It is with some amusement that I read all the commentary from folks that have their knickers in a twist about Michael Vick.
:: crickets chirping ::
Last year Michael Vick did not kill a single Pit Bull.
But last year almost a million Pit Bulls were killed -- more than 40,000,000 pounds of Pit Bull were tossed into land fills and roaring incinerators.
Who did this?
Simple: the folks who breed Pit Bulls ... and the folks who are silent about that.
Remember that most Pit Bulls are bred by people who say they "love" the dogs, and then they sell or give the dogs to anyone who will take them. The dogs are then acquired in haste by people who say they "love" the dogs, and then...six months or nine months later... the dogs are taken to a "shelter" by people who say they "love" the dogs, but they simply cannot deal with a Pit Bull.
And then the dog is killed about 95% of the time.
More Pit Bulls were killed in "shelters" last year than all of the dogs registered by the AKC.
When asked what can be done about all this, the people who say they "love" these dogs just shake their head. Dogs are property, don't 'cha know, and there's nothing to be done. Special licensing? Special home inspections? Mandatory spay-neuter? No, no, no.
Because dogs are property, there is nothing we can do about that other than to repeat the patent nonsense that Pit Bulls are just like every other dog, and that Pit Bull owners are just like every other dog owner, and never mind if both of these statements are demonstrable lies.
Let freedom ring and fire up the ovens!
But you know who the REAL laugh riots are?
These are the folks who want a large non-working pet dog, and who also say that Pit Bulls are just like every other dog, and who then go to an AKC breeder to get a non-working purebred health care train wreck of a dog (they always get a puppy) even as they lecture the rest of the world about Michael Vick and the wonders of "No Kill" shelters.
And, of course, they have every right.
But you will pardon if we point out, rather gently, the obvious: "your hypocrisy is showing."
- Related Post:Between Two Lies, Lost Opportunity for Pit Bulls .
Patrick, I am so please that you are blogging again! Coulnd't stay away, huh?
Keep on keepin' on, brotha'!!
Patrick, I am so pleased that you are blogging again! Couldn't stay away, huh?
My disgust for Michael Vick has nothing to do with pit bulls or any other breed.
It has to do with a sociopath who systematically tortured, maimed and killed dogs for FUN, went to jail for a totally unrelated charge and has never even admitted his guilt, let alone displayed any remorse.
He then went on to become the HSUS spokesperson for their anti-dogfighting campaign - throughout which he has been impeccably careful not to admit guilt, apologizing only for getting caught.
He then went on to continue his life as a pro-footballer with his millions still rolling in.
He then went on to receive a sponsorship deal, and to have his jersey be the #1 seller.
I was under the impression that we lived in countries founded on justice and law (US and Canada).
This is why I get my "knickers in a twist about Michael Vick."
I don't find it amusing in the slightest. And pit bulls have nothing to do with it.
From what you have said, you sound like you have elevated the obscure and episodic over common place violence, crime and misery (both human and canine) that is all around you, and which you could actually doing something about.
Question: Are you outraged about the two million dogs that are going up the chimney every year? Outraged about the puppy mills? Outraged about all the other crimes committed by football players, basketball players, baseball players and soccer players? Outraged over the children murdered and scalded with boiling water every day? About all the corporate crime that leaves people bankrupt and sick and in poverty? About rape, drunk driving and toxins in the water? About the systematic abuse of dogs... children... minorities... women? About any other pit dog fighter that has walked without jail time (can you even name any)? Have you written about any of that? Are you outgraged about any other criminal that has walked away without jail time, or is it just the guy that did two years and lost $20 million? Seriously, your head must be exploding every day if Michael Vick is still on your Page One.
But hey, you need a cause. I get it. It's just funny and sad that in a world with so many critical and chronic problems, so many are stuck on a cause that was old four years ago, and which now needs no "solution" at all because Vick is not the problem.
No Patrick, you don't get it.
Just because the Michael Vick saga upsets me doesn't mean that I am unable to be bothered by the other evils in the world.
And frankly, I don't find ANY of them "amusing."
I never claimed that Michael Vick was my Page One. I also never stated that I considered the issue a "cause."
I am simply correcting what I found to be faulty logic, along with a generalization about everyone who still thinks that Micheal Vick deserves some karmic retribution.
It's about the dogs, not "the pit bulls." It's about every dog he injured and I don't care what breed they were.
For the record, I run a rescue organization, I have organized the rescues in my community, we work hand in hand with the local SPCA to work towards no kill, and I write about animal abuse all the time through social networking and online blogs and forums.
Don't assume just because I disagreed with your position that I'm a nutter - and don't assume that every person who gets a sick feeling thinking about Michael Vick believe any of the things you suggested - or somehow can't manage to find more than one thing at a time worth being outraged over.
