Michael Vick Owns a Dog

Veterinary Science Graduate Programs from U. of I.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't even know what to say. This is just ridiculous. I understand that he wants to help his children learn to love animals, but let them volunteer at a shelter or something of that nature.. I don't think this should be allowed. My 2 cents.
 
Ok, I'm going to don my flameproof wear now.

And recall, I'm a VT alumnus for both undergrad and vet school. This hit VERY close to home when it all went down. Everyone was furious, as was I, when it happened years ago.

I personally don't have a problem with this.

1) Yes. What he did was horrible. But if we don't have any faith in rehabilitation, then our entire justice system is useless and moot. He's been dragged through the mud for years and years - deservedly so? Yes. But are we going to keep blaming him the rest of his entire life? If so, then see above. Our entire justice system is useless and no one who engages in a crime should ever be trusted again. Keep in mind, some criminals have become some of the most outspoken advocates for the victims of the very crimes they committed.

2) It IS very important, given his history, that his kids grow up with a good understanding and love of animals. History is doomed to repeat itself without learning and change.

3) This dog is probably the safest dog in the world. Think about it. Even if he wasn't sorry at all, no WAY is he going to hurt a dog again.

4) I honestly believe, based on the work he has done and the things he has said, that he's trying to make right. Does that make what he did go away? Of course not. And I'm a hard case when it comes to that stuff. I have met several of the dogs when they brought them around to the school. I am no stranger, being a Virginia native, to the stuff that goes down in the area he grew up in. But see #1.

Alright, flame away.
 
Kpowell14 said:
I don't even know what to say. This is just ridiculous. I understand that he wants to help his children learn to love animals, but let them volunteer at a shelter or something of that nature.. I don't think this should be allowed. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I think the same. He also needs to show that actions have consequences and that a lot of times, those consequences affect others. I don't think he should be allowed to own dogs (or any pet for that matter). He can teach his kids to love animals and foster relationships with them at shelters. They always need volunteers. I wish they would have said where he got the dog. My money is on a "breeder" because I really don't see any shelter letting him adopt one and I don't see responsible/respectable breeders selling to him.

Edit: And I don't think anyone convicted of animal abuse/cruelty should be able to own pets, either, not just Michael Vick.
 
In before crazy thread meltdown :corny:

But in all seriousness, I'm pretty torn on the issue. On the one hand, what he did was horrific and terrible. On the other, he has served his time and at least appears to have changed his ways (I thought it was a nice statement). I don't think anyone except Michael Vick can truly say whether or not he has changed, if he regrets what he did or even saw/sees the real error of his ways. Impossible for anyone to know, only guess. And while my (and many other's) knee-jerk reaction is to fly off the handle and say Vick should never even be allowed near and fruit fly let along a dog, I don't know if that's the right way to go about it. A lot of prisoners participate in animal care activities- dogs, horses- and it seems to be a positive rehabilitative step. Maybe the same can be said for Vick's family dog.
 
I've read some press releases where Vick says that he doesn't really think what he did was wrong and he wishes people would just stop talking about it. I don't think he's changed all that much. His publicist feeds him lines to say at press conferences.

However, I do agree that his kids need to be taught to be kind to animals...not sure if he's the one to do it, though. Torn on this, but my gut says "HECK NO!"
 
Lissa, I don't think it'd be that far off to think a shelter may have given him a dog. I read a while ago that the CEO (or whatever it would be) of the HSUS said he thinks that MV would be a great dog owner or something along those lines.
 
WhtsThFrequency said:
3) This dog is probably the safest dog in the world. Think about it. Even if he wasn't sorry at all, no WAY is he going to hurt a dog again.
Click to expand...

I agree that the chances of this dog being abused are pretty slim.

Lissarae06 said:
I think the same. He also needs to show that actions have consequences and that a lot of times, those consequences affect others.

He can teach his kids to love animals and foster relationships with them at shelters. They always need volunteers. I wish they would have said where he got the dog.

My money is on a "breeder" because I really don't see any shelter letting him adopt one and I don't see responsible/respectable breeders selling to him.

Edit: And I don't think anyone convicted of animal abuse/cruelty should be able to own pets, either, not just Michael Vick.
Click to expand...

A. This is my big thing, you must pay consequences for your actions. He did do jail time, and has been working with the Humane Society, but the Right to own a personal pet should be withdrawn.

I'm sure I will get thrown to the wolves for this parallel but, Sex offenders are not allowed within certain distances of school, playgrounds, daycares etc. And they can only have supervised time with children that are family members.. I believe that people that Abuse/neglect animals should also have regulations to their exposure to animals.. And owning a pet should be out of the question. Not only for the prevention of abuse, but to also send the message that if you abuse animals, you will have to pay the consequences.

B. I agree that his kids need to be exposed to animals, and they need to develop a human/animal bond.. However, I believe that volunteering in a shelter would be more beneficial to them vs. owning a dog...

C. What kind of idiot gives a convicted animal abuser a dog ANYWAYS??

D. Totally agree that this is not just bc his name is Michael Vick.. This should Standard protocol when sentencing those who abuse animals.
 
PetPony said:
Lissa, I don't think it'd be that far off to think a shelter may have given him a dog. I read a while ago that the CEO (or whatever it would be) of the HSUS said he thinks that MV would be a great dog owner or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

HSUS doesn't have shelters (unless that has changed recently) and only give a very small percent of donations they receive to shelters. HSUS does not equal local humane society.
 
