Vick Dogs In Sports Illustrated
Print This Post
“Zippy is not a big dog, but she’s a pit bull, one of the Vick pit bulls, and she’s up on her hind legs straining against the collar, her front paws paddling the air like a child’s arms in a swimming pool. The woman holding her back, Berenice Mora-Hernandez, is not big either, and as she digs in her heels, it’s not clear who will win the tug-of-war. ‘Watch it!’ she says to the visitors who stand frozen in her doorway. ‘Be careful. Sometimes she pees when she gets excited, and I don’t want her to get you.’ And just like that Zippy whizzes on the floor. Twice.” [...]
“she leaps onto the couch where Vanessa’s nine-year-old sister, Eliana, is waiting. Vanessa joins them, and over the next 15 minutes the two girls do everything possible to provoke an abused and neglected pit bull who’s been rescued from a dogfighting ring. They grab Zippy’s face, yank her tail, roll on top of her, roll under her, pick her up, swing her around, stick their hands in her mouth. Eliana and Zippy end up nose to nose. The girl kisses the dog. The dog licks the girl’s entire face.”
“Zippy is proof that pit bulls have an image problem.” [emphasis added]
The Sports Illustrated article continues in the story titled What Happened To Michael Vick’s Dogs? >>
But the story isn’t all smiles and roses. For one, it took an opportunity, on the first page of the article, to attack PETA and the Humane Society by making it personal: “PETA wanted Jasmine dead.” Sports Illustrated explains, but not very well: “The Humane Society of the U.S., agreeing with PETA, took the position that Michael Vick’s pit bulls, like all dogs saved from fight rings, were beyond rehabilitation and that trying to save them was a misappropriation of time and money.”
The same section of the article doesn’t say one word about Best Friends Animal Society, the organization that saved the Vick Dogs. Moreover, Sports Illustrated barely even acknowledged their own complicity in the dogfighting problem:
“The pit bull’s p.r. mess can be likened to a lot of teens driving Porsches — accidents waiting to happen. Too many dogs were irresponsibly bred, encouraged to be aggressive or put in situations in which they could not restrain themselves, and pit-bull maulings became the equivalent of land-based shark attacks, guaranteeing a flush of screaming headlines and urban mythology. Some contend that this hysteria reached its apex with a 1987 Sports Illustrated cover that featured a snarling pit bull below the headline beware of this dog. Despite the more balanced article inside, which was occasioned by a series of attacks by pit bulls, the cover cemented the dogs’ badass cred, and as rappers affected the gangster ethos, pit bulls became cool. Suddenly, any thug or wannabe thug knew what kind of dog to own. Many of these people didn’t know how to train or socialize or control the dogs, and the cycle fed itself.”
They reserved the front page blame for PETA, yet reminded readers of their own accountability on page two, and didn’t mention the good guys by name until the very last page of the article. If that’s not a negative spin on a very positive story, I don’t know what is.
What can we conclude from this? In my opinion, people are more willing to forgive Michael Vick, Sports Illustrated, and vicious dogs than they are willing to forgive misguided PETA spokepeople. Why? I think it has to do with the fact that PETA won’t back down. They are committed to their philosophy of utilitarianism. They continue, even now, to assert that killing the Vick dogs is the right thing to do.
I, and many others, simply can’t agree. I don’t think it’s “in an animal’s best interests” to euthanize them rather than try to save them, even if that means they live their entire lives in a kennel. I’ve seen the Best Friends kennels and they’re pretty nice. They have plenty of room outdoors to run and they have a safe, warm space indoors, too. It’s not even close to what PETA calls “a fate worse than death.”
AND, I think if you asked people in prison if they’d rather be sentenced to death or life in prison with a very slim chance of parole, they would vehemently disagree with PETA that some fates are “worse than death.” Granted, some would choose death, but the majority? NOPE. No way. They’d cling to the slim chance of parole. It’s human nature to want to survive. I think that’s dog nature, too.
Regardless of our position on euthanasia and the Vick Dogs, the euthanasia controversy is diverting attention. The real issue is dogfighting. There we can all agree: NO MORE DOGFIGHTING.
PS – You can send letters to Sports Illustrated here: letters@SI.timeinc.com
PPS – This article has been edited slightly since the original was published: I emboldened the most important points.
I read Vegan Soapbox almost every day and I think the posts are well written, thoughtful and “spot on: for the most part. I have to say it is enjoyable, if not sometimes maddening, to read you blog and I look forward to reading it for a long time to come.
I don’t often disagree with the points made on this blog, and I don’t disagree with your position euthanasia. However, I do think that you tend to misrepresent PETA’s position on euthanasia. I am not a PETA employee or a PETA spokesperson, but I have looked into what they say on the subject, and I think you misrepresent their position.
