This was brought up somewhere. Maybe on the forums here. But... I want to add my point (keep in mind, I only know the story from media exposure):

In essence, this man gave a dog, who was going to die neglected on the street a final place to rest his head.

Would a homeless man, whom was about to die in the street have turned this down? It's a question of free-will. The dog lacking free-will is at the mercy of nature... Which obviously didn't fare him well from the onset.

Is that fair? Maybe not. But is it any more fair that a rat should die attempting entry into your home by getting stuck in a crack in the foundation? Or should we resolve to inspect daily the cinder blocks surrounding our domain?

To those who could see past the "cruelty", the message was probably well received.

It's a shame that the puppy wasn't taken with the intention of rehab, but the artist (for better or worse) had much different intentions.

The irony is, had someone have noticed the situation before this incident, we would not have anything to talk about here. BUT... I bet everyone in that town carries doggie treats or is considering funding a shelter at this very moment.

Feel free to express feelings of hurt, as it is humane to do so (I'm also taken a bit by surprise), but what's done is done and now their people need to provide a solution. Punishment of the artist would not alleviate the situation at all.

Do I have a point?