NStarz said:
I've read some press releases where Vick says that he doesn't really think what he did was wrong and he wishes people would just stop talking about it. I don't think he's changed all that much.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen these. I'd be curious as to the source of such a press release, who said that he said such things, and in what context - remember, people are ravenous to quote him out of context at any time - it's anger fodder. I think actions speak louder than words, and the fact that he has gone above and beyond what was required of him in terms of public service in terms of attitude and work ethic speaks to the fact that he isn't just trying to get away with the minimum. Keep in mind he went to jail, is still in a ****load of debt, on court-appointed allowance, and most of the world hates him. It's not like he got off scott-free.

Even the people at the facilities he had to work at praised him and said he was truly working hard and seemed to want to change - if hey, if anyone would be judgmental of him, it's them. I doubt they'd say he was trying if he wasn't - they probably were probably suspicious as soon as he walked in the door and he likely had to prove himself a great deal.

Part of my opinion comes from personal experience.

For a long time, I dated a guy who had grown up on a farm. While growing up, he and his brothers would shoot cats - for fun. Yep. They'd go around shooting stray cats for fun. Until of course, they shot someone's actual cat, and **** went down.

Now, he still never, ever liked cats. He didn't like mine - he considered them useless and pests. However, over time...you know what? He started truly liking her. He said he's never really lived with a cat other than shooting the ones that lived around him, so he never thought of them as beings with actual feelings. She would sleep on his chest for hours while he read books. He would baby talk to her, etc.

So yes, I do think people can change.
 
Lissarae06 said:
HSUS doesn't have shelters (unless that has changed recently) and only give a very small percent of donations they receive to shelters. HSUS does not equal local humane society.
Click to expand...

I don't think they have any, but I do think that could have an influence on other people's thoughts on whether or not to give him a dog.
 
Kpowell14 said:
This is my big thing, you must pay consequences for your actions. He did do jail time, and has been working with the Humane Society, but the Right to own a personal pet should be withdrawn.
Click to expand...

What other consequences must he pay? Excommunication from society forever? Yeah, he did awful things. People do awful things all of the time- some of them change, some of them don't. I guess my bone to pick is (and not just to defend Vick): at point would you draw the line? At what point can you definitively say, "Ah yes, he has done X, Y, Z and now he has paid the consequences and can proceed to live like a normal human being"? I think it's important to be especially cautious, yes, but I think WTF has a very valid point re: the justice system. His kids don't deserve not to have something so normal as a family dog just because their father f'ed up hugely. If anything, teaching his children to care for and respect animals will only further his change.

Bottom line: I just don't think the answer to preventing the horrors of his crimes from recurring lies in whether or not he is allowed a family dog.
 
that redhead said:
Bottom line: I just don't think the answer to preventing the horrors of his crimes from recurring lies in whether or not he is allowed a family dog.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

THIS is what helps prevent further crimes: education and advocacy. I'm honestly surprised, and admittedly do NOT like the HSUS ...but this is how you go about "paying" for your crimes - not only with your own money and time, but with helping others to not follow the same path:

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/dogfighting/facts/michael_vick_events.html

I'm not saying he's a good guy. I will never "like" him or approve of him as a person. But I can approve of what he is doing.

People have said he doesn't sound sincere. Well you know, not all of us are wonderful intelligent speakers. Some of us suck at giving speeches and press conferences; that's how it is. That's why I don't go by just how someone "sounds" I go by what they do, how hard they work to make up for it, and what other people say about their attitude in person (ie are they actively working and interested or just doing it because they have to).
 
Kpowell14 said:
I agree that the chances of this dog being abused are pretty slim.



A. This is my big thing, you must pay consequences for your actions. He did do jail time, and has been working with the Humane Society, but the Right to own a personal pet should be withdrawn.
Click to expand...


He did pay the consequences for his actions: he did what was asked of him and more. I don't personally care for the guy but I have to agree with WTF, people can change. People can really change. He will have to live with the consequences of what he did forever, he will always be judged based upon what he did, most other people convicted of animal cruelty do not get judged like that because the public does not know about it. People need to be given the opportunity to change and to regain trust (I am going through this with my sister right now, I have a very difficult time trusting her, but I know she deserves a "second/semi-third chance", she is trying and I can actually see it this time). People deserve that chance to change and make things right, otherwise our systems mean jack ****. What is the point of putting anyone through drug rehab, or any type of rehab if we won't allow them the opportunity to prove that it has worked? If anything this dog is going to have one hell of a good home because people will be constantly viewing him under a magnifying glass to see if he slips up.
 
that redhead said:
What other consequences must he pay? Excommunication from society forever? Yeah, he did awful things. People do awful things all of the time- some of them change, some of them don't. I guess my bone to pick is (and not just to defend Vick): at point would you draw the line? At what point can you definitively say, "Ah yes, he has done X, Y, Z and now he has paid the consequences and can proceed to live like a normal human being"? I think it's important to be especially cautious, yes, but I think WTF has a very valid point re: the justice system. His kids don't deserve not to have something so normal as a family dog just because their father f'ed up hugely. If anything, teaching his children to care for and respect animals will only further his change.

Bottom line: I just don't think the answer to preventing the horrors of his crimes from recurring lies in whether or not he is allowed a family dog.
Click to expand...