You say:
“In my opinion, people are more willing to forgive Michael Vick, Sports Illustrated, and viscous dogs than they are willing to forgive misguided PETA spokepeople. Why? I think it has to do with the fact that PETA won’t back down. They are committed to their philosophy of utilitarianism. They continue, even now, to assert that killing the Vick dogs is the right thing to do.”
I believe simply calling PETA’s philosophy “utilitarian” dismisses it out of hand and worse, misses the point. I think PETA is simply saying that since there isn’t enough time, resources or money available to help all of the needy dogs in the country, it is better to spend the limited resources we have on helping more (less high profile) animals, than fewer (high profile) animals. In short, PETA is saying let’s help more animals instead of fewer animals. Utilitarian? maybe. Misguided? You lost me with that one.
You say:
“I’ve seen the Best Friends kennels and they’re pretty nice. They have plenty of room outdoors to run and they have a safe, warm space indoors, too. It’s not even close to what PETA calls “a fate worse than death.””
Best Friends may very well be a lovely place for animals, but that doesn’t mean that all “no kill” shelters are as good. Some no kill shelters can very accurately be described as a “a fate worse than death.” Check out this video documenting the cruelty at one such no kill shelter: http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=acgs_web&Player=wm
Picking one example of a “good” no-kill shelter to discount PETA’s accurate assessment of the many “bad” no-kill shelters is “cherry picking” and, in my opinion, misrepresentative of PETA’s position.
From what I have read, PETA is opposed to no kill shelters for a number of reasons. One reason is because many no kill shelters are just horrible warehouses where animals spend their remaining days in misery – the “fate worse than death” argument.
Another reason PETA is opposed to no kill shelters is because when they fill up (which happens very quickly in many places) no kill shelters turn away needy animals. These animals often end up back on the streets where they are in danger of starvation, death from exposure, being hit by cars, being poisoned, being picked up by “bunchers” and sold into animal testing labs, etc. If the animals are lucky, they are brought to a shelter that doesn’t turn away animals. These shelters are then faced with more animals than they can humanely accommodate and are forced to euthanize them. So, the no kill shelters get to pretend to be the good guys because they don’t kill animals while at the same time turning away needy animals to suffer on the streets or be euthanized by other shelters. It’s called passing the buck, and passing the blame.
Does Best Friends turn away animals when they fill up? If so, where do these animals go?
Finally, you say:
“I think if you asked people in prison if they’d rather be sentenced to death or life in prison with a very slim chance of parole, they would vehemently disagree with PETA that some fates are “worse than death.” Granted, some would choose death, but the majority? NOPE. No way. They’d cling to the slim chance of parole. It’s human nature to want to survive. I think that’s dog nature, too.”
Watch the video I posted above and tell me you still think it’s fair to compare the no kill shelters that PETA opposes to the human prisons in the United States.
Like I said, I don’t disagree with your position about trying to do our best by animals, I just disagree with the way you misrepresent the other side of the issue. Since we (animal advocates) are all on the same side, I think that fair and reasoned debate is better than inflammatory rhetoric and divisiveness. If you disagree with PETA’s position, fine. But at least give them fair representation by linking to PETA’s actual message, Like this:
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=40
“No-kill” shelters euthanize animals only under extreme circumstances, if at all. Because of this, they cannot accept all the animals who are in need of help. Some no-kill shelters only take in animals who are highly attractive, young, or purebred or those who come from the police stations of certain municipalities. Many of these shelters direct people with unadoptable, old, injured, or sick animals to facilities that have no choice but to kill the animals to make room for new arrivals. Each time such a referral is made, there is a greater chance that the animal will be abandoned instead of taken to a shelter.
At some no-kill shelters, “unplaceable” animals end up confined to cages for years. They may become withdrawn, severely depressed, and “unhousebroken” or develop anti-social behaviors that further reduce their chances of being adopted. Well-meaning people who take on the huge physical and financial responsibilities of a no-kill shelter often find themselves overwhelmed very quickly, and too often, the animals suffer from lack of exercise, playtime, and individual care and attention, ending up warehoused in misery. Some “no-kill” shelters have been shut down by humane officials after gradual neglect turned into blatant cruelty.
Matt, We will disagree regarding utilitarianism. That’s OK.
I don’t mean to “dismiss utilitarianism out of hand.” I think it’s an interesting philosophy and it makes sense to some people. However, I fundamentally disagree with it. To me, it’s not about saving the most lives or reducing the amount of suffering, it’s about creating a social environment where animals’ interests are respected and each individual life matters.
We can agree that some no kill shelters are unfit environments for animals. That’s not a point of contention. However, we ought not make the leap from that fact to a moral prescription to kill healthy animals.
