Vick Pit Bulls To Be Destroyed
Michael Vick, Atlanta Falcons quarterback, has plead guilty to charges of illegal dogfighting, and as part of that action, the more than fifty pitbulls on his property were seized by the government. Now it is likely that these dogs will be euthanized.
So how is this better for the dogs? I’d rather have a brutal chance at survival than to be hopelessly sent to the gas chamber. Vick is charged with, among other things, killing some of the dogs in his possession by hanging and drowning. Now the state is about to do the same thing to these dogs that Vick did, albeit in a more constrained and sanitary fashion. But death is death and killing is killing. So they’re sending Vick to jail because he didn’t kill the dogs nicely enough?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:51
You bring up an interesting point. I like the way you said “nicely enough”, which does get you thinkin’. I disagree though and think that a “humane” euthinization is better for the dogs then the torture they were put through.
There was more that happened then just the killings. The fighting is an unnatural representation of “the wild”.
What do you think of the plea deal?
August 23rd, 2007 at 13:55
I personally think some of these dogs should in fact be evaluated and the ones that are way to aggressive should be pts. I know I would adopt a pit in need of a second chance. Not all fighting dogs are bad they can be worked with and put into a great home with time and patience. I adopted a feamle bait dog at first we had know idea until we brought her home. The scarring and defense she had. To tell you the truth she is a great dog and we LOVE her very much. SHe is great with other dogs, loves humanes of all ages and sizes. She was bit not too long ago at my local dog park by a pomerian and she did nothing but walk away and I had to get her treated. So there can be hope for these dogs but nobody wants to step up and help them. I wish I can hold all of them and give them LOVE before they meet rainbow bridge.
August 23rd, 2007 at 17:15
I don’t think that Michael Vick is guilty of a serious crime. I don’t think that dogfighting should be illegal. Bullfighting is legal in Spain and Mexico, and it certainly as brutal as dogfighting. Animals should be considered property to be done with as they wish by their owners. Those who care for and love their dogs and treat them gently, like Jennifer, are good and kind people, but such kindness should not be manadated by law. By my moral code, Vick might merit a civil fine for not disposing of animals humanely enough, but otherwise I cannot strongly condemn him.
Michael Vick played professionally in a brutal sport where serious injury is commonplace and accepted. I think a lot more condemnation should go towards trainers on NFL sidelines who keep men playing to the point of certain lifelong disability. Save the Humans!
It should also be kept in mind that most of the evidence against Vick is given by confederates looking to shorten their own punishment by ratting out the top guy. Would they elaborate their stories to please prosecutors? Put in the same situaion, I might. Dog fighting almost certainly went on, but the details we know are coerced.
What is perhaps the greatest moral indictment against Vick is that he did not pick more stalwart associates and that he does not inspire loyalty. These guys turned Judas on him quickly to save their own skins.
Thanks for your comments and welcome to the blog.
August 25th, 2007 at 13:43
Michel,
The insensitivity of your remarks is an example of how this cruel and inhumane “sport” if you must call it, is allowed to be perpetuated throughout this country. The killing and maiming or abuse of animals for a persons entertainment or profit is an abhorrent practice, whether it be bullfighting, dog racing, shooting big game on hunting ranches, cock fighting rings, or as in Michael Vick’s case, dog fighting. An animal is not a possession like a car or your home, it is a living, breathing, feeling animal that deserves decent and humane care, and love and affection from it’s human caretakers. Absolutely the kind of care we give to animals should be mandated by law, just as the kind of care we give to ourselves is mandated by law. Animals share our earth with us, and most of them were on this earth before we even existed. As the so-called intelligent animal species on this planet it is our responsibility to protect the lesser species that live among us. When we relegate animals to “possession” status, we are diminishing ourselves as compassionate human beings, and we open the doors to not only the abuse of animals, but to the eventual abuse of fellow humans. This has been documented and proven time and time again. Most of the serial killers of modern history whetted and honed their appetite for killing first on defenseless animals before turning their focus on humans.
In your argument about football being a brutal sport with injury commonplace and accepted, I agree, but the difference is that as humans WE have the ability to make those decisions for ourselves, whereas an animal is at the mercy of the humans that are responsible for it’s care. As for the persons who gave testimony against Mr. Vick, they are no less responsible for what took place, and don’t deserve any compassion for that testimony, as they are just as complicit in the same crime.
Unfortunately, most of those innocent animals, after being tortured, abused, starved, forced to fight or used as bait, will most likely be euthanized. The probability that those dogs have been bred for generations for aggression is highly likely, and that aggression makes them unreliable as family pets. Even if some of them could be placed successfully with a human caretaker, they could not be around other animals as the attack desire would be too strong in them to overcome.
We should all be ashamed and outraged at Michael Vick’s involvment in this dog-fighting ring, and any other persons involvent in any sort of activity that uses defenseless animals for vicious sport or profit. My greatest hope would be that however Michael Vick is sentenced, it would also require him to many months of education in the care and rehabilitation of dogs used as fighting. Also, how about require him to be present to watch the euthanization of each and every one of the dogs confiscated from his property. These dogs and all dogs used in this manner deserve much better than they get. God bless them all.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:49
Joellyn,
We are in fundamental disagreement. You think that animals should be treated “humanely”, while I think that humane treatment should be reserved for humans. But I honor your forthrightness. If Michael Vick is to be condemned, must we also not condemn horse and dog racers, bullfighters, rodeo riders, recreational hunters of all stripes, including fishermen, as you suggest? I will add, must we not also condemn the cruel industrial use of animals, not only for their meat, but for their eggs and milk and skin. Must we not also condemn the use of animals in animal research, a use necessary for the development of modern medicine?
Perhaps we must, even if do so is to condemn humanity to a miserable prehistoric condition. If it is the right thing to do, then we must do it, even at the cost of disastrous human suffering. Perhaps, indeed, man must be willing to face extinction. At the most primitive level, man has always depended on hunting to stay alive. And it should not be argued that primitive hunting is somehow “fairer” or “kinder” than modern animal husbandry. Killing, after all, is killing. Even if he is using just his bare hands, man has the advantage of a higher intellect to trick his prey.
Yet life is harsh and cruel. What kindness we impart to it is a rare treasure. If you have seen a cat toying with a wounded mouse, or a vine slowly killing a tree, you cannot argue that nature outside of man is kind and gentle.
IF you argue that there is some “necessary” killing, for things such as food, and contrarily “unnecessary” killing, forthings such as entertainment, I am not sure where I can make the distinction. Is a pair of leather shoes necessary or not, do work boots make a cow’s slaughter more justifiable than a pair of Prada high heels? Is a filet mignon steak somehow less necessary than some badly cooked chicken because it gives me greater pleasure? Is the sacrifice of an animal, as demanded by some passage in the Bible, good or evil?
You are not wrong, though, in condemning cruelty to animals, or encouraging that they are treated with kindness, or wishing to protect animals. The question is how far you and others should be allowed to go in compelling others to follow your values.
In the case of the undomesticated world, I believe a community, be it a town or a nation or a world, should have a great deal of influence over others. The natural, undomesticated world is the heritage of all mankind and should be protected for future generations. In the domesticated arena, animals must be considered property, a distinction common to all advanced civilizations.
That is not to say that men cannot tell other men how to treat their property, if it affects the common good. Certainly, we all have an interest in seeing that the use of unhealthy antibiotics and overcrowding of animals do not breed diseases dangerous to man, or that unsanitary conditions endanger the safety of our food supply. In this regard, perhaps, lies the strongest indictment against Mr. Vick — his pitbulls were bred and raised in a manner that would ultimately make them dangerous to people.
But I believe the risks of such canine attacks are overstated, just as I believe the correlation between homicidal pathology and animal cruelty is overstated.
But, as the probable euthanizing of Michael Vick’s dogs illustrates, his case is not ultimately one of cruelty against animals, but one of transgressing popular mores and endangering human welfare. Putting a man in prison for outraging public morals disturbs me. I also do not believe that the controlled enviroment he maintained for his dogfighting endangered the general public.
So I cannot strongly condemn Michael Vick. Quiet frankly, I would be much more interested in seeing his dogs fight than seeing them put in the gas chamber.
Thank you for your very thought-provoking comments.
