PETA Vice President responds to Michael Vick's "I would love to get another dog" remarks

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Dog advocates disagree about whether Vick would be a good owner



http://www.ajc.com/news/dog-advocates-disagree-about-778151.html

Michael Vick says he has a hard time explaining to his little girls why they can't have a dog.

He wishes they could have one, and he wants one himself.

"I would love to get another dog in the future," Vick told a Website called theGrio in an article published Wednesday. "I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process. I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love, and my passion for animals."

***

Despite Vicks' public expressions of contrition, some believe his actions merit a lifetime ban on dog ownership.

"Just as convicted pedophiles aren’t allowed free access to children, anyone who is responsible for hanging, electrocuting, or shooting dogs and who causes them to suffer in other unimaginable ways should never again be allowed access to dogs," Lisa Lange, vice president of the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, told the AJC. "All things considered, it is a very small price to pay, especially compared to the suffering endured by the dogs who were abused and killed in the Bad Newz Kennels."

[Kalyke]

1. PETA usually over-the-top, but I agree with them here.

Of course, I'm sure many humane societies and other dog/pet-lovers agree, as well.

[Kali]

2. seems an organization so "dedicated" to changing minds and behavior

doesn't really believe that is possible

even abusing them as bad as some of the stuff I have read about this guy (admittedly not that much, I just don't care about the sports world) I doubt if anybody raising fighting dogs is getting sexual gratification out of it. as usual peta is over the top equating this bozo with a pedophile.

I think if he can have kids around him he can be considered rehabilitated enough to have a fucking pet dog.

[MadHound]

4. Umm, he had kids around him when he was fighting dogs.

His girlfriend and his two kids were living with him at the time.

[Kali]

10. well, if he was so evil and such a bad guy why didn't they get taken away?

Just saying - it seems the concern for dogs is higher than for kids - misplaced priorities, in my opinion.

Anyway, my actual point was that peta's whole deal is trying to get people to change their attitudes and behaviors towards animals - don't they think people can actually DO THAT?

Can't some dumbass who had fighting dogs learn to take care of a pet correctly?

[MadHound]

19. No, because as PETA, and most psychologists know,

A person who is displaying such sociopathic behavior doesn't change, at least not without some serious therapy, serious work on the problem, and lots of time. Vick hasn't attended any therapy sessions in order to change his behavior, and while he has paid his debt to society, he has done little to change himself.

Frankly I wouldn't trust the man with any animal, not until he has taken the time to work his problems out.

[Kali]

30. was there a diagnosis? I'm really not familiar with all the details

was therapy ordered?

I don't know honestly if he was just an ignorant jackass, or really sick - if the latter you may be right, if the former, all the media attention, "education" and prison may have had the intended effect.

[MadHound]

34. Let's see here,

We have a man who, by all accounts, enjoyed pitting innocent dogs against each other in order to fight to the death for his own pleasure. We have a man who took dogs that didn't perform up to his standards, who didn't gratify his needs, and proceeded to drown, electrocute, beat and torture these innocent animals until they died. It doesn't get much more obvious than that that this man is a sociopath.

I don't know what was ordered for Vick's "rehab". I do know that he wasn't ordered into therapy. I know that he had some of the more serious charges, such as gambling, dropped. All in all, Vick got off much easier than an person who wasn't a celebrity would have experienced. And it is because of his status as a celebrity football player that has allowed him to "change his way" and become "rehabilitated" after he got out of prison. If he couldn't scramble and toss a football sixty yards accurately on the fly, he would be working some low end, low wage job if he was working at all. Most employers despise animal abusers, but since he is a "star", that apparently doesn't matter to Eagles or the NFL. He brings in money for them, so all is forgiven. Vick's treatment and repercussions from his crime have been very mild, as they usually are for big name sports stars.

But none of that means that they man has changed. He is still an untreated sociopath, and all of this renewed adulation simply proves to him that, at least for now, he is bulletproof. Handing another dog over to this man would be a crime, and also a crime waiting to happen. PETA and others who find the notion of Vick getting another dog outrageous are correct, and until Vick gets the treatment he needs, he shouldn't be allowed around any animal at all. Hell, I even fear for his kids.

[Kali]

37. I don't want to be in the position of defending the guy

ESPECIALLY since I don't know any real details, but participating in training and fighting animals, while abhorrent to most people, isn't proof of socio- or psychopathology. Of COURSE it could be, but it also might just be criminal behavior - not all crimes are the result of mental defects or illness.

I agree social status may have a lot to do with degrees of punishment meted out, but don't these yahoos usually TRY to get things like counseling as part of their sentences to try and get out of doing real time? Seems like if there was any "need" he would have gotten it ordered as part of getting his sentence lightened even more.

