Losing a close friend in the form of a family pet can be quite devastating. How much more upsetting would it be to find out that not only you but a number of people also lost their pet that visited the same area in a short span of time — and you have an idea of how people must have felt when they found out that their dogs were but one of fifteen that died in unspeakable agony within hours of visiting a well loved thirty yard walking field in Cross Hills, North Yorkshire, England.

All of the dogs that have died after visiting this walking field have exhibited similar symptoms, and yet somehow the police are only stating that they suspect foul play or that the dogs are being deliberately poisoned. I find this to be absolutely flabbergasting. We are well aware that there is no such thing as coincidence and that the thing that is causing the dogs to die in such a sad manner did not just materialize on the path on its own.

I propose that either of two things happened, one of which seems much less likely to me than the other. The first possibility is that the poisoning was entirely non deliberate and that somehow either some toxic substance blew onto the pathway or was dragged onto it by other animals that were not affected by the poison. It is also possible by this same line of reasoning that the caretakers used a substance that was new to their line of caretaking — for repelling slugs, for example — and that is what killed the dogs.

The more likely possibility is that there is someone out there who either hates dogs or wants to bring hurt to people through killing their beloved pets. Perhaps this person had a bad experience with a dog when he or she was young. Maybe they are testing the waters by hurting animals first — there is a solid link between animal cruelty and human cruelty.

I believe that we can completely discount the possibility of the caretakers of the park mistakenly using substances that would be harmful to pets out of the way because the substances that caretakers would use on such a property would have to be tested first for animal safety. You wouldn’t carpet a school with any material without making sure it was safe for use by humans and you certainly wouldn’t lay down slug repellent without making sure that it is not hurtful to dogs.

That being said, I am surprised that the police are not being more vigilant in going out and taking samples and analyzing everything that they can to try to determine what is behind the dog deaths. It would be respectful to the memories of the dogs as well as respectful to their owners to try to get to the bottom of what is causing this and who is behind it so that future dog murder like this can be prevented.

7 Comments

  1. “Muslims are poisoning dogs because they consider them to be filth Mohammedans consider dogs to be “ritually unclean” and anti-dog campaigns have been noted on various Spanish-language Muslim websites. There are also reports of dog owners being threatened and harassed by Muslims while taking their pets for a walk.” https://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/spain-muslims-are-poisoning-dogs-because-they-consider-them-to-be-filth/

    1. I work with two Muslims from two different countries and neither would even bend a hair on a dog’s back let alone poison it. I believe that there are extremists in every religion and they do a great job of making everyone else look bad — even though they may be in the minority.

  2. Dogs in Islam.

    The majority of Muslim jurists consider dogs to be ritually unclean, though jurists from the Sunni Maliki school disagree. However, outside their ritual uncleanness, Islamic fatāwā, or rulings, enjoin that dogs be treated kindly or else be freed.

    Muslims generally cast dogs in a negative light because of their ritual impurity. The story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in the Qur’an (and also the role of the dog in early Christianity) is one of the striking exceptions. Muhammad did not like dogs according to Sunni tradition, and most practicing Muslims do not have dogs as pets. Because they are required to pray five times a day. It is said that angels do not enter a house which contains a dog. Though dogs are not allowed for pets, they are allowed to be kept if used for work, such as guarding the house or farm, or when used for hunting purposes.

    According to a generally UNACCEPTED Sunni tradition attributed to Muhammad, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form. This report reflects the pre-Islamic Arab mythology and the vast majority of Ulema (Muslim jurists) viewed it to be falsely attributed to Muhammad.

    Another Sunni tradition attributed to Muhammad commands Muslims not to trade or deal in dogs. According to El Fadl, this shows the cultural biases against dogs as a source of moral danger. However, the Hanafi scholars, the largest school of ritual law in Sunni Islam, allow all trading in dogs.

    According to one story, Muhammad is said to have informed a prostitute who had seen a thirsty dog hanging about a well and given it water to drink, that Allah forgave her because of that good deed.

    Dogs, outside the ritual legal discourse, were often portrayed in the literature as a symbol of highly esteemed virtues such as self-sacrifice and loyalty or on the other hand as an oppressive instrument in the hands of despotic and unjust rulers.

    The historian William Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad’s kindness to animals was remarkable for the social context of his upbringing. He cites an instance of Muhammed posting sentries to ensure that a female dog with newborn puppies was not disturbed by his army traveling to Mecca in the year 630.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.