You asked, “Does Best Friends turn away animals when they fill up? If so, where do these animals go?”
The animals would go to the same place they’d go to if Best Friends didn’t exist.
The fact that animal shelters have limited resources can’t take all animals doesn’t mean anything. Everyone has limited resources. We don’t kill homeless people when we run out of room for them in shelters. We don’t kill neglected babies when their mothers abandon them. If “a rat is a dog is a boy”, then we can’t rationalize killing any of them simply because there isn’t enough space. That’s absolutely absurd. We have to make more space, not more death chambers.
I appreciate your link to PETA’s recommendations for how to improve a shelter.
I think we are probably wasting too much time with this discussion, but I would like to respond to a few of your comments and then restate my actual point (since I think it may have been lost in this exchange).
You say:
“To me, it’s not about saving the most lives or reducing the amount of suffering, it’s about creating a social environment where animals’ interests are respected and each individual life matters.”
If each individual life matters, then why wouldn’t “most” individual lives matter? If two houses are on fire, one with one baby and the other with 100 babies, why wouldn’t you try to put out the fire in the house with 100 babies first? And more importantly, just because you try to put out the fire in the house with 100 babies doesn’t mean you don’t think the 1 baby in the other house isn’t important. In the same way, if you only have a limited amount of time, money and resources, why wouldn’t you spend it to save as many individual lives as possible, especially if you think each individual life matters?
You say:
“We can agree that some no kill shelters are unfit environments for animals. That’s not a point of contention. However, we ought not make the leap from that fact to a moral prescription to kill healthy animals.”
An animal confined to a tiny cage, without adequate food, water, verterinary care or socialization, is not a healthy animal. All animals die. It’s a matter of making sure their deaths don’t involve prolonged suffering.
What is the difference between prolonging the suffering of a terminally ill dog by not euthanizing him and prolonging the suffering of a dog driven mad in a tiny cage? They both are suffering. They both have almost no hope of recovery. At least the terminally ill dog probably won’t live another 10-15 years in misery.
You say that when Best Friends turns away healthy, adoptable animals because they are full, “[T]he animals would go to the same place they’d go to if Best Friends didn’t exist.”
Right. They go back out into the cold, inhospitable world where they will likely starve to death, get hit by cars, get poisoned or tortured by teenage boys, or picked up by “bunchers” and sold to a vivisection lab. Then Best Friends (or other no-kill shelters) gets to play the hero while the people who won’t allow these unwanted animals to languish in misery are forced to do the only thing they can to prevent needless suffering – euthaniasia. The compassionate people who don’t turn their backs on the animals who are rejected by Best Friends and other “leave the killing to someone else” shelters are then unfairly derided as “evil.”
You say:
“The fact that animal shelters have limited resources can’t take all animals doesn’t mean anything.”
If limited resources doesn’t mean anything, then why don’t you hire a bunch of people to go to all of the shelters in the country that are forced to euthanize animals and take their “extra” animals to no kill shelters? You won’t do this because you don’t have enough money or resources to do it. Additionally, the no kill shelters don’t have enough resources to care for all of the animals you would be delivering to them and they would turn you, and the animals, away.
As you can see, the fact that there are limited resources is actually quite meaningful. No matter how many animals you save from euthanasia, there will quickly be millions more to take their place. These otherwise healthy animals will continue to suffer from a very real, very painful, and certainly terminal case of homelessness, unless someone steps up to stop it. If more people stepped up to stop it, then we might get to a point where we have enough resources to properly care for all of the “unwanted” animals in this country. Then we could truly be a no kill nation. Until then, euthanasia may very well be the most humane option on the table in many circumstances.
You say:
“We don’t kill homeless people when we run out of room for them in shelters. We don’t kill neglected babies when their mothers abandon them. If “a rat is a dog is a boy”, then we can’t rationalize killing any of them simply because there isn’t enough space. That’s absolutely absurd. We have to make more space, not more death chambers.”
Ingrid Newkirk’s quote (often misquoted on purpose by detractors) is that “When it comes to feelings like hunger or thirst, pain, or joy, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” Her point is that it is one’s ability to suffer that matters, not life in and of itself.
But more to the point, these are unfair comparisons. First of all, there are far fewer “unwanted” humans in this country then there are “unwanted” cats and dogs. Secondly, far more resources are allocated to helping homeless people and orphans than are allocated for non-human animals. So, the scale of the problem is very different.
There are enough resources available so that “unwanted” human babies don’t spend their entire lives in a tiny wire cages. If we get to the point that people are being warehoused in tiny wire cages for their whole lives, without adequate food, water, health care of socialization, then I am willing to bet that many people will be advocating euthanasia as the only humane solution.
But really, I think you keep missing my point. I completely agree that we need to put more time, money and resources into caring for “unwanted” animals. Euthanizing healthy animals should be a last resort.