Again, I don't know what is true here and I have already spent more time on this today than I want - I really don't care about this kind of celebrity "news" - like you said these people are in a special category and I really don't care much about them.

[MadHound]

42. No, the proof lies in the fact that Vick beat, electrocuted, tortured and killed his animals

You don't think that's evidence of a sociopathic personality, well both I and the DSM IV disagree. Such premeditated cruelty towards animals is classic of a sociopathic personality.

[AlabamaLibrul]

27. Maybe they should have been?

If it was a crackhouse in the ghetto, they would have been.

Because he's a mega-millionaire dogfighter, it's okay.

[dsc]

47. because we treat children as the property of the parents

instead of people with rights of their own. He should have lost his kids over this in all frankness.

[TBF]

6. "A fucking pet dog" -

nice. And, no, I wouldn't want my children around Vick either. Scumbag.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

52. "A fucking pet dog"

That stood out to me as well.

[Dennis Donovan]

55. My dogs are not considered "pets" to me...

...certainly not "fucking pet(s)". My dogs are members of my family, of my entourage.

[TBF]

60. Same here. Ms. "fucking pet" is never going to understand that. nt

[Kali]

62. I understand it just fine.

There are some people, especially in rich western culture that have the luxury to believe animals are equal to are even more important than the welfare of human beings. I can comprehend that just fine (although I sure hope they aren't first responders to any emergency involving me or my family) I just happen to think human beings, and especially the well being of children, are a higher priority than pets. I am sorry if that is offensive to you, but I doubt if I am in any real minority in terms of the rest of the world on that. It does not mean I don't care about animal welfare. Or my own (or other people's) pets. Indeed they just might take priority over some people! But in general I care about people first.

You seem to be pretty distracted by the word "fucking" - try it with out the offensive word:

I think if he can have kids around him he can be considered rehabilitated enough to have a pet dog.

My point being it seems the authorities didn't find him to be a psycho- or sociopath. And thus, if he is able to learn new behaviors as a more or less "normal" criminal, an organization that purports to be educational doesn't seem to actually believe in its own public message.

Maybe he is evil, I have no idea - I tend to go by facts and try to be objective. The evidence (subject to the discussions about sport star privilege) seems to be he was involved in animal fighting, animal abuse and unlawful killing, gambling and other criminal activities. I didn't read anything about actual psychological testing, ordered therapy or any of that. To me if those things were patently obvious to the authorities they would have removed the children as well. Why they did not remains an important question.

[TBF]

64. The "authorities" did not remove his children because the man is a celebrity and multimillionaire -

that doesn't mean he's not a sociopath.

Your attitude towards animals speaks volumes, and yes you'd want someone other than me in charge of your family during an emergency because I have little regard towards those who are so callous to our most vulnerable.

Mahatma Ghandi said it well in my view: "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

[Rhiannon12866]

65. Gandhi also said something else:

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

That's been my signature line since we've had them here on DU, and I agree with you on all counts. Michael Vick should never be allowed around animals again and I found it very disturbing to learn that he had small children. Even if he feels entirely different about children, what he has been capable of makes him a frightening role model. ;( :pals:

[RZM]

3. That's just dumb

While I see where they are coming from, I don't think Vick has some deep-seated need to mistreat dogs. I just think he likes dog fighting. But after time in the clink and years of being raked over the coals in the press, I doubt he's much interested in tempting fate. I say let him do it.

[awoke_in_2003]

32. part of his sentence...

which he plea bargained to, was to never own a dog again. So, tough shit on the mother fucker.

[Ignis]

48. "I just think he likes dog fighting."

Which part of this noble sport :eyes: do you think Mr. Vick likes best?

Was it the part where he attached live batteries to dogs and then threw them into a swimming pool?

Maybe it was the part where he pulled all the teeth out of dogs' mouths?

Or perhaps it was the rape stands?

:shrug:

Granted, I'm not an aficionado of dog fighting, so I don't know which of the above activities exemplify a regular guy who likes dog fighting vs. a sociopath. Any hints?

[RZM]

51. I've never followed the case closely

Nor am I an expert on dog fighting. The sense I get is that he's not a monster with a pathological need to abuse animals, but a guy who did what dog fighters do, which apparently includes awful examples of abuse. Maybe I'm wrong and he does get off on animal cruelty, though that's not the sense I get.

Since you're asking, I would imagine his favorite part would be training a winner and then making money betting on him -- but like I said, I didn't follow it that closely.

[Ignis]

54. The activities I've listed aren't "official" elements of dog fighting.

Yet Mr. Vick did all of the listed activities...and then some. He didn't have to do those things as part of a dog-fighting bout. But he did them anyway.

How do you square those conflicting facts with your assertion that he just likes the "sport?"

