Does anybody know what will happen to Mike Vick's pit bulls?

Question

The feds now have 53 of Vick's pit pulls. They will probably be killed (that is more killing than Vick is accused of) What do the animal lovers think of that?

Answer 1

True. They probably WILL be killed.

The bigger issue with Vick isn't the actual killing... It's the cruelty involved.

"What do the animal lovers think of that?" ----I'm guessing that this question is sort of a "come back". As an animal rights activist, I don't approve of dog fighting. Well, I don't approve of Vick's dogs (or anyone else's dogs) being killed either, unless it's necessary (such as to eliminate suffering). So what am I suppose to do? Support dog fighters because I don't want dogs to die at the hands of our justice system? Or support the justice system in an effort to combat dog fighting? Sure, I could choose neither. But, if I did that, I would be failing to fight for any sort of changes. What I feel that I need to do is choose the lesser of the two evils. To me, the dogs being PTS (Put To Sleep) is the lesser of the two evils. Once they are PTS, they will feel no more pain. I certainly prefer that over them living the lives of fight dogs. The cruelty involved in dog fighting isn't my only concern. I'm also concerned about the fact that it it perpetuates the stereotype that Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and other dogs are vicious and human aggressive, which simply is NOT true and leads to further mistreatment of said dogs.

Someone mentioned veganism and supporting animal cruelty. Actually, vegan or not, we all support animal cruelty regardless. I've heard many people say that this means animal rights activists are hypocrites. It doesn't. Supporting animal cruelty is unavoidable. Owning/renting a vehicle is supporting animal cruelty. Driving down the roads on which factory farmed animals are transported is supporting animal cruelty. Purchasing medication is supporting animal cruelty since it was tested on animals at some point in time. Eating vegetables that were raised on farms with the assistance of ''beasts of burden'' is supporting animal cruelty. I could go on and on and on. The point is to minimize cruelty. That's all we can do. And it doesn't make us hypocrites, as we can only do so much. So it truly is false logic if the person who mentioned veganism is suggesting that vegans don't somehow support animal cruelty and/or that only vegans should protest dog fighting.

Since I'm on the subject, I may as well address the claim that others are making regarding fight dogs (that they aren't fit to be companion animals). I'll simply cut & paste my answer to a previous question:

The belief that Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and other dogs are vicious and human aggressive is seriously flawed in that it is based upon prejudice and ignorance. There is the potential for any dog to be dangerous. Any dog who isn't properly socialized could present a danger. Any dog can be trained to attack or to fight. Golden Retrievers, for example, can be trained to locate humans and attack them. A Pit Bull living under the care of a loving and responsible guardian is safer than a pug living in an irresponsible and/or abusive home. Despite the growing popularity of BSL (Breed Specific Legislation), and the enactment of dangerous-dog laws, the number of dog bites continues to increase each year.

Human aggression is not genetically programmed into dogs, no matter the purpose for which a dog was/is bred, and it certainly cannot be determined by physical characteristics. It is a behavior learned from abuse and/or caused by improper (or lack of) socialization, training (such as to be a guard dog rather than a watch dog), etc. Breed alone is not dispositive of human aggression. Hypothetically speaking, even if breed was a determinant, there would be no way that we could conclude that a certain breed is predetermined to be aggressive. Why? Well, a dog's breed can never be proven, not by visual observation nor by DNA analysis. There is no conclusive way by which to determine what breed a dog is. Often times, an expert can only make subtle distinctions- However, they occasionally notice nothing at all. This presents much confusion with regards to identifying dog breeds. Pit Bulls are particularly difficult to identify, because "Pit Bull" isn't a breed. It is but a loose term used to refer to a few different bully breeds. Dogs are often misidentified as being Pit Bulls. The media gives them a bad rap because ''vicious dog hysteria'' sells.

