pet connection

From Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly at Dolitter, a reflection on a truly stupid, unenforceable Miami-Dade County law making life a living hell for loving pit bull owners while those who scoff the law in the first place laugh

Pits used in violent street life (by those who would treat them as weapons long before making sure they had clean water and reasonable shelter) somehow still thrive under the ban…. (I)t’s the well-behaved pit bull crosses marched through tony Lincoln Road in their $100 collars that are most likely to receive citations ($500 the first time, $5,000 and risk confiscation or euthanasia the next). And it’s the coddled, family-pet pit bulls who moved here with their parents and settled into well-kept neighborhoods that are more at risk of actual “neighborly” repercussions.

I have several clients caught in this maelstrom of stress on the issue. Some will do anything possible to ensure no one sees their dog. Others hide their dog’s true appearance with cute T-shirts and sweaters. But mostly, keeping a pit under wraps means no puppy parks, no Lincoln Road, no trips to Starbucks. Nothing. Total confinement.

I even have a couple of clients who deny their dogs look like pit bulls at all and hope this thin thread of vain hope will keep them safe. While this latter group might have a leg to stand on elsewhere, Miami-Dade’s one breed ban enforcement officer is the sole arbiter. Even if you don’t think your dog looks pit-ish, this guy decides—all by himself with little room for appeal. (I’d like to look at his tax returns and compare them to his living conditions since I’m convinced there’s no better recipe for corruption).

Some of her clients have wondered if the new breed-identifying DNA tests might protect their “pit-looking” non-pits from this entirely arbitrary law:

In one notable case, a dog purchased in a pet store as a purebred (not a pit, though I won’t name the breed) turned out suspiciously large and big-headed. A neighbor turned her in. In spite of her “papers,” the county’s pit man says she’s enough of a pit to warrant a citation. Talk about adding insult to injury (or is it “dumb and dumber”?): She paid good money for a dog that’s not a purebred and now she’s being fined for keeping a pit.

Will genetic testing help sort this one out? Doubtful. Not as long as the County Dog Czar holds sway over the nonexistent jury. Maybe next time he comes around she should just offer to make his Mercedes payment for him. Beats paying for moving costs…but there’s got to be a better way.

Good stuff here.

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.

That’s the point of yet another spin on the “people who care about animals don’t care about people” nonsense. Except this time, it’s more than that: It’s a sign that we don’t care about black people in particular. Pamela M. Johnson opines for the San Francisco Chronicles SFGate.com Web site:

[T] here are some in the African American community condemning the biased press coverage of the “dog abuse” case filed against NFL player Michael Vick. The press had him tried and convicted before his arraignment and trial. Video coverage of the case often showed visceral images of dogs tearing into each other, thereby manipulating the emotions of the viewers to prejudge Vick as guilty.

In American culture, ethnic groups external to African Americans appear to have become more upset over dog fighting than African Americans are. If we were to look at animal welfare rights versus the rights of African Americans, one might conclude the welfare of animals gets more attention in some circles than the welfare of black people in this country. There are more groups fighting for the rights of animals than for the rights of African Americans.

We reside in a country whose Constitution originally equated each black person to three-fifths of a white person. Where in the Constitution does it say dogs are worth more than a man? Nevertheless, people come together in droves to address and prosecute animal abuse, far more than to deal with the issue of the abuse of blacks. Killing of animals is more vigorously pursued and more harshly punished than the killing of black people, by both longer sentences and longer probationary periods. The government in this case has shown far more vigor pursuing charges over the death of a dog than solving the serious, often life-threatening, issues affecting black human beings in this country, such as poverty, crime, drug abuse, unemployment and poor schools.

We see more in the news regarding cruelty to animals than cruelty to black people. Why is it more socially acceptable to talk about animal rights than black peoples’ rights and the brutality imposed upon this ethnic group? This doesn’t make sense, especially if you are a Christian and hold Christian beliefs. Animals have no part in the Resurrection, but human beings do.

A bigger load of claptrap I’ve rarely read. And if you read on, she makes the point that dog-fighting is legal in a lot of places, was once legal in the United States, and is really no different from hunting, since animals die in that pursuit, too. (And note she puts quotation marks around “dog abuse” to suggest Vick’s behavior is debatably acceptable.)

Few things mark a writer as lazy, by the way, than using “there are some who believe” and “one might conclude.” There are some who believe the earth is flat and that it’s OK to beat up on your significant other if it suits you. One might conclude that doesn’t mean we should listen to such morons.

As we’ve written here many times, it ain’t an either-or proposition. Caring about animals does not preclude anyone from caring about people, the environment or even chocolate. We’re able to multitask on the caring front, amazingly.

Sorry, but I’m not giving Sick Vick a pass for his “hobby,” which consisted of the long-term torture of animals for his entertainment.  Peddle it somewhere else, Ms. Johnson, because some people believe you’re full of crap. In fact, one might conclude you absolutely are.

I’d rather see 23 months for every dog killed, but given the circumstances — few animal abusers are actively prosecuted — it’s probably the best that could be expected.
Now, let’s hope the less-famous dog-fighting vermin are just as aggressively prosecuted. From the AP:

Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison Monday for his role in a dogfighting conspiracy that involved gambling and killing pit bulls.

The suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback could have been sentenced up to five years by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson. Vick, who turned himself in Nov. 19 in anticipation of his sentence, was wearing a black-and-white striped prison suit.

After Vick apologized to the court and his family, Hudson told him: “You need to apologize to the millions of young people who looked up to you.”

Here’s the rest. I don’t buy any of his contrite behavior, by the way, not one word. The only thing he’s sorry about is that he lost his money, his life and can’t fight dogs anymore.

While I was sucked into the vortex of deadline hell (and it’s still not over; I have two long pieces due tomorrow) Gina blogged about the court’s disposition of Michael Vick’s dogs. I just stumbled across the actual court document, and it has a lot of fascinating information about the individual dogs and their evaluations.

An allocation of $5,000 per dog was made if based on the evaluations and information available, it appears reasonably likely that after a period of time in a foster home where behavior could be assessed and training would occur, these dogs could be adopted by members of the public.

An allocation of $20,000 per dog was made if based on the evaluations and information available, a dog is likely to spend a significant amount of time, if not the dog’s remaining lifetime, in an environment that will control the dog’s interaction with people or other animals while it receives necessary socialization and training. The environment may consist of a foster home or sanctuary environment depending on the needs of the dog. The need to control a dog’s interaction with people is to make certain that a dog that is shy or withdrawn has only positive interactions with people. After meeting certain standards of behavior and a period of time in a foster home where behavior can continue to be assessed and training could occur, most of these dogs could be adopted by members of the public.

The agreement that each rescue organization would enter into with the USDA-OIG would set out the circumstances under which the rescue organization may either adopt the dog to a member of the public or transfer the dog to another rescue organization. In addition, the agreement would contain language that provides that the organizations may only euthanize a dog under certain specified circumstances. Due to the ongoing criminal proceedings, each of the rescue organizations has agreed not to disclose anything about the dogs unless prior approval of such disclosure has been granted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. After the final sentencing in the federal proceedings, the organizations would be allowed to discuss the dogs as they would any other dogs under their care unless the dogs’ safety would be compromised.

Read the whole thing here (PDF file).