[RZM]

63. Are there any 'official' aspects?

Aside from the actual fighting. I'm not defending the man's actions here. If you say he went above and beyond, then so be it, but I doubt he was all that crueler than your average dog-fighter. If he was, so be it then. All I'm saying is that I doubt he would tempt fate again. But if the law says he can't have another dog, maybe he should just let it go and move on.

[flvegan]

5. 100% in agreement with PETA.

Dogs aren't chattel and shouldn't be treated or regarded as such. It's my sincere belief that anyone convicted of animal abuse in this regard should NEVER be allowed access to a pet ever again.

Oh, and as usual, fuck you Michael Vick.

[HereSince1628]

11. Huh? I think the US court system sees dogs as chattel

I am certain that breeders and traders of dogs consider them chattel.

I certainly don't think owning an animal transfers a right of abuse to the owner, but I believe that dogs are part of legal commerce in the US.

[Kali]

14. yes

animals deserve humane treatment, not legal rights

they are legally property, no matter how emotionally attached we are to them

now, there is a small minority (of relatively wealthy westerners) who believe they should have equal legal standing with human beings

obviously, I disagree with the idea

[superduperfarleft]

20. No one truly believes that animals should have "equal legal standing."

No one in the AR movement is suggesting that animals can be sued, or should have the right to sue. No one in the AR movement is suggesting that a bear be prosecuted for theft if it steals food. No one in the AR movement is suggesting that a human be charged with trespassing if they build a house next to a rabbit hole.

If you're going to disagree with an idea, you might want to have a decent understanding of it first. Unless you just wanted to throw out ridiculous strawmen, in which case, don't let me stop you.

[Kali]

28. um,

what does AR stand for, exactly? the R, in particular?

[superduperfarleft]

31. Instead of asking me questions to which you already know the answer

(and which are pretty irrelevant to the point I know you're trying to make) how about you provide some links or other documentation regarding your assertion that AR activists want to give equal legal standing to non-human animals?

[Kali]

35. I'm looking at post 16 in this thread for an example of the type of thinking

"To me, "owning" a dog is as ridiculous a notion today as I'm sure some forward thinkers thought about slaves back in the day."


equating pets to human beings (and pet owners to slave owners!)

[superduperfarleft]

36. How does that equate into giving animals "equal legal standing?"

I also find the idea of "owning" a sentient non-human creature as backwards-thinking as the idea that you could own a human being. That doesn't mean I think cows should be granted voting rights or a drivers license.

And jesus f'ing christ, no one is saying, "If you have a 'pet,' you are the equivalent of a slave owner." The fact that you are reading it that way is called confirmation bias.

[Kali]

38. OK, thanks for the conversation.

I have to go tend my slaves. :hi:

[superduperfarleft]

40. People didn't usually kill and eat their slaves.

(Of course, I wasn't making that comparison, you were).

Toodles.

[RZM]

43. Well that depends

Certainly modern and early modern Western slave owners didn't as cannibalism wasn't part of that culture. But slavery has taken many forms over human existence and at various places and times (usually among what we would call 'indigenous peoples') slaves have been used as sources of food. Cannibalism is a very old and venerable practice.

LOL, not trying to hijack the discussion or anything, but it's worth pointing out.

[flvegan]

44. Expecting some people to understand the very notion

is just banging ones head against the wall.

I stopped with that one some time ago.

[ZombieHorde]

59. "I also find the idea of "owning" a sentient non-human creature as backwards-thinking"

If someone cut off my balls, and told me when I could eat and use the bathroom, I would considered myself owned.

[Kalyke]

49. Animal Rescue... eom

[Kali]

56. clever

I guess all the attendees at this conference need to work on their message. Maybe change the name of their little shindig?

http://www.arconference.org/index.htm

[Kalyke]

61. Same thing.

I'm an animal rescuer and know AR as that.

I have four dogs - the max for my city unless I have a breeder's license for temporary care of puppies/kitties (it's a good law - prevents collectionism).

I have been on the board of my local Humane Society and have, personally, saved more animals than I can count. Animals have always "flocked" to me - so much so my Dad used to call me "Ellie Mae" from "The Beverly Hillbillies" because animals loved her, too.

I really wasn't trying to be obtuse. But, in my area, AR is Animal Rescue and Animal Rescue is Animal Rights.

[flvegan]

16. It does.

Doesn't make it right.

To me, "owning" a dog is as ridiculous a notion today as I'm sure some forward thinkers thought about slaves back in the day.

[superduperfarleft]

21. Ah, you've tapped into the difference between what's legally right and what's ethically right.

Interesting how there can often be such a conflict between the two...

