Could the Vick dogs have a life of public service?
By Gina Spadafori
January 10, 2008
We haven’t covered every twist and turn of the Michael Vick dog-fighting story here. That’s for a couple of reasons, really. One, we’re not super-keen on celebrity journalism (Christie’s professional interest in pop culture for another site notwithstanding), and two, we tend to look at the bigger picture of pets and culture, pets and science, and pets and the law.
I mean, we can be just as “oh my gosh, how very cute” as the next pet-lover, but we’re just not a 24/7 fluff(y) network. We happen to be journalists who love pets, and find the issues important, fascinating and worthy of writing about.
Plus, to be just a little bit snotty, we’re also not trying to raise money as a 501(c)3 enterprise, trotting out signs with our big national charity’s name on them outside of courthouses and calling for the “protection” of animals while also declaring the Vick pit bulls to be unredeemable without testing and worthy only of a swift execution without trial. Because, well, you know, it’s so much easier to raise money on the backs of theoretical animals than on real ones who may have issues.
All that said, I was intrigued by reader Laura’s link this morning to a request by LawDogsUSA.org to test the Vick dogs for their suitability as working detection dogs. How utterly sweet would it be — in theory at least — if some of these dogs could be used to bust drug-dealers? I like it!
Anyway, from the site:
Anytime I hear of a “bust” for dog fighting anywhere in the US, I contact the authorities and request permission to inspect the dogs (if there is a sufficient number) for detection dog potential. I do this for two reasons; first, so called “gamebred” dogs often have the kinds of drive and sound, people friendly temperament needed for detection work, and second, I feel taking dog fight bust dogs and turning them into “law enforcement officers” sends a powerful and important message to America’s youth - it is never to late to “go straight”!
As soon as we became aware of the seized Vick dogs, we began asking for an opportunity to test the dogs. We never received a reply from any of the parties we contacted, however, they were reading the letters, for soon the term “lawdogs” began being used in media statements. Many articles on the dogs stated some were going to be evaluated for use as “lawdogs”.
Due to our funding limitations, LawDogsUSA was unable to fly back and “court” the people involved. There began to be rumors of $20,000 “dowries” going with any of the dogs being released. At that point, predictably, things began to go South.
Interesting. Go read the rest and give us your take on it. Should the people-friendly Vick dogs be given shelter … or a job?
***
Thanks to those of you who have wondered where the heck I’ve been. Our storm here was a record-setter for Sacramento — sustained winds of around 70 mph. In addition to my pet-writing — books, syndicated pet-care page and, of course, this blog and Web site — I also work for the local public electric utility. We’ve been, um, kinda busy, to say the least.
Not to mention that the storm blew down most of my fencing and part of a tree. Good fences make good doggies, if not not good neighbors. I’ll be glad later today when my repairs are complete.
Yes, I know “real” city people like Christie two hours west in the beautiful city named for the patron saint of animals walk their dogs three times a day and pick up after them. (Well, I know Christie certainly does.) But five days of leash-walking five dogs in the rain is enough for me.
Now, I’m trying to catch up on everything …
***
Since he offered the story of strapping his crated, terrified dog to the roof of the family station wagon as a “humorous” example of his problem-solving ability, Mitt Romney has been on my “no way, no how, not ever” list of presidential candidates. His recent comments on unwanted pets have not moved him into consideration as far as I’m concerned. (”The cat and dog population and guinea pigs and the ones most concerned of course, gerbils. …” he said, and also joked about solving the problem by giving undocumented workers pets before sending them back to their countries of origin.)
Hear me laughing? I’m not. “Animal issues” are not all I care about, but they are in my top 10 for sure. In any case, I don’t appreciate being mocked, Mitt.
Hi Gina-That law dogs link made me so sad.
It points to a bigger picture of liability, and money-not service dog work. They had to give the dogs back.
:(
Nancy
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — January 10, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
do any dangerous dog laws require that kind of insurance?!
i’m sure i’ll get more ticked later, but right now i’m extremely upset they removed the dogs and shipped them off to a sanctuary. I’m sure Proof and his care giver were already well bonded (geeze, it’s hard enough to send foster dogs to their new homes!) but also, what a missed opportunity for everyone. what a great teaching tool these dogs are (‘transformed’ ones). just a waste, imo.
on another note, i missed the part of Romney’s comments on the homeless pets and illegals. OY!~ these are his ideas of jokes?! has everyone seen the Rudy Ferret Rant?
http://www.slate.com/id/2165879/
hope they finish up your fence today! i can’t imagine have to rely on leash walks for 5 dogs in crappy weather! just feel happy you haven’t had the sub zero wind-chills on the dog walks! ;) we’ve been lucky so far this year and only got down to zero WCs once or twice so far. even though we’re not out long at all in that weather, it still feels like animal abuse to me!
{wonders when we’ll see new pup pics . . . }
Comment by straybaby — January 10, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
In reference to the lawdog web site -
I was afraid there would be some downside when Rebecca Huss was appointed as the person who would have final say on the dogs. As an attorney, I’m sure the liability issue loomed large for her, maybe a little too large.
I don’t agree that the Pit Bulls have pointless lives at Best Friends Sanctuary, but its a shame that dogs that the ASPCA deemed adoptable aren’t going to be given a chance to be adopted. Or perhaps they will be to individuals - it isn’t clear what the intention is for the two dogs mentioned.
And I do agree that this could be a real negative for the image of the pitbull, but its probably only folks like us who are paying any attention at this point. And we already know that the dogs are not huge liabilities.
I’ll be checking out the Best Friends web site and see if they have anything more to say about them.
Comment by 2CatMom — January 10, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Ok, that didn’t take too long. Here’s a link to the Best Friends Vick Pit Bull info on their website:
http://news.bestfriends.org/in.....6FACF8C41E
Looks like the 22 dogs are at the sanctuary for good. All I can think is that the overriding concern was that if even 1 dog bit someone, it would play right into the hands of PETA or HSUS. Even so, that’s a real shame. At least some of them had been evaluated as adoptable - they should have been given a chance.
I know, the link is too long, I’m sorry - but I have to go give my two furbabies some much needed attention.
Comment by 2CatMom — January 10, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
There is just a huge philosophical gap between Jessup, and Bad Rap (who is caring for 10 Vick dogs), and Best Friends. Jessup wanted these dogs to have useful productive lives outside of a sanctuary setting. Bad Rap got dogs that are readily adoptable. They don’t run a sanctuary; they foster, train/socialize and then carefully match pit bulls to appropraite owners. Yes, even pit bulls who are dog aggressive (though they insist on training the dogs to behave, and on owners being savvy about pit bulls around other dogs) and even dogs seized from dogfighters. They have a very very high success rate in placing pit bulls in permanent homes… close to 100% in fact.
. Best Friends is a sanctuary organization. Their whole philosophy is geared around dogs being all cool around other dogs. That’s why pit bull people keep freaking out whenever BF has some reference to putting pit bulls together in multiple dog kennels. BF doesn’t seem to adopt out any dog that is dog-aggressive, which is basically a “prison” sentence for pit bulls, even if it’s a gilt-lined prison as BF runs.
That, and the 20K they received for each dog pretty much means those dogs will remain at BF for life, whatever their aptitude for “lawdog” work or responsible family homes.
Comment by EmilyS — January 10, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
There are two “no-way, not-in-my-lifetime” presidential candidates:
Romney: for the reasons Gina mentioned. Face it, anyone who jokes about a solution obviously doesn’t take pets seriously. Just another piece of luggage. I don’t want him running the country just for that reason alone.
Huckabee: Anyone who raised a kid who slashes the throat of a defenseless dog, then stones it to death, and then goes to great lengths to cover it up, should know better than to even run for President. The whole family needs therapy for anger management. Some of their comments have been insiduously violent.
I’m not stupid enough to imagine that any President will put animal welfare on his/her radar screen. Sad, but that’s life. Those who show GENUINE compassion towards animals are people I am far more apt to trust and vote for.
Comment by Lynn — January 10, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
I can’t even put into words the disappointment, disgust, sadness, and anger I feel when reading the Lawdogs site. I don’t hold any great love for Diane Jessup, but the Lawdogs program is a good one and it disgusts me that money is more important than anything else at the end of the day. I was afraid from the very moment I saw mention of where these dogs would be heading that they were going to end up victimized once again by the people claiming to save them.
Pit bulls are a working breed. They are smart, they are tenacious, they are a breed that needs a job to do. They deserve better than being warehoused.
Comment by katie — January 10, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
This is what I was, ya know, getting at a couple of weeks ago when I expressed disappointment that so many of the Vick dogs were going to Best Friends.
They’ll be on display like celebrity zoo animals for as long as that helps with fundraising. This will reinforce the idea that pit bulls in general, and ex-fighters specifically, are universally “unadoptable.”
And, as the writer points out, each with a “dowry.”