IMO the line is drawn at owning a family pet. He did jail time, he was on parole, he did, and may still be doing community service (not sure if he still is) I just believe that these previously stated consequences should include restrictions of his ownership of animals.

Like I said before, his children can gain love and respect for animals by volunteering at local shelters/rescue orgs. As a young kid my family did not own dogs.. It wasn't until I worked at a shelter that I developed a love for animals. We later got dogs, and have always had one, but you do not have to own a dog to develop love and respect for dogs and animals in general. This development can come from exposure to animals in shelters/ wildlife rehab / farms ..
 
WhtsThFrequency said:
Exactly.

THIS is what helps prevent further crimes: education and advocacy. I'm honestly surprised, and admittedly do NOT like the HSUS ...but this is how you go about "paying" for your crimes - not only with your own money and time, but with helping others to not follow the same path:

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/dogfighting/facts/michael_vick_events.html

I'm not saying he's a good guy. I will never "like" him or approve of him as a person. But I can approve of what he is doing.

People have said he doesn't sound sincere. Well you know, not all of us are wonderful intelligent speakers. Some of us suck at giving speeches and press conferences; that's how it is. That's why I don't go by just how someone "sounds" I go by what they do, how hard they work to make up for it, and what other people say about their attitude in person (ie are they actively working and interested or just doing it because they have to).
Click to expand...

I think his efforts to speak out against dog fighting are great, you are totally right, actions do speak louder than words. But I still believe that those convicted of animal abuse should not be allowed to own personal pets. My experiences with back yard breeders developed this opinion.. We seized 5 Danes from a BYB.. She was charged, did her time.. And then was back to the real world... A year later, we were called back to the same property for another BYB raid. In the end, several Danes were rehabbed, but a couple didn't make it. Why was this woman allowed to have more animals!? She obviously could not take care of them properly the first time, and trial 2 resulted the Same way. Being an athlete, MV had tons of people on his back about his actions, but in the real world this is not the case. I don't know the stats on repeat offenders, but I've witnessed it, and because of that, I don't believe that those convicted should be allowed to have pets.
 
I highly recommend the book The Lost Dogs by Jim Gorant for anyone interested in the Michael Vick case.
 
Lissarae06 said:
HSUS doesn't have shelters (unless that has changed recently) and only give a very small percent of donations they receive to shelters. HSUS does not equal local humane society.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out. A lot of folks don't realize that they should give their donations (both monetary and time) to their local community shelters and adoption facilities. HSUS is more interested in the politics of animal welfare (to put it nicely) and does not support local shelters with their donations.
 
pigsatuga said:
Thanks for pointing that out. A lot of folks don't realize that they should give their donations (both monetary and time) to their local community shelters and adoption facilities. HSUS is more interested in the politics of animal welfare (to put it nicely) and does not support local shelters with their donations.
Click to expand...

👍
 
When I first heard the news, I was upset that he would not only be allowed to adopt a dog, but also shocked he thought it would be acceptable for him to do so. After thinking about it more, however, I agree with WTF. I don't see any "good" from barring him from adopting a dog for the rest of his life. There is no way he would even remotely come close to treating this dog poorly. On the other hand, a lot of good can come from it. He can advocate proper treatment of dogs for both his family and his community. While I still don't personally like him, I respect the time and money he has been penalized and volunteered.
 
For people who say Vick should have a dog... would you let him babysit your dog for a week?
 
bunnity said:
For people who say Vick should have a dog... would you let him babysit your dog for a week?
Click to expand...

Edit: I don't believe he should have one, but this comment evoked an:

Over my dead body .
 
bunnity said:
For people who say Vick should have a dog... would you let him babysit your dog for a week?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't let anyone I didn't actually know, to petsit my babies. That's not really a valid argument.

I'm with WTF on this. This dog is going to have the whole world watching his owner. Nothing is going to happen to it.
 
wolfspeaker said:
I wouldn't let anyone I didn't actually know, to petsit my babies. That's not really a valid argument.
Click to expand...

Okay... so if you had a foster dog would you let him adopt it? If you found a dog on the street and it had nowhere to go would you let him take it home? I just think it's one thing to say "he should have a dog" and another to think about what you would do if it was really your choice.
 
Michael Vick and his friends hanged and drowned dogs. They buried dogs alive. They killed at least one dog by slamming it on the ground repeatedly, breaking its neck and back. Another by wetting the dog with water and electrocuting it. They removed a breeding bitch's teeth, all of them, so that the bitch couldn't attack male dogs they wanted to breed with her.

He did his time, and he was rightfully permitted to come back into his high-profile, high paying career and rejoin society, but there is no way that you go from doing these sorts of things over an extended period of years to being a responsible and caring pet owner.
 
This reminds me of the Bill Clinton scandal. The only reason people care, is because he's high profile, celebrity. So much of this behavior happens in your own home town, but do you know these people? Do you care if THEY have pets? So many people are in dog fight rings, have done the exact same thing that he and his friends did. And yet, nothing has happened to them. They had no consequences. They have had no rehabilitation. And they keep getting pets.