[lukasahero]

25. Do you agree with everything the US court system sees? eom

[ceile]

12. +1 n/t

[madmom]

7. Michael Vick says he has a hard time explaining to his little girls why they can't have a dog......

how about telling them the truth?

[Dappleganger]

9. Always passing the buck.

That's a large part of his problem.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

13. Yeah, that section kind of jumped out at me too

It's not so much that he doesn't know how explain to his little girls why they can't have a dog.

It's that he has a "hard time explaining to his little girls" what he did to put himself into a situation where he wasn't allowed to have one.

They may be too young to understand what happened, or they may not. But the "hard time" is centered around explaining what he did, period.

[Kali]

15. I DO agree with this

guy needs to accept responsibility, if that is the terms he is under then he is going to have to explain to his kids - and help teach them to have some personal integrity/responsibility.

[gratuitous]

8. Terms of his punishment: No dogs

If there's to be a change in that, Vick can hire an attorney (certainly an expensive proposition, maybe he could solicit money from his fans?) and petition the court and the district attorney to change the terms of his punishment. He'd probably have to have a little more than his own say-so about his care, love and passion for animals, though. Past actions may be no guarantee of future performance, but he doesn't seem to have what most folks would describe as care and love for animals, though passion of a sort may be present.

[robcon]

17. I'm glad Vick wants a dog.

Dogs are pets. He's learned that, I believe.

[Occam Bandage]

18. It should be easy to explain. "We can't have a dog because I tortured and murdered too many."

Don't want to say that to your daughter? Huh, maybe you shouldn't have tortured and murdered dogs, then.

[Kalyke]

50. Bingo.

[Maru Kitteh]

22. I agree completely.

[superduperfarleft]

23. PETA might not want to open this can of worms.

Their past statements regarding these dogs, and pit bulls in general, don't give them a lot of credibility when commenting on Vick.

[lukasahero]

24. "to show people"

That's what it's all about right there folks - it's not about giving a dog in need a good home, it's not about caring for someone other than himself - it's about "showing people", improving his image, it's still ALL. ABOUT. HIM.

Do not be fooled - this man doesn't give a flyin' fig about dogs and should never be allowed to have one. Fine, let him have his million dollar career but leave the dogs to people who actually care about them.

[Missy Vixen]

26. He and his handlers are upset that he's not raking in the

endor$ement opportunities.

Vick is all about capitalizing on his earning potential. He's a sociopath. He doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything else in the world besides himself and money. It's unfortunate he can't be honest with his kids about the reasons he's not allowed to own a dog, but hell, I'll bet that's the least of his lies to them.

I challenge ANYONE here to prove me wrong, especially when Vick's comments about torturing and killing animals in his care are public record.

[awoke_in_2003]

29. big k&r. nt

[beam me up scottie]

33. If he hadn't been caught they'd probably be attending dog fights with their loving daddy.

If he's truly redeemed he should be able tell them about his crimes.

[emilyg]

39. +1

[spanone]

41. have his little girls call me, i'll tell them why daddy can never have a dog

got some pictures for them too

[Scout]

45. i can't/don't disagree, this time, with PETA ... i quite often agree with their

motives, but not so often their actions.

[KurtNYC]

46. Wait.. he needs another victim.. I mean dog, bc "it's hard to explain to his girls

why he can't have one"?

That's an easy one. Have someone at animal shelter explain it to them. Or maybe just show them where the bodies are buried, the massive chains and the blood. Speaks for itself:

(at link: Smoking Gun doc details Vicks training methods)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/michael-vick-cops-felony-plea?page=7

[ecstatic]

53. Didn't PETA try to hire him?

Vick is nothing like a pedophile, and convicted pedophiles are NOT banned from having children.

Also, I don't see the two things--loose connection with dog fights and the ability to rear a family pet-- as going hand in hand. Of course, I'm not operating on emotions.

[TorchTheWitch]

58. and of course, you aren't operating on knowledge

If you were, than you'd be able to understand where the emotion comes from. Vick had no "loose connection with dog fights" by ANY stretch of the imagination. He PERSONALLY electrocuted, beat, tortured and murdered dogs in the most foul of ways. One particular chilling incident concerns him personally swinging a dog by it's tail and slamming it into the ground until it was dead.

I suggest you look into that "loose connection with dog fights" BS.

[northernlights]

57. K & R

Dear Mr. Vick,
I'm so sorry you're having a hard time explaining to your girls why they can't have a dog. As a former writer, may I suggest the following:

"We can't have a dog because I got caught torturing and killing dogs. Also, it's our neighbors' fault that I stole their dogs to use as "training bait."

Also, I'd be interested in understanding why in the hell we are allowing a sadistic, psychopathic animal torturer to raise children. Perhaps you could answer that for us.

Sincerely,

Concerned dog owner