-Michel
August 28th, 2007 at 1:29
Michel, you pointed out the irony of the case. Animal activists are fighting for the protection of all lives, including these dogs. That is a noble stand. But then, after the cameras and political cards are played, the dogs ultimately get destroyed. So, is the protest that you shouldn’t breed animals for fighting, or that you shouldn’t hurt animals, period? If I was on the board of any of the animal protection organizations, I think I would have made sure that ALL of those animals were saved, even if it meant they lived out their lives in a habitat where they could not harm people. By allowing them to be destroyed, you’re basically saying that some animals are worth saving and some animals are not…which weakens their position in my mind.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:32
These dogs need to be destroyed. They are not adoptable. There are over 50 of them in the shelter right now. Because of their bad reputation (Because of idiots like Vick) even the nice ones cant get adopted. This leaves NO hope for ones that are trained to be aggressive. Jennifer, they have been evaluated… by Vick and his cohorts. If they had an ounce of niceness in them, they were destroyed. These animals are a danger to anyone who may think to own them. They are not puppies. Most are over 4 years old. Their behavior is learned and there is no way to ensure that anyone who adopts them will be safe. Certainly no dog or child in the vicinity will be safe. These dogs have become weapons. Lets not detract from the real issue here… the person who sealed their fate with his actions. These dogs were not pets. They were not socialized. Thet will hurt someone. Lets not be ignorant and think that these animals can be placed in homes and have a nice life. MIchel… you seem articulate and intelligent. I cant believe you manage to spout off some of the thiungs you did. Its unfortunate when smartt people root for the other side. What a dissapointment.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:41
It never hurts to put some hard numbers into a discussion. So here is a summary of dog bite statistics. Dog bites are usually made by a dog that has previously been peaceful, and usually occurs in the home and the victim a friend or family member. Random attacks by vicious pitbulls are not a pressing issue. The Vick pit bulls were not meant to be household pets and were accordingly sequestered. They did not pose an imminent harm to the public. These are issues of public safety and are certainly debatable.
What I find hypocritical is the breast-beating for the cruelty to these animals. Vick’s treatment of his animals, in the end, was no worse than that accorded to most livestock. If you eat or use animal products, you are complicit in cruelty to animals, albeit a sanitized and hidden cruelty.
Thanks for the articulate and intelligent comments.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:57
I just did a research paper on dog bite statistics because of breed banning legislation (I use dogbitelaw.com, as well). CDC is incorrect and the only website politicians are capable of quoting. Over 90% of dog bites are from animals who are unsocialized and kept on chains. (almost always by uneducated, poor people who have drug convictions.) Where you are incorrect is your statement that “Dog bites are usually made by a dog that has previously been peaceful. ” That the family member is usually bitten is true, but the dogs rarely quialify as a member of the household and is certainly not “peaceful”. I think you should pick up the books “The Pit Bull Placebo” and “Fatal Dog Attacks.” Both were very educational and can perhaps prevent people from blindly believing what they read in the newspapers. http://www.fataldogattacks.com/default.asp I am not going to argue about the use of Vicks dogs… comparing them to meat we eat is simply ludicris. We dont send out cows in to bludgeon eachother to death before we eat them. The dogs have no choice and are forced to do something undesirable that causes them injury and death. You cannot compare that to luxury items, regardless of the common denominator that they are killed. That is all they have in common.
September 11th, 2007 at 19:19
Julia,
As I have mentioned before, there is certainly reasonable argument that Vick might have been creating a public nuisance or potential hazard by breeding and raising vicious dogs. I do not claim to be an expert on the matter. I do not know if the two self-published books you cited are the final say on the matter, but there is room for reasonable argument, and it should certainly be factually based. We agree on that much.
But I will not concede that animals killed fighting each other and animals industriously killed for food do not both suffer awful and cruel fates. A quick Google search for “video slaughterhouse” will quickly prove my point, though it is not for the faint of heart. Almost any animal product involves an animal suffering horrifically.
-ME
October 4th, 2007 at 3:19
Most of those videos are not produced in the US and are posted for shock value by agencies such as PETA. You will be hard pressed to find inhumane (by my definition) slaughter of animals in America.