At least that dog will be watched over by the world. Their will be so many prying eyes. If he wants to show his kids the proper care of an animal first hand, I say let him.
 
wolfspeaker said:
This reminds me of the Bill Clinton scandal. The only reason people care, is because he's high profile, celebrity. So much of this behavior happens in your own home town, but do you know these people? Do you care if THEY have pets? So many people are in dog fight rings, have done the exact same thing that he and his friends did. And yet, nothing has happened to them. They had no consequences. They have had no rehabilitation. And they keep getting pets.
Click to expand...

Yes I care if other people who have long histories of abusing animals have pets. I have exactly as much power to affect that as I do to affect whether Vick does or not. What the hell kind of question is that? Are you daft? There is absolutely no comparison between someone getting his dick sucked and another person brutally killing animals.

To be 100% honest WTF's story about her SO makes me cringe and I am not sure that I would be able to date a guy who admitted to shooting cats for fun routinely growing up. I'm fact, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to.
 
wolfspeaker said:
This reminds me of the Bill Clinton scandal. The only reason people care, is because he's high profile, celebrity. So much of this behavior happens in your own home town, but do you know these people? Do you care if THEY have pets? So many people are in dog fight rings, have done the exact same thing that he and his friends did. And yet, nothing has happened to them. They had no consequences. They have had no rehabilitation. And they keep getting pets.

At least that dog will be watched over by the world. Their will be so many prying eyes. If he wants to show his kids the proper care of an animal first hand, I say let him.
Click to expand...

Sorry but getting a blowjob and beating an animal to death are not even something that can be in the same conversation.

Of course I care. I worked for one of the biggest anti-cruelty organizations in the country. You've probably seen them on Animal Planet. I placed animal victims of cruelty into loving homes, and agonized day and night over finding them the best owners I could. On my lunch breaks I worked with my favorite dogs (also mostly cruelty victims) and taught them that humans were okay... and then I let them go and hoped for the best. I was threatened and verbally abused by people that were denied adoption due to their history of animal cruelty charges. I held dogs while they were euthanized because they couldn't overcome their past and there was nowhere for them to go. I educated countless owners that yes their dog needed shots and deworming - and I helped cruelty officers take dogs from people that didn't listen. I adopted a dog with a history of cruelty and had my heart broken beyond measure when he could not be safely rehabilitated. I bust my ass in school every single day so that I can be the best possible shelter vet and give these dogs a second chance.

So yeah, I care if ANYONE hurts an animal, and I'm doing something about it.
 
When I worked in a shelter, we had a blacklist that was circulated throughout the county. People didn't get removed for "serving their time."
 
nyanko said:
When I worked in a shelter, we had a blacklist that was circulated throughout the county. People didn't get removed for "serving their time."
Click to expand...

We had something similar... a big red danger sign popped up next to their name in petpoint.

Wow I don't know why my post gave you a cookie... haha.
 
I'm mixed on this. The man is under a microscope and he won't make a wrong move for his sake, even if he isn't rehabbed. You don't think PETA or HSUS is watching round the clock now, in addition to countless others? He released a statement defending his decision to enrich and teach his children how to "adjust" to animals. He said it would be "selfish" of him to not let his children experience animal life because of his actions. Whatever that means...his publicist obviously wrote it. I don't think the man has truly learned from his actions, but how would we know if we don't give him the chance? It's win-win in this case; his children may benefit as well as he. He noted he wouldn't let his children pick out a pit-bull breed. One slip and he's history.
 
nyanko said:
Michael Vick and his friends hanged and drowned dogs. They buried dogs alive. They killed at least one dog by slamming it on the ground repeatedly, breaking its neck and back. Another by wetting the dog with water and electrocuting it. They removed a breeding bitch's teeth, all of them, so that the bitch couldn't attack male dogs they wanted to breed with her.

He did his time, and he was rightfully permitted to come back into his high-profile, high paying career and rejoin society, but there is no way that you go from doing these sorts of things over an extended period of years to being a responsible and caring pet owner.
Click to expand...

👍 👍
wolfspeaker said:
This reminds me of the Bill Clinton scandal. The only reason people care, is because he's high profile, celebrity. So much of this behavior happens in your own home town, but do you know these people? Do you care if THEY have pets? So many people are in dog fight rings, have done the exact same thing that he and his friends did. And yet, nothing has happened to them. They had no consequences. They have had no rehabilitation. And they keep getting pets.

At least that dog will be watched over by the world. Their will be so many prying eyes. If he wants to show his kids the proper care of an animal first hand, I say let him.
Click to expand...

Anyone, regardless of standing in society, rich, poor, celeb, joe blow, that is convicted of animal abuse should Not be allowed to have personal pets. This is not bc of who he is, it is bc of what he did. His actions afterwards may be steps in the right direction, but it does not erase the past. Drawing a parallel -child sex offenders are rehabbed, but they are still not allowed around children not supervised!! The same thing should be done for people that subject animals to such horrifying abuse- not being allowed to own personal pets! Go do supervised volunteer work, that's fantastic! But having shown such disrespect, and hatred for these poor creatures, why now do you want to actually care?! Is it bc society frowns upon him? Bc his publicist wants to make him look better bc he is actually treating an animal properly? It's all about his public image IMO. His children could easily gain perspective in other routes, the shelter experience is much more real than living in a big house with a rich family and probably a house keeper that feeds/ walks the dog!!

bunnity said:
Sorry but getting a blowjob and beating an animal to death are not even something that can be in the same conversation.