Best Friends couldn’t handle all those Katrina pit bulls after they were no longer media magnets. I wonder when the Vick dogs’ celebrity shelf life will expire?
Certain kinds of dog are particularly ill-suited to kennel warehousing, often for very different reasons. Pit bulls are among those. Very few of them can live in a “colony” type of situation, which is the only thing that may make that warehousing tolerable for some other dogs.
Comment by H. Houlahan — January 10, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
Re: Mitt. Lets rename him Mutt.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — January 10, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
That would be an insult to all the wonderful mutts out there . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 10, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
I read the article as the humane society director making the flippant remark about deporting pets with illegal aliens.
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail.....n-of-pets/
Comment by kb — January 10, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Ouch! a lot of unsubstantiated gossip on Pet Connection today. I’m sorry guys, but DJ has her facts wrong. The dogs are in excellent hands and will be enjoying fulfilling lives. Please hold the tongues until everyone, including Rebecca Huss, can discuss the finer details. It’s only fair.
Comment by Donna — January 11, 2008 @ 2:46 am
And when will these details be forthcoming, Donna? Because I see Diane Jessup feeling jilted, I see Best Friends extolling their graces, and I see people being lectured and told that they just don’t understand every time anybody expresses concern that what is being done for these dogs is less than ideal. I truly cannot grasp how being being warehoused is the best thing for any dog, but these dogs specifically, and I do not understand why, if these dogs are damaged beyond reasonable hope of existing in the world, why we are keeping them alive. I am *thrilled* that they were not categorically killed for being fighters. I am thrilled that they were evaluated by people with true pit bull experience, people with experience rehabbing and placing ex-fighters no less. But I do *not* understand why unsound dogs are being kept alive. Doesn’t that speak to the very heart of what is best for this breed?
I mean you no disrespect, Donna. I think Bad Rap is a fabulous organization and that no one else can measure up to you guys, but I’m extremely frustrated with the lack of anything but propaganda and chiding.
Comment by katie — January 11, 2008 @ 5:19 am
I only recently learned about David Huckabee’s exploits. http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241
Ever since the Boston Globe first revealed the story http://tinyurl.com/2dco5b, I have always thought it a terrible Seamus about Mitt.
Comment by deb — January 11, 2008 @ 5:35 am
Being silent until someone explains just gives them less reason to bother to do so.
Comment by emily — January 11, 2008 @ 7:44 am
katie, the dogs are NOT unsound.
They went through temperament tests… do you imagine anyone involved with the Vick case wants unsound pit bulls adopted out? In fact, I assume that their temperaments are STERLING, because otherwise Huss would never have approved of them going to rescue. Remember, HSUS and PETA were HOWLING for these dogs to be exterminated.
What could be WORSE for pit bulls than for high profile dogs like this to get into trouble??? Everyone hopes that these Vick dogs prove (again) that dogs seized from dogfighters CAN be good pets and MUST be given the same chance as any others.
The issue is which ones will be allowed to get into homes eventually, and which ones will live their lives out in a sanctuary.
Unless some temperament/health issues turn up during the foster period, the Bad Rap dogs will be adopted out. I don’t know about the record of the other organizations in regard to adopting out pit bulls, but I think their goal is to adopt out, not sanctuary, the Vick dogs.
My assumption is that BF got dogs that were assessed with some bigger needs in terms of socialization and training than those that Bad Rap and the other orgs. got.
BadRap/Donna has no control over what BF does with their dogs, and the record of BF adopting out any dog other than the most mild mannered is not good. Their whole philosophy is geared toward “sanctuary”. They don’t see anything wrong with keeping a dog in a sanctuary for its whole life.
Let’s all gather together here again in 12 months… I’ll put money that 90% of the BF dogs are still at BF.. unless transferred to another rescue. As others have pointed out, their record with the Katrina dogs is not great.
If BF adheres to what I understand the guidelines are, the Vick dogs will NOT be “tourist attractions”. No one is supposed to know which dogs are Vick dogs. Of course, if you go to DogTown at BF and see 20 gamey looking pit bulls, you could probably guess…
Comment by EmilyS — January 11, 2008 @ 7:58 am
>I truly cannot grasp how being being warehoused is the best thing for any dog, but these dogs specifically,.
You’re assuming now that DJ is giving you accurate information. Katie, the dogs are not at BF and they’re certainly not being warehoused. They’re both in CA.
I’m so embarrassed for lawdogs — I can’t imagine what she was thinking when she posted that ridiculous rant. Shooting both feet. And loud enough to make sure fed gov’t officials and law enforcement agencies everywhere can hear the gun blasts.
