Gone to the Dogs

   I like dogs, most dogs, probably more than I like most people; let's say those of each species who make the news.  A young man, let's call him a loser, burns a dog by pouring some sort of fluid on its head and then lighting it, with a match I guess.  Sadistic behavior, cruelty toward animals at its worst.  That should serve to identify what happened. 
     But the media reports can't stick with the mundane facts, no matter how heinous.  The nine-month old pit bull, weighing about 55 lbs. is not just a dog, but a puppy.  The dog reportedly has second and third degree burns to the ear and eye area; in the TV videos, the burned area  looks rough, though the dog fortunately seems fine. The reporter states that part of the ear may need to be amputated, if it becomes infected.  That's always a possibility.  Before  a person undergoes joint replacement surgery, the caveat is  the worst possible scenario that if infection sets in, it may result in amputation of the limb.  Most people don't dwell on this possibility, but the television viewer is reminded each newscast that the poor puppy may have to endure amputation.  This injured pitbull's ears seem not to have been trimmed, though that is not the case in many of the Westminster Dog Show's contestants. 
     The owner of the dog says he was not there when the dog was set on fire, and he says he waited a day and a half to take the dog to the vet because he does not have a car and had to work.  He has been arrested also, for "failure to provide sustenance."  I  think any time there is more than one excuse, the defense of actions is very weak.  He ultimately did seek medical attention for the dog, though.  So I think it a little over the top when a uniformed spokesperson, police or humane worker I don't know, says that the owner is as guilty as if it were a child who was injured, saying you wouldn't wait 2 days.  I just don't believe children should be equated with animals.