Of course I care. I worked for one of the biggest anti-cruelty organizations in the country. You've probably seen them on Animal Planet. I placed animal victims of cruelty into loving homes, and agonized day and night over finding them the best owners I could. On my lunch breaks I worked with my favorite dogs (also mostly cruelty victims) and taught them that humans were okay... and then I let them go and hoped for the best. I was threatened and verbally abused by people that were denied adoption due to their history of animal cruelty charges. I held dogs while they were euthanized because they couldn't overcome their past and there was nowhere for them to go. I educated countless owners that yes their dog needed shots and deworming - and I helped cruelty officers take dogs from people that didn't listen. I adopted a dog with a history of cruelty and had my heart broken beyond measure when he could not be safely rehabilitated. I bust my ass in school every single day so that I can be the best possible shelter vet and give these dogs a second chance.

So yeah, I care if ANYONE hurts an animal, and I'm doing something about it.
Click to expand...

👍
 
Here's how the president getting his dick sucked is the same thing. He's a celebrity. Michael Vick is a celebrity. Hey! The world cares about this topic only because they are celebrities. Boo freakin' hoo. Just like Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan. If they weren't celebrities, the world wouldn't care about their many trips to rehab. THAT was my point. This happens all the time with non-celebrity people, yet I don't see them all up in the news(only occasionally) and getting offered the rehabilitation that Vick received.

Exactly what WTF said earlier. Why do we even have programs to rehab people, if we aren't going to give them a chance.

You want to yell at me for saying that, then so be it. Be angry at me. Let it out. This is a very opinionated forum topic and both sides are going to be adamant about how they feel. I can take it.

People change. People deserve second chances. I'm proof of that. Many members of my family are proof. Yes, even animal abuse cases. Sex offenders. Adulterers. Alcoholics. Drug addicts. We've had them all. People can change, especially when given the proper resources like rehabilitation.

Apparently, it's ok to parallel this to sex offenders(earlier in the thread), but not ok to use the Bill Clinton incident. Gee, my bad.
And bunnity, I've done my share of shelter work, too. Getting verbally and physically abused by neglectful owners. Going to court over these cases. So, don't go all high and mighty on me. We have our fair share of problem owners in our county, including 5 known dog-fighting rings, which we have been very actively involved in shutting down.


Nyanko, I wasn't attacking you, saying that YOU don't care. I was saying the world collectively. 🙄

Drawing a parallel -child sex offenders are rehabbed, but they are still not allowed around children not supervised!!
Click to expand...
This man will not be unsupervised. The world will be watching him.

I've stated my opinion, and now I am leaving this thread.
 
wolfspeaker said:
Here's how the president getting his dick sucked is the same thing. He's a celebrity. Michael Vick is a celebrity. Hey! The world cares about this topic only because they are celebrities. Boo freakin' hoo. Just like Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan. If they weren't celebrities, the world wouldn't care about their many trips to rehab. THAT was my point. This happens all the time with non-celebrity people, yet I don't see them all up in the news(only occasionally) and getting offered the rehabilitation that Vick received.

Exactly what WTF said earlier. Why do we even have programs to rehab people, if we aren't going to give them a chance.

You want to yell at me for saying that, then so be it. Be angry at me. Let it out. This is a very opinionated forum topic and both sides are going to be adamant about how they feel. I can take it.

People change. People deserve second chances. I'm proof of that. Many members of my family are proof. Yes, even animal abuse cases. Sex offenders. Adulterers. Alcoholics. Drug addicts. We've had them all. People can change, especially when given the proper resources like rehabilitation.

Apparently, it's ok to parallel this to sex offenders(earlier in the thread), but not ok to use the Bill Clinton incident. Gee, my bad.
And bunnity, I've done my share of shelter work, too. Getting verbally and physically abused by neglectful owners. Going to court over these cases. So, don't go all high and mighty on me. We have our fair share of problem owners in our county, including 5 known dog-fighting rings, which we have been very actively involved in shutting down.


Nyanko, I wasn't attacking you, saying that YOU don't care. I was saying the world collectively. 🙄


This man will not be unsupervised. The world will be watching him.

I've stated my opinion, and now I am leaving this thread.
Click to expand...

I'm not high and mighty-ing you. I'm telling you're wrong in stating that I don't care or that no one is doing anything about dog fighting.

And I'm not sure how else I can explain that violent exploitation of helpless beings is different from a blowjob between consenting adults.
 
RagtimeWillie said:
I'm mixed on this. The man is under a microscope and he won't make a wrong move for his sake, even if he isn't rehabbed. You don't think PETA or HSUS is watching round the clock now, in addition to countless others? He released a statement defending his decision to enrich and teach his children how to "adjust" to animals. He said it would be "selfish" of him to not let his children experience animal life because of his actions. Whatever that means...his publicist obviously wrote it. I don't think the man has truly learned from his actions, but how would we know if we don't give him the chance? It's win-win in this case; his children may benefit as well as he. He noted he wouldn't let his children pick out a pit-bull breed. One slip and he's history.
Click to expand...

In many cases I believe in second chances.. However, Murder is not one of them. Neither is torture. This is a special case, you're right, he will probably never ever repeat the past. But this is only because he is a " public figure " by being an NFL player. In the REAL wold, there is not a microscope and people get away with abuse all the time! I've also witnessed people who go back to their abusive habits after "paying the consequences". Some people just do not care!
 
wolfspeaker said:
Here's how the president getting his dick sucked is the same thing. He's a celebrity. Michael Vick is a celebrity. Hey! The world cares about this topic only because they are celebrities. Boo freakin' hoo. Just like Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan. If they weren't celebrities, the world wouldn't care about their many trips to rehab. THAT was my point. This happens all the time with non-celebrity people, yet I don't see them all up in the news(only occasionally) and getting offered the rehabilitation that Vick received.

