ADVERTISEMENTS


Dognition.com - How well do you know your pet?

Give The Bark -- The Ultimate Dog Magazine



Introducing the New Havahart Wireless Custom-Shape Dog Fence

Fine Leather Dog Collars For All Breeds

Heartspeak message cards


Mixed-breed DNA test to find out the breeds that make up you dog.

Bulldog Leash Hook

Healthy Dog Treats

Free Shipping - Pet Medication


SitStay, Good for Your Dog Supplies

books on dogs

Today’s target: The Minnesota Twins

bullseye

 
Alright, Minnesota Twins. You don’t allow dogs in your new baseball park — named after the Target Corp. So who was that in the box seats behind home plate at your home opener?

Oh, it was Bullseye? The dog Target uses to advertise its chain of discount stores? The one with two red circles painted around her left eye?

That makes it all ok.

NOT!

If dogs are banned, dogs are banned — and it shouldn’t matter how much money her corporate owners have, or even if the stadium is named after the corporation she represents.

If you’re going to allow Target corporate honchos to bring a dog in, you need to allow everyone else as well — and not just those who can afford to buy a $275 box seat behind home plate for their dog. Those in the right field bleachers should be allowed, too.

Bullseye “was there after the [military jet] flyover [and] through the bottom of the first inning,” Chris Iles, a Twins spokesman, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Iles took the opportunity to caution fans against bringing their pets to a game.

“Any type of service animal is allowed, but no other animals,” he said. “That said, given the commitment Target has made to the organization, we made a one-time decision to allow Bullseye, a highly trained and constantly supervised dog, to sit in a seat for a half-inning.”

Baloney.

Lena Michaud, a spokeswoman for Minneapolis-based Target, said Tuesday that Bullseye was in one of Target’s corporate seats merely as “a fun element to commemorate the day. … That was the vein in which it was intended.”

More baloney. (I’d spell it correctly — bologna — but that is not the vein in which it is intended.)

The Twins/Target front offices can spin the situation until the cows come home, but the message has already been received: Rules don’t apply to the very rich, especially those who help pay for your stadium.

On top of rising ticket and concession prices, baseball continues to give blue collar fans, us average mutts, the brush off – becoming ever closer to becoming a game played by the rich for the rich.

How do you think a fan who can no longer to afford to go to a game might have felt sitting at home and seeing a dog in the $275 box seats behind home plate? Sorry, the Twins seem to be saying, we welcome rich people, and their dogs, but you, Joe Sixpack, are just not in our league … And don’t even think of bringing your non-painted dog, that doesn’t have a corporate logo stamped on his eye,  in here.

(Actually, Bullseye’s bullseye is applied by a trainer and makeup artist –  Rose Ordile of Animals of a Different Color — using nontoxic red paint.)

Michaud said there was no commercial shot or marketing strategy surrounding Bullseye’s attendance. The dog sat in a custom-made Twins jersey with her name on the back as well as the number 10 to commemorate the Target Field opening in 2010.

The six-year-old miniature bull terrier’s presence at Monday night’s game was captured via television frame grab off ESPN.

Comments

Comment from Gus ‘n Wally ‘n Ms Jan
Time April 14, 2010 at 11:35 am

Um. John. I can see you did not get the memo!!! The commonly understood memo that seems to be making the rounds these days which instructs pet parents THAT ONLY THE RICH CAN HAVE PETS. The application of this principle is seen in exclusionary tactics such as you so eloquently describe above, in collaborative pricing (this used to bring down the antitrust Nazis but no more since too many decades of small r republican rule – they don’t deserve a cap), and especially in charge-what-the-traffic-will bear (theoretically) animal services types – prime example, veterinarians. If you read a lot of blogs, forum posts, etc. not only oriented to companion animal parents but quasi-companion “livestock” (horses and assorted equids) you will see that increasingly the opinions offered are widely divergent with little mid-ground: e.g., if you are rich you are “entitled.” If you are not rich (not poor but still not able to afford $275 seats even if you wanted same) you gots zero biz having an animal of any kind in your pathetic life.

I wish I could say this is all sarcasm but frankly the situation with the judgmental attitudes is becoming scarier than anything that could be dismissed with a sarcasm label.

Comment from Todd Zmina
Time May 23, 2012 at 11:01 pm

Get Over It! I would love for the Twins to host a bring your dog day, but IT IS private property leaving those decisions to the organization with no requirements of “fairness”, as you describe it.

Write a comment





buy software adobe suite 5
autodesk 2010