales? It's only fair that dogs be chopped up and the nutrients returned to the oceans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
There you go waysider..... The reason for this thread speaks.......If you need to ask ,you don't get it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Only them evil foreigners that George knows about make dog food out of whales they serve it in school lunches too :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I've failed to be the most offensive person on this thread. ok, you win.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Waysider asked:
I would imagine the point was to bring to light a horrible practice that's taking place. George's protests to the contrary, it seems quite clear that even if this practice isn't widespread, it has happened
No, we aren't the world's police force, but that doesn't mean we can't speak out against something like using live dogs for shark bait. This isn't a simple cultural difference, like eating dog meat versus eating cow meat, or having 10 wives vs. 1. I don't think anyone is trying to dictate what other cultures should allow. But I don't get the impression that dangling a living dog from a set of hooks to catch a shark is in step with the culture where this occurred, either.
I'm no extreme animal rights nutcase. I eat meat. I wear leather. I happen to love dogs and can't stand to see them abused. I don't think cows should be abused up until the time they're slaughtered for food, either. Call me a softy, and I am, but it seems to me that humans, who are supposed to be intelligent beings, have a responsibility not to abuse the helpless.
I happen to think I have just as much right to be offended about something like this taking place on foreign waters as if it had occurred in the US. I do believe I have a right to be appalled and say so, as does WhiteDove.
Will that change anything? Probably not. But does it hurt anything for me, or for WhiteDove, to express horror at such a practice? I don't see how.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
bait = abuse?
An extreme empathy for dogs probably is a cultural phenomenon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Perhaps, although I don't see not wanting dogs to be skewered on a huge hook (that has to be painful) and dangled into shark-infested waters as extreme at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oh! The HORROR!
http://www.diamond-jim.com/catjuggler/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
George, you're such a stinker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClayJay
Maybe the dog in the photo is a freak and is like, really into piercing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"Perhaps, although I don't see not wanting dogs to be skewered on a huge hook (that has to be painful) and dangled into shark-infested waters as extreme at all."
but what about the shark? you know what they do to them? they're more important to the world ecosystems than dogs.
what about the fisherman? they got family to feed?
why zoom in on the dog?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Fisherman can feed their family without torturing dogs, in fact most of the fisherman there do so quite well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And dogs are more important to the world socialsystem, besides they are far more useful, they help the blind to lead productive lives ,they help the deaf to hear ,they protect our law enforcement officers, sniiff out drugs and bombs, guide the wheelchair bound , they have dialed phones for help for siezure patients, they have gone for help and returned with it for people that have fallen off cliffs or other accidents. None of which I have seen a shark do.
And they are the most loyal things despite our human tendencies to mistreat them and break their hearts and spirit.
You Didn't Even Say Goodbye
"Woof!" I said as you started the car,
"Hooray!" I said, it's my first time afar.
The scents we were passing were all new to me,
For it was my first introduction to this mystery.
As we got out of the car I embraced you with joy,
After all you remembered to bring my favorite toy!
You threw it once or twice, of which I retrieved,
But on the third it seemed you were ready to leave.
You threw it long and hard and I chased it like lightning,
But when I turned to bring it back I saw a sight quite frightening.
I gripped my toy hard as I tried to comprehend
What it was I did wrong to make our relationship end.
You walked back to your car as I sat there still loyal.
Why am I subservient and you so royal?
Your engine started, and you peeled out of sight,
You didn't even care about my overwhelming fright.
As I sat in my pose determined you would come back,
The sun faded behind me while the surroundings turned black.
Day after day I stayed in that park,
Lying... waiting... too feeble to bark.
As I lay there dying thinking of you master,
I asked myself how I got into this horrifying disaster.
With my last breath of life, I whispered your name
Then I collapsed in a heap overrun by pain.
Why didn't you love me master? Why didn't you care?
Had I no significance, was I just a clump of hair?
I stayed there master and I waited for you
I guess taking care of me was just too much to do.
I'm gone now master, no more You-and-I
But what I can't figure out is why you didn't even say goodbye...
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.