Exactly what WTF said earlier. Why do we even have programs to rehab people, if we aren't going to give them a chance.

You want to yell at me for saying that, then so be it. Be angry at me. Let it out. This is a very opinionated forum topic and both sides are going to be adamant about how they feel. I can take it.

People change. People deserve second chances. I'm proof of that. Many members of my family are proof. Yes, even animal abuse cases. Sex offenders. Adulterers. Alcoholics. Drug addicts. We've had them all. People can change, especially when given the proper resources like rehabilitation.

Apparently, it's ok to parallel this to sex offenders(earlier in the thread), but not ok to use the Bill Clinton incident. Gee, my bad.
And bunnity, I've done my share of shelter work, too. Getting verbally and physically abused by neglectful owners. Going to court over these cases. So, don't go all high and mighty on me. We have our fair share of problem owners in our county, including 5 known dog-fighting rings, which we have been very actively involved in shutting down.


Nyanko, I wasn't attacking you, saying that YOU don't care. I was saying the world collectively. 🙄


This man will not be unsupervised. The world will be watching him.

I've stated my opinion, and now I am leaving this thread.
Click to expand...

My comparison was that those who commit child sexual abuse are not allowed unsupervised contact with children.. Just like I believe animal abusers should not have unsupervised contact with animals.. The mandates are what I believe should be similar.

I agree that media coverage of Clinton is similar, but the acts themselves are not. Getting a blowjob and both are consenting adults is not illegal.. Yes he is was and is still married, and I do NOT condone his acts but they are a little different. He did not kill or physically torture anyone.
 
This may get me yelled at, but:

There are many things that are considered animal abuse. Some are terrible, unexcuseable things, and some are things done by people who honestly don't know any better/have let a bad situation get out of control/think that what they're doing is better than leaving the animals they have out on the street, etc. I don't know anything about the Vick case, so I'm not going to make a judgement on that. But, I think that if you make a blanket rule that 'animal abusers can't have any more pets ever' then you're penalizing people who just need some education, help, or a slap upside the head to make them take a look around them. I've worked with enough feral cat rescues to know that some people who are honestly trying to help are actually abusing their animals and don't see it because it got so bad gradually. All they need (sometimes) is someone to check in on them - a friend, another rescue volunteer, etc. - to prevent it from getting bad again.

Also, there are many ways to become a registered sex offender. For example, if you are 16, take a photo of yourself naked, and sent it in an email to your SO, you are guilty of producing and distributing child pornography and are put on the sex offender registry for life. THAT'S ABSURD. Also, if you and your date are both drunk, neither of you are legally able to give consent, so if you have sex, theoretically BOTH of you could be charged with rape and registered as sex offenders for life. There is no way off that list, and I think that in some cases that should not be the case.

Flame on!
 
nyanko said:
To be 100% honest WTF's story about her SO makes me cringe and I am not sure that I would be able to date a guy who admitted to shooting cats for fun routinely growing up. I'm fact, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that is a thinly veiled dig, but I'm going to pretend that it isn't.

The point of the story was that he changed. He had never lived with a cat, spent time with a cat, or had the opportunity to interact with a cat in anything but a negative manner. After spending time with me and mine, he got to learn firsthand. And he ended up adoring this cat, and cats in general.
 
^^^it's not, I don't veil digs. Did you see where I asked if WS was daft? I go for the throat, like Michael Vick when he's hanging a dog that isn't a suitable fighter. 🙄

I don't really care about the point of your story, to be honest. I personally would not have been able to get over the fact that - even if he didn't really like cats or didn't know anything about them - he wouldn't have figured that randomly shooting living things for absolutely no purpose (not going to eat it, it's not threatening you) is a ****ty thing to do.

Besides that, Michael Vick had spent time with dogs before. Plenty of time. And he was still perfectly fine with drowning, burying, electrocuting, hanging and beating them to death. Those are sociopathic things IMO. It's not just about the dogfighting. The way they killed and abused those dogs is thoroughly disgusting and appalling. You don't just "get over" being the type of person who is okay with doing something like that.

washbucket said:
I've worked with enough feral cat rescues to know that some people who are honestly trying to help are actually abusing their animals and don't see it because it got so bad gradually. All they need (sometimes) is someone to check in on them - a friend, another rescue volunteer, etc. - to prevent it from getting bad again.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about hoarders, this is very, very untrue. Hoarders have an almost 100% recidivism rate. It has been shown time and time again that they WILL fall back into their old habits eventually if the authorities and mental health professionals do not get involved on a very long-term, serious basis. "a friend or rescue volunteer" is absolutely NOT sufficient. Hoarding is also a very serious problem that causes a lot of animal suffering, and I think you are taking it too lightly.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddushoarding.htm
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus11animall167.htm

Also, there are many ways to become a registered sex offender. For example, if you are 16, take a photo of yourself naked, and sent it in an email to your SO, you are guilty of producing and distributing child pornography and are put on the sex offender registry for life. THAT'S ABSURD. Also, if you and your date are both drunk, neither of you are legally able to give consent, so if you have sex, theoretically BOTH of you could be charged with rape and registered as sex offenders for life. There is no way off that list, and I think that in some cases that should not be the case.
Click to expand...

