Most Of Vick's Dogs Won't Be Euthanized

Source: CBS News

All but one of the 49 remaining pit bulls seized from a home owned by NFL star Michael Vick at the outset of a dogfighting investigation have placement potential, according to a motion filed Monday in U.S. District Court.

One of the dogs has a history of biting people and should be euthanized, according to the motion, which cites extensive behavioral testing done on all the dogs seized from the property in rural Surry County. It says the dogs were put through a protocol of 11 exercises to evaluate their behavior toward humans and other animals.

The behavioral testing was carried out between Sept. 4 and 6 by a team of animal experts assembled by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

After the evaluations, the dogs were placed into five categories ranging from foster care and observation for dogs that show no sign of aggression to people or dogs and could be rehabilitated and eventually be adopted to euthanasia for dogs exhibiting intense aggression toward people or suffering from a significant medical condition.



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/02/national/main3317781.shtml

---

Good news for the dogs. I imagine they'll be very careful where these dogs are placed.

Frankly, I think a lot of people (including me) were shocked at the extent to which this was going on. I also listened carefully to what Whoopi Goldberg said, about how there are places in this country (mostly rural) where this is somehow accepted (I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE). I believe people who participate in that culture were probably surprised at the visceral reaction it created in most of us. This could be a chance to put a serious dent in this industry. The fact that most of these dogs will likely live is a good start.

:thumbsup:

And that's a good thing.

If true, the guy was not very good at his "hobby".

and ditto on it being a good thing.

We all need to remember all those dogs who were killed in one way or another, and hope that death has brought them some peace. Aggressive or not, they were the victims of a horrendous cruelty which permeates all "sports" involving animals.

Just as these dogs were trained to fight each other, and were put to death if they couldn't promise a good fight, so we must all remember the greyhounds who have been killed when they were too slow; the cats who were shot to death in the head for some asshole military guy who was studying "how head wounds affect soldiers"; the primates who were widely exposed and used in radiation experiments; the rabbits forced to swallow drain cleaners and other poisons in labs and who were blinded with chemicals; the ermines, foxes and other furbearers electrocuted with an anal penetrator to make someone a fur coat; even to the white mice who acquired third degree burns in lab experiments.

These horrors continue now and will continue until someone says "enough!" Dogs are only one sign of man's continual cruelty. We don't like to hear of these things--to some of us, it's an abomination and betrayal of our unspoken pact with other lifeforms on planet earth, but too few are willing to make that effort to help them and risk ridicule.

It's an observed fact: there is a disproportionate number of serial killers and psychopaths who started their reign of terror by cruelty and torture of animals. Until we face this without winching, animals will continue to suffer in all ways.

A quote: "If you look at the course of western history you'll see that we're slowly granting basic rights to everyone. A long time ago only kings had rights. Then rights were extended to property-owning white men. Then all men. Then women. Then children. Then the mentally retarded. Now we're agonizing over the extension of basic rights to homosexuals and animals. We need to finally accept that all sentient creatures are deserving of basic rights. I define basic rights as this --the ability to pursue life without having someone else's will involuntarily forced upon you. Or, as the framers of the constitution put it, the ability to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". By what criteria can you justify denying basic rights to any living thing? Realize that by whatever criteria you employ someone could deny basic rights to you if they objected to your species, sexual preferences, color, religion, ideology etc. Would you eat your housecat, or force a mentally retarded child to ingest oven cleaner? If not, then why is it ok to eat cows and test products on sentient animals? I believe that to knowingly commit actions that cause or condone suffering is reprehensible in the extreme.I call upon you to be compassionate and treat others as you want to be treated. If you don't want to be beaten, imprisoned, mutilated, killed or tortured then you shouldn't condone such behavior towards anyone, be they human or not."
-- Moby

Every wise man or woman right to the present day has said similar things--why do so many continue to ignore such empathy? Ignorance, greed, apathy, and the continuing lack of true morals--powerful people want dominance not only over their fellow men, but on every being who they believe should be in their control. We've got to face the fact that there are many who will never change from this course and who will do everything they can to keep the status quo.

it doesn't say that they will be neutered.

Most of my neighbors can't keep their malteses in line. I shudder to think what happens when people who feel sorry for these pitbulls adopt them and can't handle them.

I know of no shelter nowadays that adopts out intact animals...even releases of intact animals to rescues are rare, most rescues taking on a shelter dog avail themselves of the often-cheaper spay/neuter prices, though we've pulled from one shelter only to have "it" done at a cheaper one (even cheaper than the vet clinic my wife works for.) But the chances of these dogs being adopted out intact is essentially nil.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan