Michael Vick: Another Perspective

The Vick debate has re-ignited following Vick’s lucrative contract offer from the Eagles. Folks essentially fall neatly into two categories: (1) Vick did his time, let him play and (2) Despite his sentence, Vick has not paid for his sins. I fall into the final category, and I hope this article will illuminate why, as an attorney, rescuer, and lover of pit bulls, I am committed to this opinion. 

The Dogs

Michael Vick established Bad Newz Kennel in 2001. For six years he and his cronies committed unspeakable acts of animal cruelty upon the dogs in their care. In 2007, Fifty-four dogs were confiscated from Vick’s property. One dog had to be euthanized because she suffered from serious medical conditions – conditions that Vick did not treat despite the millions of dollars he raked in from his NFL job and the thousands he earned in fighting prizes.

Vicks dogs were beaten, abused, and riddled with issues from dog aggression, to intense fears of humans and new situations, to (in only a single case) human aggression. Mel, for example, used as a bait dog in Vick’s operation, is so terrified of new humans that he convulses in tremors and cowers in fear when strangers approach him. But even Mel has made remarkable progress and he and almost all the other Vick dogs have been adopted into loving families where they live with children, dogs, and cats. They have inspired their caretakers to start dog rescues, foundations that fund rescues, and become breed champions.

Michael Vick’s tale has been called “the ultimate redemption story.” But this is inaccurate. The Vicktory dogs are the ultimate redemption story.

So, I’d like to take a moment up front to say: Vicktory dogs and caretakers, I honor you.

Let’s move on to a more technical discussion.

The Cases:

Michael Vick and his dogs were involved in three separate cases: a federal criminal case, United States v. Peace, Phillips, Taylor & Vick; a state criminal case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Vick; and a civil case concerning the disposition of the dogs, United States v. Approximately 53 Pit Bull Dogs.

Michael Vick was charged with several federal offenses for trafficking dogs for illegal purposes, gambling, and other serious crimes. Vick could have spent decades in prison. Instead, he accepted a plea deal at the federal level, and plead guilty to a single count: Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture. The charge carried a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines, and/or full restitution. Michael Vick received 23 months in prison and served 20 of those months; he currently is on probation.

Michael Vick also was indicted at the state level for violating state animal cruelty and dog fighting laws – all felonies. Vick was charged with four felony animal cruelty charges  and faced a maximum of 10 years in prison. He again accepted a plea deal, and plead guilty to dog fighting charges; the state dropped the animal cruelty charges. Vick received a three-year suspended sentence and a $2,500 fine that was also suspended conditioned on his behavior.

Vick’s civil case resulted in an order that he pay for the care of the dogs he abused, with each dog assessed a lifetime fee of $5,000 to $20,000. These fees were used to build suitable living areas for the dogs heading to rescues, and to pay for their medical bills and other care. These fees did not cover all the costs that rescues accumulated – and continue to accumulate – to care for these dogs. 

So, Vick, facing a total of 15 years in prison, received two, and escaped charges for the issues that incited outrage in animal lovers around the country: in the eyes of the law, he is not an animal abuser. I have a problem with that.

There were, of course, people who thought Vick’s sentence was too harsh:

Vick is a first time offender. He expressed remorse, publicly apologized, shelled out nearly a million bucks for the upkeep of the impounded animals, and likely won't play another down in the NFL. Vick's life and career is wrecked. The feds and the public have more than gouged their pound of flesh out of him. - Earl Ofari Hutchinson, 2007 

It looks like Mr. Hutchinson should eat some (most) of his words. Assuming Mr. Hutchinson’s conclusions are an aggregate of his assumptions concerning Vick’s career and mentality toward his dogs as well as his legal sanctions, if seems Vick has escaped much of the harshness of which the critics speak.

The NFL

This past week, football fans and pit bull fans alike learned that Michael Vick has accepted a $100,000,000 contract to play for the Eagles -- $38,000,000 of which is guaranteed. It may seem unfair that Vick is receiving a tidy paycheck, his past crimes largely forgotten. But it also seems contrary to NFL policy and procedure.

Back when Vick was arrested, the NFL had this to say about his conduct: "The activities alleged are cruel, degrading and illegal … Michael Vick's guilt has not yet been proven, and we believe that all concerned should allow the legal process to determine the facts. The matter will be reviewed." Well now that Vick has been convicted, perhaps the NFL has reviewed the matter and appropriately sanctioned him; it has not.

Perhaps there are no NFL conduct policies that apply to Vick’s personal conduct. But there are.

Under its personal conduct policy, the league can fine or suspend players for criminal activity. In particular,

All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League.” This requirement applies to players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials and all others privileged to work in the National Football League. 

There you go: everyone privileged to work in the NFL. Multi-million dollar athlete salaries are not legal rights, they are privileges. They must be earned and can be taken away. I support second chances – I run a dog rescue after all – and I am liberal enough to support a system that allows convicted criminals to integrate back into society and become contributing members of society. If Vick got out of prison and got a regular job doing something like scrubbing toilets or waiting table I’d be ok with that. But he didn’t. Instead, he’s living a dream millions of talented young men would die to live, and he’s being lauded as a hero for climbing to this position not once, but twice.

But, why? Or better yet, how?  I have the questions, but not the answers.

The NFL is generous enough to forego discipline for first-time offenders; however this leniency does not apply where the charges involve “significant bodily harm.” Vick was personally involved in the killing of at least 6-8 pit bulls – how could this not qualify as “significant bodily harm”?

Vick isn’t exactly a first-time offender, either. In 2004 he was lectured by the coach after two men driving his truck were arrested on drug charges. In 2006 he was fined $10,000 – and paid an additional $10,000 to charity – because he flipped off fans after a loss to the Saints. Said Vick of the sanction: “I broke the rules and I have to pay the price.” So if $10,000 is the appropriate price for flipping someone the bird in the NFL, the price for fighting and killing dogs as well as breaking federal gambling and interstate commerce laws is….$0?

NFL policy itself comments on the necessity of appropriately sanctioning players, stating that 

For many years, it has been well understood that rules promoting lawful, ethical, and responsible conduct serve the interests of the League, its players, and fans. Illegal or irresponsible conduct does more than simply tarnish the offender. It puts innocent people at risk, sullies the reputation of others involved in the game, and undermines public respect and support for the NFL. 

Vick started organizing his kennel in 2001 – the same year he was signed to the NFL. He operated that kennel for 6 years and stopped only because he was caught. Perhaps Vick will not return to the fighting ring now that he’s been caught, but why isn’t 6 years of violent, federal and state violations enough to warrant ejectment from the NFL? Perhaps the NFL thought Vick’s legal sanctions were enough. I disagree. And I say: NFL, I have lost respect for your organization. For an institution that has retained the power to cull players not suitable to represent the league, it seems these powers are rusty from disuse.

Greg Aiello, the NFL’s VP of public relations, added that NFL sanctions and programs to deal with offenders target not only public opinion but also seek to eliminate recidivism. That is, non-legal consequences for bad acts should deter future bad acts.

Most NFL players are good citizens, and some are outstanding citizens, It's a small percentage of the 2,000 players in our league that becomes involved in incidents that do not reflect well on the NFL. We have policies and programs to deal aggressively with those issues, and we will continue to do so. The goal is to eliminate all such negative conduct. That may not be realistic, but that is the goal.

.  

I suppose I can’t fault Vick for not resigning and turning down millions of dollars – he is an opportunist for sure. But I can fault to NFL for failing to act on any of its stated policies regarding player personal conduct.

Forgiving Vick

Vick’s partnership with the Humane Society of the United States  received much publicity. Perhaps Vick has learned his lesson and is being sincere when he speaks out against dog fighting. But I can’t help noticing the irreconcilable conflicts that exist between his message and his lifestyle: fight dogs and retain public figure status, and millions of dollars in endorsements and contract payments. And I, for one, would not want Vick as the spokesperson for my organization – it’s all just too fishy for me.

I also find it hard to believe that anyone has to be taught that killing dogs and watching dogs tear each other to shreds is wrong, sick, and cruel. I find it shameful and insulting that he tried to blame “black culture” for his descent into immorality. A role model who blames his culture for his own decisions is not a good role model for youngsters from the same culture – giving off the impression that personal decisions are trumped by social inclinations gives off a sense of powerlessness not empowerment.

I find his remorse harder to swallow when I found this quote from him:  "It's almost as if everyone wanted to hate me. But what have I done to anybody? It was something that happened, and it was people trying to make some money."  I cannot understand why someone making millions would need to further augment his cash flow by fighting dogs. Michael Vick may be black, but he was not living in poverty when he founded Bad Newz Kennels. 

I am a forgiving person. I do not believe that carrying hate in my heart will inflict damage upon anyone but myself. So, Michael Vick, if you are truly remorseful and a changed man, then I forgive you. But I do not forget. In fact, in a country where the legal system treats pets like property and assigns minimal sanctions for the cruelest cases of abuse, I see no reason why I should forget.

The Vick case is a complicated collection of legal red tape, institutional policy, and social norms. It raises several very serious questions the inevitable interactions between these entities.

But what I think is this: social ostracism is part of the sanction for bad acts. And I think it can be useful in the right contexts. Ostracism is established part of our legal systems and is used as a consequence and a deterrent on a national and international level. We register sex offenders. We expect public apologies from high-profile criminals. Global treaties often are “soft laws,” that is, enforceable only by pressure and views expressed by citizens or other nations.