Maybe you're not a nutter. Maybe you just didn't read the post. The post is not about Michael Vick -- it's about the people who still write about Michael Vick as if he's the reason Pit Bulls (or dogs in general) are in trouble, even as they walk by the rescues when they get their own large pet dogs. And with half the dogs in rescues being Pit Bulls, it actually IS about the Pit Bulls. The faulty logic is on your end -- you are still pulling up an episodic event that is four years old and acting as if it's the most important issue in dogs today and an ongoing concern for dogs. It's not, and if you still think it is you are thinking a nutty thought, whether you are a nutter or not.
Patrick, please don't put words in my mouth.
"you are still pulling up an episodic event that is four years old and acting as if it's the most important issue in dogs today and an ongoing concern for dogs"
This is your perception, despite me stating otherwise - that doesn't mean the sight of the man doesn't disgust me.
I also don't believe that anyone has written that Michael Vick is the "reason" that any dog is in trouble (please, show me if I'm wrong) aside from his potential future dogs, let alone "all pit bulls" or "dogs in general." Statements have surely been made that he is an example of what's wrong with how our legal system deals with crimes against animals,
but that hardly makes him an important factor to the wellbeing of dogs in general. Although the argument could be made that his lack of punishment and immediate re-acceptance into the spotlight, coupled with his abysmal anti-dogfighting efforts and obvious distaste at having to perform these events are showing young people all over the country that not only are his actions semi-acceptable, but there are really no consequences.
Although I've never seen/heard/read anyone who believes the above, I agree it is/would be a "nutty thought."
However, to suggest that every person who is still upset by the way the Vick saga played out believes such things is ridiculous. And frankly, the time that has passed between his arrest and today is inconsequential. He is still in the public eye (getting and then having revoked the key to the city, speaking on behalf of the HSUS, arguing that he should be allowed to have a dog, etc) and whether it was a day after or ten years after his crime (that he was never charged with, convicted of or served time for) his presence serves as a constant reminder to those of us who are fighting for courts to take these abuses seriously that frankly they are not. His trial was a joke, and showed the public just what the punishment was for torturing animals. Should we forget this? No, the opposite in fact. We should learn from our mistakes. Holding up the Vick story as a symbol of everything that is wrong with our law's consideration of animal abusers is to be expected. If Woody Allen was caught mutilating and torturing cats I would be just as outraged, and we would use his story the same way - to bring attention to a valid issue.
Do I think that "pit bull people" hate Michael Vick more than the average dog person? Sure! But let's face it, if he had been torturing, maiming and killing dozens of Jack Russels instead I would imagine that JRT owners across North America would be just as upset.
Statements like "Last year Michael Vick did not kill a single Pit Bull" may be true but they have nothing to do with the issue. It's like me saying "Paul Bernardo did not rape or kill a single teen last year" and then suggesting that because of the time passed I shouldn't still have my stomach turn every time I see his face. Or that the disgustingly short jail term his wife got should be forgotten because it was so long ago. Thanks, but I'll continue to argue that the sentence was far too mild in the hopes that future prosecutors keep her (and the public's outrage) in mind when sentencing the next Crazy.
Dog fighting and the tortures and abuses that go along with it is serious business and it needs to be abolished. Instead, we are now experiencing an upswing in both the reporting of fight operations to the authorities (good) and an increase in actual fighters (very bad). Particularly in Philadelphia.
Yep, you have clearly not read the original post at all.
Why is killing a dog different than killing a cow or a pig or a chicken (for a deer or a duck or a goose)? Has anyone ever read Old Yeller? When we had a dog on the ranch who killed livestock, or had some other fatal condition, we gave it some love, a cookie and then my husband took it out back and put a bullet through its head. Sad but true, a lot better than driving 100 miles to the nearest vet, which dogs (and cats)hate going to. It's far better than keeping it caged up in a shelter for years absorbing resources that could be put to use by foster kids or the elderly (also caged in shelters).
You can't stop all the worlds ills but you can spay and neuter people and animals. They routinely do it to horses, cattle, etc. It doesn't cost much and you don't really need a vet to do it. The SPCA can train technicians to perform the simple and routine procedure as well as give shots. I know that the vets don't like that but who cares? It isn't brain surgery (well for 53% of the population anyway). People are ignorent regarding dogs as their personal posessions and they will continue to be as long as their ego is tied up in a dog.
China got it right with their one child policy. Why not do the same for (dog) breeders?
Animal Planet is not helping by devoting 2 shows to pit bulls. Personally I don't get the popularity of them. All you have to do is look on craigslist and see ad after ad for "rehoming" pits.
What Vick did was outrageous in regard to how he disposed of his dogs, but you are right, the overbreeding of these dogs is just as outrageous.
Woody Allen didn't kill a dog, he married his girlfriend's daughter, whose naked pictures he took when she was 16 were found by her mother (he helped raise his now wife from the time she was 7 years old). But he is a hollywood elite so all turn a blind eye?
Lordy, yes. I adopted my latest dog from the county shelter - 9 out of 10 dogs in that place were pits or pit mixes. Sweet face after sweet face, all abandoned.
Post a Comment