Please don't start on this BS. I mean, PLEASE. This is the sort of thing that starts all manner of stupid MRA and victim blaming and rape apologist crap. Most of it is made up or is a major stretch.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is saying that anyone who ever commits anything along the neglect/abuse spectrum should automatically be forever not allowed to have pets. Just like all other crimes, animal crimes come in a gradient. The way it's supposed to be handled, if it can be handled with a lil education, animal control officers go with that first. Only severe cases usually go to trial (I'm sure there are exceptions... but whatever). I don't think MV was convicted unfairly just because he was famous. Sure it got a lot of press because he was famous. BUT I think anyone who committed crimes as heinous as his SHOULD be convicted. Just like with pimps and such, yeah a vast majority of dog fighters (or any kind of animal crime committers) never make it to court, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't serve justice when we can ESPECIALLY with priorities set on severe cases of violence such as this. The bar for fairness should not be set at what "other people get away with." It should be set at the actual nature of the crime imo. Deliberately torturing animals definitely counts.

I know we all tend to be a compassionate forgiving bunch in vet med... but I think there's also a difference between forgiving and preventing future harm of violent offenders. I agree that with MV, he's paid his dues according to what the courts dictated so there's nothing anyone can really do to prevent him from having another dog. He did "pay his price" legitimately as the courts told him to. And I agree that at this point, this dog is probably super safe under all the scrutiny. BUT I think the courts were wrong in not putting as a part of sentencing that he is never allowed to have another dog. Just like I think it's wrong that they commonly allow hoarders to keep some of their favorite animals or allows them to do whatever they want after like a year or two of probation.

I don't think it's cruel and unusual punishment to not allow people with severe cases of abuse or neglect to have animals again. This is just to protect future animals, and has nothing to do with whether I think people can improve or change. Having animals is not a right. If some *******s that used to abuse animals can improve with positive interactions with animals, then that's nice... but I'm not going to put innocent animals in danger just so they can try this rehab experiment at home on their own. I would agree with therapy/rehab programs involving animals under supervision though.
 
WhtsThFrequency said:
The point of the story was that he changed. He had never lived with a cat, spent time with a cat, or had the opportunity to interact with a cat in anything but a negative manner. After spending time with me and mine, he got to learn firsthand. And he ended up adoring this cat, and cats in general.
Click to expand...

I think your story opens up a whole can of worms. Some psychologists would say that adolescent boys abusing animals for shiz 'n giggles is almost a rite of passage or at least a normal part of development for many kids. What is "innocuous" vs. aberrant or acceptable vs. wrong and prosecutable can be debated for ages. For some, that line is drawn at dismembering insects while alive. For others, that line is drawn at bb gunning or target practicing on feral cats especially out in rural areas. Most would agree that putting fireworks up a puppy's rectum/mouth and setting it off while laughing hysterically on video tape is past that line. I agree that in many cases, it's because these kids haven't connected that animals are awesome creatures and sentient beings... and that if properly introduced, they would see the light. Whether they see the light or not, some kids grow out of it, others don't. HAD your ex been brought into the legal system with the situation you presented (highly doubtful that he would have even if someone filed a complaint to the police), that's something that would have probably gone to family court with the focus probably not even on the cat issue. Still doesn't change the fact that what he did to those cats were absolutely horrifying (poor kitties), but of things to prioritize in terms of shaping up how animal crime should be handled... those are not the types of cases I think should be high on the list.

I know your story was about how people change... but I personally don't think it's valid to use that story and apply it to how MV's case should be handled. Two very different situations. I'm aware of the theory that MV didn't know any better because dog fighting is rampant and normal in his "culture" or whatever... but I call BS on that.
 
To me, it isn't even the fighting. Dog fighting the way it's often done now is barbaric at absolute best, but at the same time those dogs don't really need to be abused into fighting - they have been bred for it and are fairly naturally inclined to Bite A Dog's Face and Hang On. I don't think it's much different from some of the other things we do with animals in this country though. Anyway he's not going to get a new dog to start a dog fighting ring with right now. I think we can all be reasonably sure of that.

But he has shown callous disregard for the fact that animals suffer and feel pain. I highly doubt that in all of his life nobody had ever told him that animals suffer and feel pain before. Do I think that rotting in prison for a few years and having Wayne Pacelle get a hardon for all the great publicity he could get for HSUS from a ~reformed Michael Vick~ story and having to pay court-ordered money to help rehabilitate the dogs that he abused is what is going to make him start caring about the fact that animals suffer and feel pain when he didn't care about it before? Nope. I don't.
 
To those that say he served his time and deserves a second chance, I say he is getting his second chance by being allowed back into society. Same goes for anyone else that commits a crime and goes to jail. Their second chance is that they get to come back into society to try to become productive citizens. Vick got that chance.

One of the arguments I have noticed here is that the dog will be well taken care of because of the scrutiny Vick will be under. What about the animal abusers that aren't celebrities?

Personally, I think there should be an animal cruelty registry just like there is for sex offenders (which you can get off of btw depending on the nature of your crime) and those on it should not be allowed to own animals. Supervised interaction with animals- sure. That sounds like a great idea and would be good for that person. Unsupervised ownership- not so much.
 