In a case like Vick’s, where the system failed and the dogs did not see justice, I think it is singularly valuable. That is, if the courts didn’t give Vick a strong enough sentence, we can hardly expect Vick to complain or courts to go back and impose a harsher one (they can’t) but we have no obligation to use our resources to fund his lifestyle. And neither do institutions like the NFL. And since the NFL sees fit to fund his lifestyle, it is up to individuals to continue to sanction Vick for his conduct. Because Vick is not a regular Joe working a blue collar job – he is a public figure. He is ours. He reflects our values and represents who we are as individuals and a collective society. And we have a right to take issue with that.

And in the words of Richard Hunter, who owns Mel, "Some people wonder, are we ever going to let Michael Vick get beyond all this? …  “I tell them, let's let Mel decide that. When he stops shaking, maybe then we can talk." 

Letter to Protest Breed Discrimination

It can be hard for breed advocates to figure out what exactly to do to encourage change -- be it within public perceptions, local or state laws, or owner behaviors. There are many avenues for advocacy. I thought I'd focus today on letter writing. Some may roll their eyes and think, "gee, what's a silly letter going to to?" But a well-written appeal carries weight; I've had a lot of positive feedback from lawmakers I've taken the time to write.


It's important to write letters that are relatively brief, dispassionate, and well-researched. You want to come off as a credible professional, not some nutcase on the loose. I've included below a copy of a letter I drafted for council members in a Washington city. I hope you find it useful. Please feel free to use this format as a template for your own letters.


Cheers!

Letter in Opposition to Chapter 6.18 of the Yakima Municipal Code

My name is Gemma Zanowski; I am an attorney in here in Washington and have been actively involved in canine rescue efforts and advocacy since 2004. I am writing to request that the Yakima Council repeal Chapter 6.18, the Pit Bull ban. The American Pit Bull Terrier, and related breeds (“pit bull type dogs”) are fully capable of living long lives as beloved family companions. Unfortunately, many are not given this opportunity because of misguided legislation that generalizes their characteristics based on unfounded stereotypes and fears. Chapter 6.18 of the Yakima Municipal Code is an example of such legislation.

There exists one principal study used to support the notion that pit bulls are dangerous: Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. The oft-debated element of the study is the percentage of total fatalities attributable to pit bull type dogs. However, as the researchers involved with the study have emphasized, it is impossible to extrapolate overall breed viciousness without knowing the base population of the breed, which the study did not know. The Center for Disease Control, the researchers themselves, and other researchers have since concluded that this study should not be used as a basis for breed discriminatory legislation (BDL). A second body of information has been used to misattribute aggressive incidents to pit bull type dogs. This study was conducted by Merritt Cliffton and is an incomplete, inaccurate, and shamefully biased compilation of media reports from a twenty-year period. Thorough investigation has revealed it to be garbage veiled in postulations of science. It must be disregarded.

Conversely, no reputable animal welfare agency or rescue supports BDL or the notion that pit bull type dogs are more likely to attack humans. In fact, pit bull type dogs routinely outperform many “family-friendly” dog breeds on temperament tests and credible research echoes this performance record. Further, no credible study on BDL has found discriminatory measures to be effective; in fact, bite incidence remains consistent with breed population.

I wholeheartedly support stringent dog that focus on owner culpability; t dangerous humans who indulge high-risk environments. If dogs are deemed dangerous this status should be considered based on individual behaviors, and not merely on their physical characteristics or reputation. The City of Yakima already has a dangerous dog law in place that describes particular behaviors that make an individual dog dangerous. An additional focus on pit bulls is extraneous and overbroad as it targets a class of animals of which most will never pose a public safety threat.

With the dire economic situation currently in Washington, non-essential spending should be clipped wherever possible. Best Friends Society fiscal impact estimator indicates that Yakima is spending around $100,000 a year to enforce Chapter 6.18 – money that would more prudently be spent to battle the chief causes of dog aggression: intact animals, chaining, and abuse.

Currently Washington is considering SB 5151, which would establish a state-wide low-cost spay and neuter program in order to curb dog bite incidences and pet overpopulation. If the bill does not pass, there is no reason the City of Yakima cannot consider a similar provision. Further, the City of Yakima does not have an anti-chaining ordinance; as 25 percent of dog bite fatalities involve chained dogs, it would be prudent for the Council to consider an ordinance that regulates chaining as well.

As dogs are considered property, accountability for their actions should fall squarely on the shoulders of dog owners. BDL provisions ultimately and strangely hold dogs accountable for their lineage, as the animal is impounded and in many cases euthanized merely for being of a particular breed. US ideologies increasingly reflect individual autonomy, and firmly established constitutional principles favor a presumption of innocence; Chapter 6.18 and similar discriminatory provisions in other localities contradict these tenets.

Change is coming. Thirteen states have already written laws that forbid discrimination based on breed alone. Ohio, the only state with state-wide BDL, has voted to overturn the legislation in the House and awaits Senate approval. I urge the City of Yakima to become a frontrunner in this change. Repealing an out-dated ordinance such as Chapter 6.18 is the first step in establishing a comprehensive, effective dangerous dog plan. I welcome emails or phone calls to further discuss my position. 

Director Story: Gemma

Those who know me know I don't have a pit bull of my own, so it may seem strange that I founded and run a pit bull rescue. I never really intended to start rescuing pit bulls; like so many of my great fellow advocates, I fell into the breed by accident. I never had any loathing for the breed -- I just never had any convictions. I liked dobermans and rottweilers. I don't have any of those, either. My dogs tend to find me, so it's not really a surprise that pit bulls found me too.

My first breed contact came from a pit bull-American Bulldog mix puppy my sister and her boyfriend procured from a person selling puppies on the side of the road. Scrappy fell ill with parvo almost immediately, and my sister diligently nursed him back to health from the brink of death. Scrappy was a very sweet and loving dog, and he put up with a lot of my sister's kissing, squishing, and fussing, which, believe me, says a lot about a dog's tolerance level! I liked Scrappy, Scrappy was a pit bull, thus, in my mind, pit bulls were a pretty decent breed of dog.

My sister Julia and Scrappy. 

When I started looking for volunteer work in Tucson, I contacted a few dog rescues, including a local pit bull rescue. The only rescue that contacted me back was Arizona Poodle Rescue, so for years I fostered and rehabilitated poodles, eventually adopting my own Standard Poodle -- a 5-month-old male who came from a breeder neglect situation and had severe emotional hurdles to overcome. I love the breed, and I loved the people with whom I worked, but my many visits to the county shelter illuminated the real need for people willing to rescue the dogs off the nightly kill list we rescuers were sent each day.

So in 2008 I founded Revamped Rovers, with the idea of taking only dogs that were going to be put down within the next 24 hours. What I got were pit bulls. Oodles of pit bulls. These dogs were all young, friendly, and adaptable; they had just run out of time. Before I knew it, I had three pit bulls and three resident dogs living in my home (Yes, peacefully). What I discovered from these first three dogs were three distinct, wonderful personalities, with one trait in common: Rain (now Sunshine) loved to snuggle, was active and bouncy, and a very quick learner; Meg (now Maggie) also loved to snuggle, was quiet and obedient, and loved all animals -- large and small; Mya (now Brendi) was spunky, feisty, and -- oh yeah -- loved to cuddle.

Meg, my all-time favorite foster 

Now, the sight or mention of a pit bull may strike terror into the hearts of some people -- and I respect that...you are afraid of what you're afraid of, although I do encourage folks to open their minds before making decisions. But a pit bull to me is a ball of snuggles and kisses and tail wags. I've just never met an exception, and this is the original breed description. Pit bulls are a breed bred to adore people, and most of them excel at this.

Somewhere in between volunteering with poodle rescue and founding my own program, I realized that pit bulls had a horrible, undeserved reputation. I started researching and found that the claims offered against the breed were baseless, exaggerated, and sensationalized. It was the moment I realized that these dogs needed a voice that I committed myself to being that voice. For the past three years I've been a champion for the breed. In 2011 I changed the name of the rescue to Tough Love Pit Bull Rescue to better represent the causes for which I advocate. Now, I know dogs bite. I know some dogs injure human beings and other dogs. But I stand by my belief that every dog deserves the chance to be treated as an individual. Every dog deserves a real second chance.

So I will work every day. I will spend my own money. I will write letters, articles, and books on behalf of these dogs. We've all made mistakes. We've all needed to start over. We've all been judged too swiftly. I am hardly the exception. So I urge people to seek their hearts and lend the compassion they'd hope be lent to them to these dogs. I believe my life experiences with dogs led me to do what I do. It isn't easy every day, and some moments are downright gut-wrenching. But I will continue to rescue and advocate for pit bulls every single day until I'm too old and feeble to press on. And I only hope I can inspire others to carry on when I'm gone.

Ted, Jade, Dylan, and I on our way from Louisiana to Seattle.

Welcome

Welcome to the Tough Love Pit Bull Rescue official blog! It is my plan to make this blog a resource for pit bull advocates an owners, with stories featuring thoughtful analyses of statistics and media reports on pit bull temperament, care information, updates on breed discriminatory legislation, and whatever else I find useful for bully friends. We will also post updates and stories for some of our adoptable dogs -- we love to talk about our dogs! The first few posts will feature bios from the Tough Love trio -- those who head up operations across the west coast. Cheers!