July 17, 2007

Michael Vick indicted on dogfighting charges

Posted in Animals at 5:34 pm by The Lizard Queen

Good news on the dogfighting front (h/t to Christie over at Pet Connection):

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges related to illegal dogfighting.

Vick and three others are charged with competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting and conducting the enterprise across state lines.

The dogfighting operation was named “Bad Newz Kennels,” according to the indictment, and the dogs were housed, trained and fought at a Surry County, Va., property owned by Vick.

The indictment alleges that the 27-year-old Vick and his co-defendants began a grisly dogfighting operation in early 2001 in which dogs fought to the death — or close. Losing dogs were sometimes killed by electrocution, drowning, hanging or gunshots.

If convicted, Vick and the others — Purnell A. Peace, Quanis L. Phillips and Tony Taylor — could face up to six years in prison, $350,000 in fines and restitution.

I think I’ve read before that Vick has said that he had nothing to do with the operation, that it was going on without his knowledge — because of course he owns enough properties that he doesn’t visit that particular one often. However, I’m guessing that if there are 66 dogs living on your property, you’re going to notice, so unless he hasn’t been there since 2001…

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Vick really didn’t know anything about it. At any rate, my hope is that the guilty parties will be brought to justice, and that this story and the subsequent proceedings will illustrate the fact that dogfighting is not a laughing matter.

I do have one related concern, however: the article states that one of the charges is “procuring and training pit bulls for fighting.” I wonder if that’s actually how the charge is phrased in the indictment. If so, what the hell? First of all, “pit bull” isn’t an official breed, so that seems like a charge that could either be used inappropriately (i.e. in an overreaching manner) or wiggled out of on the basis of technicality. More than that, though, what if a person is procuring and training another breed of dog for fighting? I bet cocker spaniels could be pretty vicious if raised and trained the way fighting dogs generally are. Or what about mutts? Is it hunky-dory as long as it’s not pit bulls?

Furthermore, I fear this will only feed the fire of breed-based bans, which frustrate me. Recently I was calling rental agencies in the town we’re moving to in Kansas, trying to find a house. My first question was always whether or not dogs were allowed, and after I informed one fellow that we have two 50-ish-pound dogs, he asked whether either of them were vicious breeds. I replied that both of them are mixes, and his next question was whether either of them resemble a vicious breed — “You know,” he said, “like a pit bull or an akita or something.” “Um, well one of them looks vaguely like a pit bull,” I answered, and he informed me that animal control will actually go so far as to take dogs who look like vicious breeds out of yards, at least if they don’t have tags. Now, I don’t know how much to trust such an off-the-cuff statement, and either way Seamus has tags and is microchipped, so I can’t imagine it ever coming to that, but it still bothered me — in spite of the fact that he probably has some pit heritage, along with German shepherd (we generally call him a German shepherd mix) and maybe some kind of sight hound (just based on his general shape) and who knows what else, Seamus doesn’t have a vicious bone in his body. He’s submissive to other dogs, and will only fight if another dog persists in attacking him. I hate thinking that someone might try to take him away or call animal control on us just because he vaguely resembles a relatively vague grouping of dogs.

Ah well. Updates as events warrant.



  1. Evil Bender said,

    Indeed. Anyone who knows dogs knows that “vicious breeds” are a complete misnomer. A dog of any breed can be nasty if they’re trained to be so, and I’ve met Pit Bulls, Dobermans, and Rottweilers that were sweet, loyal, good with kids, etc.

    The stupidity of the “vicious breed” thing is that which breeds those are change based on what immoral people are doing with their dogs. Remember when Dobermans were in the news all the time as dangerous? When was the last time we heard about that? Now it’s Pit Bulls–whatever that means.

    The whole idea is a way to sidestep actually punishing people for the way they treat dogs. Animals trained to be vicious will be so, but that’s not natural for dogs. They’ve been carefully bred to be companions and helpers to humans, and it’s only because of this nature–they are bred to respond to commands–that they can be abused into cruelty.

    *Sigh.* Blame the owners, not the breed.

  2. […] July 18, 2007 Posted by Evil Bender in Animal Rights, News and politics, Blogging. trackback The Lizard Queen has the full scoop. I completely agree with her thoughts, with one exception. Seamus doesn’t have a vicious bone in […]

  3. Schumm said,

    Good point, and well worth repeating. Manhattan KS has been going through the whole “vicious breed” thing..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: