Most of Vick's Confiscated Dogs Spared
Tuesday October 2, 2007
As the Michael Vick dogfighting saga unfolded over the summer, one of the many comments I heard repeated by those who blindly supported the exiled superstar
went something like this:
went something like this:
"The government is no better than Vick, because they are just going to kill all these dogs themselves anyway."
I think most of us would agree that those words comprise what amounts to a very lame rationalization. A press release from the ASPCA Tuesday morning, however, takes even that weak argument away from those looking for some means to justify the actions of a cruel individual.
"...the ASPCA-led team's report ensuing from the evaluations, which were conducted between September 4 and 6, 2007, show that the experts evaluated 48 of the 49 dogs as having potential for some form of placement. Recommended placement options include possible re-homing into appropriate foster homes, rehabilitation as law enforcement dogs, or placement in sanctuaries (which will need to meet U.S.D.A. facility standards). Only one of the 49 dogs was deemed unfit for rehabilitation and recommended for euthanasia, which order was entered yesterday by Judge Henry E. Hudson."So just one of the 49 confiscated dogs has been deemed too dangerous to keep around, and I think most of us realize who is to blame for making this particular dog too aggressive for placement in another environment.
Photo: Karl Weatherly / Getty Images
Comments
Lame rationalization? I would call it an “uttermost ignorant excuse”. And why exactly do overcrowded and underfunded shelters have to euthanize so many dogs and cats? Because irresponsible pet owners do not properly take care of them. Our society has to euthanize so many animals because so many idiots consider pets disposable and surrender them to a shelter the first chance they have. Generally, we all have to pay for the care of unwanted animals in our nation’s shelters. I congratulate Judge Hudson for putting the financial burden of caring for Vick’s poor dogs where it belongs – on their, mildly put, irresponsible owner.
“….to kill all them dawgs anyway….” sounds more like it.
Yes, there is no reason in the world a dog should be aggressive. I have several puppy sites and I try to educate people about the importance of puppy socialization – an important key to shaping their own attitudes about there dogs. You’d think someone getting a dog would always want it, but not so – ignorance about their habits, and propensities cause the issue. I allow puppy breeders to list their dogs on my site, but they have to follow a code of ethics that can be substantiated first.