WaPo: "Saving Michael Vick's Dogs"

[spooky3]

I really liked this story about how many of his abused and neglected dogs are being rehabilitated and adopted. One of them is even a trained therapy dog now. It was on the front page of today's Post. I hope you do too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602351.html?hpid=topnews

I believe that most animals with behavior problems have them because of how badly people treated them. It is amazing to me that some of these animals can learn to trust and love humans again and to be happy. Thanks to all of the people who donated money and time to help these poor dogs.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. You are right..It is the owner, not the dogs that should be put down when

the dogs are allowed to become vicious and uncontrollable.
The dogs, for the most part, can be rehabilitated. The people can not.

[China_cat]

2. In a perfect world, maybe.

But dogs who have been bred for their aggressive tendencies will never be safe. And if they're trying to rehome dogs who have been fought, they're irresponsible.

The way a dog is treated can go a long way, but breeding plays a big part, too.

[spooky3]

3. That point of view is expressed by one person quoted in the article

but refuted by others. In fact, as the article points out, there is little research that actually tests that hypothesis, because in the past the dogs were simply put down, with no chance to observe the success of retraining. So you really do not have the evidence to call people irresponsible for trying to do this.

[China_cat]

6. I've worked with enough dogs

and once owned the end product of a line bred for aggression. The only thing I could responsibly do with her was keep her from any public contact or put her down. I kept her away from people. She was a time bomb. This in a breed that is not normally known for aggression. You can say there's not enough evidence but I say talk to any rescue group and people who work with dogs and you'll find that there is. We agonize over and work with dogs to try to turn them around and sometimes you have to say enough.

The aggression is bred into them. It's part of their hard wiring and once it's allowed to express itself, it's dangerous. Fighting dogs usually love people...that's what's so sad about this. But other animals trigger the need to fight and if you or your children happen to be in the way....

A dog that has been fought will never be a housepet unless you are someplace where it will never see another animal.

[spooky3]

8. The problem is that your anecdotal experience is not the same as others'.

If you will read the full article and the comments on the WaPo site, which it appears that you haven't yet done, you'll see this. You'll see that other people with substantial training and experience in dealing with animals disagree with you, as I noted above, and that there is insufficient controlled study to support your point of view. This is not to say that individual animals can't be dangerous or time bombs. Indeed, that is the central point of the WaPo article - that the animals should be evaluated individually. Some of the animals will never be adoptable and are being cared for at the Sanctuary, some were put down, while others are being fostered and trained.

This is not to deny the reality of your experience, but simply to say it is wrong for you to decide based on your experience alone, what is the right thing for ALL animals and to judge people negatively who have at least as much experience and expertise as you but who disagree with you.

[China_cat]

9. As I said before

Think what it does to the breed as a whole to rehome one of these dogs and have it kill or injure another pet in the neighborhood, and that's not even to think about if a person should get hurt.

Too many people are trying too hard to convince others (and themselves) that all aggressive dogs need is a good owner to turn them around instead of owning up to the fact that the danger really does outweigh the few that might (MIGHT) be rehabilitated. When that group gets the first lawsuit that puts them out of business, maybe they'll wake up.

[China_cat]

7. Please think about what will happen to the breed

if they place a former fighting dog and an incident happens. People who are already calling for the destruction of the entire breed of pit bulls will feel justified, push for even stronger breed specific legislation in areas that don't already have it and some will feel justified in shooting them on sight.

A dog that's never been fought, never used for bait, never trained on caged animals, or young puppies, ok. But the kindest thing you can do for the older fighters and potential fighters...as well as the breed as a whole...is to put them down.

[spooky3]

4. I'm not sure it's right to put down the owner but certainly punishment should fit the crime.

A point made in the article is that often puppy mill breeders and others who harm animals deliberately are not arrested, punished, and kept from owning animals. That needs to change.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. The laws on animal cruelty and abuse definitely need to be made more stringent.

Personally, I would support a law that said the punishment should fit the crime, EXACTLY! In other words, what the person did to the animal is what should be done to them.

[lizerdbits]

10. Vick files for bankruptcy

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/sports/falcons/stories/2008/07/08/vick_0709.html

There's someone I don't feel sorry for.