Where we disagree is in your insistence that the hopeless suffering that millions of unwanted animals are forced to endure is meaningless as long as we can save a couple animals and remain pure in our no-killing idealogy. I contend that paying lip service to the ideas of respecting individual animal rights is meaningless to the millions of individual animals who will not live to see your vision come to fruition. For these individuals, there will be very real misery and painful deaths.
But my main point of contention is that you misrepresent the views and positions of those who euthanize animals. If you are going to disagree with that position, at least be fair when you present the other side of the argument.
Calling PETA misguided is unfair. PETA’s reasoning is well supported and you could post a link to PETA’s position for clarity, as I did above.
Saying that PETA “assert that killing the Vick dogs is the right thing to do” is unfair. PETA isn’t screaming for blood. It has a very well thought out position. You could link to it here: http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/08/one_more_fight.php
Describing the good conditions at a single no kill shelter and then chastising PETA for claiming that some no kill shelters are a “fate worse than death” is a classic straw man argument. It misrepresents what PETA is saying and unfairly implies that since Best Friends is a good place that all no kill shelters are good and PETA is wrong to say differently.
So, in closing, my point is not about whether or not you agree with PETA’s position, it is about being fair when you represent PETA’s position. PETA has enough detractors micharacterising its message and tactics. It doesn’t need it from inside the movement. And the rest of us in the movement deserve a fair representation of both sides of the issue so we can make informed decisions about the best ways we can help animals.
I don’t disagree with several of your points, but I think you’re missing the big picture. Never before has a sports magazine published such an article, and they should be commended for that, not ripped on.
With Vick coming up for parole soon, it’s perfect timing to remind the general public that does not routinely follow animal issues about exactly what Vick did. Few magazines have an audience better suited for reminding than SI.
For clarification, my points were, in order of importance:
- Pit bulls get an undeserved bad rap.
- There was an article in SI about the Vick dogs. Go read it.
- SI took a cheap shot at PETA, which hurts all vegans and animal advocates because the general public doesn’t differentiate between PETA and the rest of our movement.
- SI barely acknowledged their own involvement in the anti-pit bull public sentiment, which by the way, influenced PETA’s perspective about which dogs are adoptable and which aren’t.
- If you want to respond, I offered an SI email address. I specifically did not suggest positive or negative comments. I left it open for readers to decide for themselves.
PETA DID want Jasmine dead.
hey went all out to be the voice for these dogs, but by their own admission, they wanted (and still) want them dead.
You are complaining because someone told the truth about PETA.
Bill, I wasn’t suggesting that they shouldn’t mention it, I was suggesting that it didn’t need to be the (virtual) lede. The story was about the dogs and should have been more about the dogs. Instead, all the discussion about this story is about PETA.
I am so tired of hearing about the pit bull being banned, is aggressive, is destructive, etc… I have followed many stories as to how to raise your “pit”: which is depedent upon the AKC that list certain breeds into the pit. I have recently rescued two dogs, not pit or listed in that group.
We were then adopted by an american pit bull pup. And yes, I rescued this adorable American Pit Bill. It was a sad day for humans, but a day of survival for the pit, I have named her Bella; meaning beautiful in Italian. Bella was chewed from head to tail, with different levels of bites. Some of the bites were almost healed and others were exposed as very recently deep bites. (not those from playing.) She was malnourished, her paws distended, and issues with her hips. When she approached my pack, they brought her in and instantly protected. The did not shun her as a “pit”. When I brought her to our vet, she had every worm possible and her pelvis had been broken in two places. Since treatment we have healed all issues with Bella. She has no idea she is a “pit”, she thinks she is one with our pack.
We have an 18 lbs Westie and these two are inseparable, Bella licks him as part of this pack and he has no problem taking her on and telling her no. What we must do is take out the human emotion out and let our dogs be dogs. Every dog can be fighter, it is a shame that we let our peers single out certain dogs. There are smaller dogs that can bite worse than a “pit’. It is about education, training humans and letting dogs be dogs, that will let this wonderful, loving and dedicated breed truly shine.
Here is to my “Bella”
I don’t feel that SI took a cheap shot at PETA. In my opinion PETA loves animals like Micheal Moore loves politics. They show up, cause controversy to pad their wallets. In the Micheal Vick case my understanding is that they didn’t petition the court to euthanize the dogs until they heard they would get money from Vick if the dogs were put down, but it they lived the rescues that would get the money.
I do believe though that pits have a bad rap. I have one sleeping cuddled up with a Malamute as I type this. She plays great with children, dogs, cats, animals, I even found her trying to coax a frog into chasing her once. I’ve had a variety of dogs for over 30 years and she’s the best tempered I have met.
vick is bad