Comment by Donna — January 11, 2008 @ 9:02 am
I saw the spot on TV when a local humane society leader asked Romney the question about pet overpopulation. His answer was snide and stupid. For someone who needs every vote he can get that was a huge mistake. It’s a sad state of affairs when someone of his caliber is running for president.
Comment by Carol — January 11, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Donna: Jessup did not say both dogs are at BF .”So, sadly, Proof was taken from us. And the other dog has been sent to live and die an ownerless, pointless life at Best Friends “sanctuary”. What a sad ending for two American pit bulls which could have made a difference, could have lived a great life with loving owners”
Other than whether one dog went first to BF, Donna, what does she say that is factually incorrect?
In any case, Jessup’s primary points (what you snottily call a “rant”) are that requiring $1 million insurance sends a horrific negative message about the dogs and that “sanctuary” is inapropriate for pit bulls especially those who deserve and qualify for a home (and in the case of one of the dogs sent to her, already had one). And she is suspicious of how that $20k or $5k per dog will be used, as indeed who would not be? It’s a pretty big incentive to ensure the dogs remain in “sanctuary”, which fits into Best Friends’ philosophy. For that matter, why does BadRap need $5k to care for each of the dogs assigned to it?
Everyone who has anything to do with these dogs is ALREADY saying/hinting things about these dogs, which no one is supposed to do. And that INCLUDES reps of Bad Rap. So don’t bring your faux outrage about people talking to this blog.
Comment by EmilyS — January 11, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
What in the world would make anyone think warehousing was a good thing for a working dog?
I’m sorriest of all for Proof and his Lawdogs trainer. Can you imagine what it’d be like for a dog to get probably his/her first positive training and feedback ever, for four glorious weeks, and then get thrown back into a cage? What a crock.
I love Best Friends for what they do best - giving homes to animals that truly have nowhere else to go. But is there some kind of shortage these days that they have to take animals who COULD find homes?
I don’t know - the lawdogs article is just one side of the story. But the “dowry” discussion is a little unnerving…and I don’t know a single dog owner (let alone rescue) who can/would carry $1M liability.
Comment by LauraL — January 11, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
“I don’t know – the lawdogs article is just one side of the story.”
Ya think? ;~)
I have a million-dollar umbrella policy from State Farm. It costs me a whopping $200 or so a year. I don’t know any dog organization that doesn’t have this kind of coverage. Diane Jessup can be a loose cannon at times, and I hope her public venting doesn’t screw up the criminal case. I just posted about this on my blog: http://lassiegethelp.blogspot......-high.html
Comment by Luisa — January 12, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
I’d like to thank everyone for this discussion — all sides have enlightened me with a fact or two about the Vick dogs and their care.
Luisa, great blog post.
I think DJ probably could make her points much more strongly if she didn’t come off so “sour grapes” and peeved off about the whole thing. Just my perception.
Also, while I must raise an eyebrow about a $20K stipend per dog going to Best Friends, I do have to disagree that Best Friends will provide these dogs a “pointless” “warehoused” existence. Certainly it is better for a dog to have their very own person or three, not to mention a couch to lay on and a people-bed to hog at night (if allowed!). And I think that with time and training and socialization, Best Friends would actually have an incentive to adopt some of these dogs out — think of the feel-good “success stories” they could tout on their website! But if a dog’s worst-case scenario is to spend his days comfortably housed, well-fed, nurtured by a dedicated and consistent staff of caretakers, exercised regularly and given frequent supervised interaction with trusted people and other dogs, well, that’s not horribly, awfully, terribly bad. I can think of several worse life-sentences for a dog. Several. Including dogs “owned” by families.
And I don’t necessarily agree that Best Friend’s entire philosophy is all about lifelong sanctuary. I see their sanctuary more as a home of last resort, an alternative to euthanasia for the truly unadoptable, if in fact an animal is deemed to be just that.
Like someone posted above, though, I too would be interested to know a year from now, what the status of these dogs is. Time will tell.
Comment by JM Leong — January 17, 2008 @ 2:49 am
Regarding liability insurance, I think most responsible adults should carry an umbrella liability policy of one or several million dollars. If someone is injured while driving, it could easily be hundreds of thousands of dollars, several people could cost several times more. It is generally less than $200 per year per million, and can generally be added onto a home or auto insurance policy.
Comment by Erich Riesenberg — January 17, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
The Vick Pits made the homepage of CNN as a cover story:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING.....index.html
Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 27, 2008 @ 1:47 pm