The fact that this is even being called into question completely appalls me – when I saw this article, I could hardly believe that any person who calls themselves a dog advocate would root for Michael Vick owning another dog in his lifetime, let alone a rep of a humane society.
Then, reading the quotes from Vick infuriated me even more – “I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process. I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love, and my passion for animals.”
I do believe that people can change, to an extent. But I don’t think they can become entirely different people – I don’t think any person can go from guiltlessly electrocuting, hanging, beating, killing, neglecting, and fighting dogs, to having a “love and passion” for animals, genuinely caring for dogs and having them curled up beside them on the couch as their loyal companions. Plus, I think it’s ridiculous to say that it would “aid in his rehabilitation” – if he’s really so desperate to show that he’s willing to help animals and thinks that being around dogs the key to him totally reforming, why not look into volunteering at a shelter? But to place a dog under Vick’s care and ownership ever again would be completely absurd.
Not to mention the opening line of the article: “Michael Vick says he has a hard time explaining to his little girls why they can’t have a dog.” I literally laughed out loud – oh yeah, Michael Vick, you’re having a hard time? My heart goes out to you buddy. Definitely, you should be able to get a dog to save yourself that awkward conversation with your daughter.
I think it is fantastic that Vick has been touring to schools across the country, educating children about how awful dogfighting is, and I really think that it’s great to reform and try to do some good after being convicted of something so horrendous. But to grant Michael Vick the rights to have ownership of another dog, would be wrong on so many levels. Aside from the fact that there’s always a major inkling that Vick would not be a good owner to a dog based on his history, it would also be a step in the wrong direction for animal rights. PETA’s Lisa Lange sums it up best.
“Just as convicted pedophiles aren’t allowed free access to children, anyone who is responsible for hanging, electrocuting, or shooting dogs and who causes them to suffer in other unimaginable ways should never again be allowed access to dogs,” Lisa Lange, vice president of the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, told the AJC. “All things considered, it is a very small price to pay, especially compared to the suffering endured by the dogs who were abused and killed in the Bad Newz Kennels.”
The bottom line is that no one who loves dogs would have EVER done anything close to what Vick did. I wholeheartedly believe that he does not deserve the unconditional love of a dog. The fact that he is now trying to prop himself up as a passionate animal lover is ridiculous to say the least, but letting Vick have another dog would also be a huge slap in the face to the many dogs that suffered and died under his fighting ring leadership. Other reasons aside, Vick should not be allowed to ever own another dog as a simple honour to the dogs he killed and/or made suffer. It is the very least he can do.
- Post by Kristen