I guess I look at things differently since I have personally seen and personally know people that have in the past abused/neglected animals and have been charged and now are some of the best animal owners that I know...

I agree that not every person can or will change. I can agree that I can't stand MV and that I am not 100% certain he has learned a lesson, but I also can say that I don't really know the guy. The only things I do know about him are what the media has spewed to us and I take those statements with a large grain of salt. If I can be understanding of the people that I personally know and albeit a little hesitant when they are around animals, then I can't be a hypocrite and say that simply because I don't like MV he should no way in hell be allowed that same opportunity. I also think that there are gradients in animal abuse cases, there are some instances currently where people are told that they are not allowed to own any more pets. I think it is a very touchy topic and there are many gray areas to it... it isn't a straight black or white answer.
 
nyanko said:
Michael Vick and his friends hanged and drowned dogs. They buried dogs alive. They killed at least one dog by slamming it on the ground repeatedly, breaking its neck and back. Another by wetting the dog with water and electrocuting it. They removed a breeding bitch's teeth, all of them, so that the bitch couldn't attack male dogs they wanted to breed with her.

He did his time, and he was rightfully permitted to come back into his high-profile, high paying career and rejoin society, but there is no way that you go from doing these sorts of things over an extended period of years to being a responsible and caring pet owner.
Click to expand...

👍 x 1,000,000

IMO Vick got off easy because he was a celebrity...... he was allowed back into his high paying career long before a regular citizen with the same charges would have been because he was such a good football player.... and the only reason he has been advocating for animals since and apologizing is to make himself look good for his career.... he has no remorse....and I am sorry, but I will never believe that man is fully rehabilitated... I believe he is full of ****e to make himself look good in the public eye....

He should not ever be allowed to own another animal again after what he did to those dogs and I am saddened to see that it is being allowed.....
 
devyn said:
👍 x 1,000,000

IMO Vick got off easy because he was a celebrity...... he was allowed back into his high paying career long before a regular citizen with the same charges would have been because he was such a good football player.... and the only reason he has been advocating for animals since and apologizing is to make himself look good for his career.... he has no remorse....and I am sorry, but I will never believe that man is fully rehabilitated... I believe he is full of ****e to make himself look good in the public eye....

He should not ever be allowed to own another animal again after what he did to those dogs and I am saddened to see that it is being allowed.....
Click to expand...

👍

Just because he will be constantly watched by everyone doesn't make it ok for him to have a dog. Yea, probably nothing bad will happen to that dog, but it's still not ok. It's not about how the dog is treated when everyone is watching, it's how it is treated when nobody is watching. And I wouldn't trust him with a dog in that situation so why give him one?

I do think there's gradients in animal abuse and he is at the top with all of the things he's done. No excuses.
 
I think people change and can deserve a 2nd change, but not Michael Vick as of yet.

He has "said" the right things in scripted statements.. but when anyone brings it up to him outside of a controlled format he refuses to take responsibility for his actions, show absolutely no remorse, has shown no care for the dogs that are still alive that he was part of abusing, and has generally acted like people have no right to question him on the subject. He just wants to put it in the past.

Whereas I find people who are truly remorseful are willing to talk about their mistakes openly, do not avoid the truth or reminder of what they have done, and do not have an attitude that the world is against them.

...
 
I think you're all ignoring the obvious...

How can he be a fully reformed and upstanding member of society if he signed a contract to play for the Eagles?
 
RadRadTerp said:
I think you're all ignoring the obvious...

How can he be a fully reformed and upstanding member of society if he signed a contract to play for the Eagles?
Click to expand...
I 😍 this comment!

He found the perfect place for him.... .a classless team, with classless fans, in an urban city with a dogfighting problem.
 
For those of you who say you personally know people who have changed... did those people really abuse and torture to death the number of dogs that Vick did and in the ways that he did?? And for those saying that some abusers just need some education... do you really think Vick didn't know that burying a dog ALIVE or dousing it in water and purposefully ELECTROCUTING it was painful and cruel?? Really? Oh with some education he would've realized how awful that was and wouldn't have done it! Yeah, I don't think so.

What he did is beyond any other animal abuse case I have ever witnessed or heard of. I think whoever said that it was sociopathic behavior hit the nail right on the head. There is something WRONG with him. Seriously seriously wrong. And I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he's allowed to be a role model to children. Disgusting.

And for the record, I knew him before he was a big football star. I went to school with him at Virginia Tech and my boyfriend lived in the same dorm as him. And I HATED him back then. He had the biggest air of self entitlement and was a complete and utter ******* to everyone around him. I always rooted against him before all of the dog fighting came out. I've known him personally and never saw a thread of decency to other humans, let alone animals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

umbrezon
Getting a dog in vet school?
Replies
10
Views
2K
umbrezon
umbrezon
L
Dropping a Lab
Replies
4
Views
519
supershorty
supershorty
M
how to get a career in biomedical research
Replies
8
Views
352
PrincessButterCup
PrincessButterCup
B
Looking for a TAMU DVM Student!
Replies
2
Views
574
thesunshinefuturedogtor
thesunshinefuturedogtor
M
SDN Article: Pursuing a Combined DVM/PhD Program: A Path to Research in Veterinary Medicine
Replies
2
Views
643
Musicandhorses
M
Top