A blog posting regarding the death of a dog this week at BFAS elicited some comments from ex-staffers who basically stated that double fencing had been requested for certain dogs but denied due to cost. In a post dated October 14, BFAS responds to this allegation directly:
For the record, there has never been a request for fencing that has been denied due to lack of funds, period.
So I guess that’s that? The former staffers who spoke out to the contrary are all mistaken or perhaps dishonest?
My impression after reading the post is that there does seem to be a certain spin, including the title, to cast Beans (the dog who was killed by one or both of the Vick dogs) as the primary responsible party. Your take may be different but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.