Consider the following:

While American Pit Bull Terriers were bred to fight other dogs for hundreds of years, human aggressive dogs were never desirable since ''fight dogs'' require extensive handling prior to, during, and after fights. Likewise, most ''fight dogs'' were/are pets, therefore human aggression has never been tolerated. It is very common in the world of dog fighting to kill dogs that show the slightest indication that they may be aggressive towards humans. The traits that were bred into these dogs included only those which are a benefit to dog fighting, such as high pain tolerance and high prey drive. Likewise, the American Temperament Test Society ranks American Pit Bull Terriers better in temperament than many other breeds.

Horseback riding is far more hazardous than spending time with a Pit Bull or any other dog. In fact, many signs are posted, at stables and during equine events, informing patrons that participation in equine activities is inherently dangerous. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 1218 people died while riding an animal between 1983 and 1994. Whether or not these numbers are accurate, I don't know. However, horses have been known to viciously attack and kill their handlers and people entering their pastures. A horse's kick can cause serious injuries or death. They are extremely powerful and cannot be restrained if they are determined to flee. Likewise, they can easily trample a person to death. Yet, horseback riding remains a popular sport. Why? Why doesn’t a 1100 pound horse inspire as much fear as a Pit Bull or any other dog?

According to the Center for Disease Control, of those Americans who are bitten by dogs, children are the most frequent victims (more than fifty percent of the total number of cases). Why is this? The fact of the matter is that most dogs are no more likely to bite a child than an adult. Logic suggests that, in most of these cases, the child is guilty of antagonizing the dog. This is situation-specific aggression, not a display of an inborn characteristic.

The number of children murdered each year by their own parents/guardians is far greater than the number of people killed by dogs. A child is statistically safer in the presence of pet dogs than with his/her own family. I'm not one to trust statistics, but logic suggests that more children are harmed by humans than non-humans since they are in the company of humans more so than non-humans. We, humans, are more dangerous and unpredictable than any other animal. Every animal can be dangerous, and all dogs have the potential to bite. If placed in the wrong situation, they will certainly display aggression. Judge the situation, not species or breed.

Answer 2

I think it' F'd up that Vick put those dogs in a position to be killed...it's not the feds fault that the dogs have to die b/c the dogs' death are on Vick's hands for creating such vicious animals. Vick is a scumbag that doesn't deserve anyone's respect. You can take the player out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the player! I hope he gets 5 years the F'n scumbag!

Answer 3

I think its sad. i personally dont like pit bull for myself but they seem like alright dogs. Some of my male friends have them and they come to my house and chill with the dogs so im ok with them. The government is PIGS and i hope all those dogs attack there AS*SES for being stupid. Whatever happen to a good ole fine and trying to adopt the dogs out? If it was poodles they wouldnt be putting them to sleep. They can make big money off poodles. They try to see the wrong in what Vic did but wheres the right in what they are going to do. Murder is murder no matter how you commit it.

Answer 4

Unfortunately, most pit bulls that are bred for fighting are just too aggressive to be adopted out. There is a liability implied by any organization that adopts out animals. It would be nice to give them a chance to live, but would you want such an animal around your family? Would you trust a dog with a killer instinct to be your pet? Or approve the expense that would be incurred if the government took care of them until until they reached a natural age of demise?
I love dogs. It is a shame that some people find breeding them to be killers entertaining or sport. Perhaps they should be euthanized too; especially considering the horrible end that they give to the poor animals that end up being losers.

Answer 5

If they've been trained to be vicious killers, it's best they be put down. That act will not justify the original illegal and horrible dog fighting operation.

Answer 6

Mike Vick is one FINE dude - but the dog thing is not right. Still, they've already prosecuted this guy in the public court. Sick and tired of the way things are.

Answer 7

They will probably will get put down. Sad to say....but they can't rehabilitate animals that were trained to fight.

Answer 8

its the responsible thing to do..if the dogs were breed for fighting they can never be placed safely into another home...

Answer 9

they'll be put down. at least before they were entertaining.

Answer 10

I don't like that breed of dog, anyway~