Tuesday, February 9, 2010
0 of 102 stories

‘Speaking for the voiceless victims’

January 24, 2008 : 11:47 AM ET

Alert the media!
(We did.)

Today, January 25, the defendant in the final case related to Michael Vick was sentenced, allowing us to begin telling the happy-ending stories of the Vick dogs here at Best Friends.

Members of the national media have been invited to the sanctuary on January 28 from 10 am to 12:45 pm to meet and learn about the dogs.

They’ll be able to interview key Best Friends staff members, observe our staff interacting with the dogs and, in the process, see how friendly these animals are toward humans.

They’ll also have the opportunity to meet the stars of “Dogtown,” the National Geographic Channel’s TV series.

It will be the first time that news media anywhere in the U.S. have been able to photograph a large group of the dogs since they were seized from Vick’s property.

The New York Times was the first organization to say it would send someone. We also expect TV crews from Salt Lake and Las Vegas, with many of them sending packages to the major networks and individual stations in Virginia that have been on this story for months. We’ve also received queries from NBC Nightly News and Inside Edition.

It’s a true feel-good story about some dogs with a new lease on life.

Written by John Polis

When the Michael Vick dogs are introduced to the public at Best Friends on Monday (see sidebar story), it will signal the true new beginning for the 22 pit bulls who were in the group that survived the imprisoned football star’s aptly named Bad Newz Kennels.

They’ve been at our sanctuary in southern Utah for nearly three weeks, becoming acclimated to their accommodations and getting to know the Best Friends caregivers (as well as many other sympathetic staffers and visitors).

Under an agreement among federal officials, Best Friends, and rescue groups that accepted the other Bad Newz refugees, we’ve kept them pretty much under wraps until the final Vick-related case was closed January 25.

From now on, we no longer refer to them generically as the Vick fighting dogs, but as the Vicktory dogs, with their own names and unique personalities. Best Friends rehabilitators are working with them on socialization and other canine life skills, and our adoptions staff will set about the task of placing them in exactly the right homes.

“We will work with these guys and gain a full understanding of who they are and what particular homes they will be looking for, and we’ll try to find those homes and make a love connection,” says Patty Hegwood, director of animal care at Best Friends.

That message and motivation has been consistent throughout and beyond the Vick case – from his indictment July 17, to his guilty plea five weeks later, to his sentence of 23 months in prison handed down on December 10, to negotiations over what would happen to the dogs.

Best Friends worked behind the scenes to ensure the dogs’ future, even as other groups pushed for them to be euthanized. A spokeswoman from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals called them “ticking time bombs,” and said that “rehabilitating fighting dogs is not in the cards.”

The Humane Society of the United States agreed with PETA. “Officials from our organization have examined some of these dogs and, generally speaking, they are some of the most aggressively trained pit bulls in the country,” HSUS president and chief executive officer Wayne Pacelle told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in early August. “Hundreds of thousands of less-violent pit bulls, who are better candidates to be rehabilitated, are being put down. The fate of these dogs will be up to the government, but we have recommended to them, and believe, they will be eventually put down.”

The government ignored HSUS’s recommendation.

Meanwhile, away from the TV cameras, radio shows and newspaper interviews, Best Friends and others considered the well-being of the dogs and worked on their behalf.

“Several people got involved all at once, using their own contacts,” says Russ Mead, Best Friends general counsel. “We were approached by an attorney in New York City, Flora Edwards, to help.”

She spoke with him and Best Friends executive director Paul Berry, who gave Mead the go-ahead to work on a legal brief to be filed in the Vick case.

Eleven animal welfare groups were parties to the 31-page brief, which “speaks for the voiceless victims of the defendant’s criminal conduct.”

In addition to calling for appropriate prison time and fines for Vick, the brief, filed September 12, offered “a process to conduct assessments to determine which of the survivors can be saved and a plan to place as many dogs as possible in specialized care where they can be rehabilitated and to provide sanctuary and special care for those who have any potential quality of life.”

Mead drafted major sections of the document, which was welcomed in the animal law world. “The brief was significant in that we were speaking to the court on behalf of the victims of the crimes, the dogs themselves,” he says. “Unlike most of the rhetoric surrounding the case, our brief actually became part of the case. It is, of course, hard to say how much the brief influenced the court, but many of the points in the brief were followed by the judge.”

About a month later, the judge appointed Valparaiso Law School professor Rebecca Huss to represent the interests of the dogs in the legal proceedings. She made two trips to perform individual assessments on the dogs, using a previous assessment by the ASPCA as background.

The purpose of her second trip in late November was “to determine the final placement of the dogs based on all the evaluations of the dogs’ behavior and in light of the options available for their care,” according to her eight-page report filed December 3 with the court.

As part of Huss’ assessments, she “observed the evaluations that the Best Friends Animal Society team performed [and] discussed the status and long-term prospects of these dogs with the Best Friends Animal Society team.” The team consisted of trainer John Garcia, vet tech Jeff Popowich and veterinarian Frank McMillan.

Huss recommended to the court that Best Friends be entrusted with 22 of the 47 surviving dogs. The rest were placed across seven other organizations.

“Best Friends Animal Society is accustomed to dealing with dogs that have special medical and behavioral needs,” she told U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who approved her proposal. “Best Friends Animal Society is committed to providing what each of the dogs needs to be able to thrive in a sanctuary environment if it’s necessary for a dog to remain in such an environment for life.”

Paul Berry said Best Friends is grateful that the court gave us the opportunity to do what we do best – provide a caring, rehabilitative home for abused, homeless animals. “They deserve the very best that we can give them, and we are prepared to provide a safe place for them to stay for the rest of their lives,” he said.

At the sanctuary, maintenance crews retrofitted one of the octagons in Dogtown to provide living quarters for the Vick dogs. Octagons provide indoor shelter and feeding areas, and have dog runs fanning out from the building. Inside, caregivers can see all the dogs at a glance and keep an eye on their activities. Each dog will have his/her own 10-foot by 20-foot outdoor run and a space to come into at night.

In a separate action, Judge Hudson ordered Vick to pay $928,073 in restitution for the “past, present and long-term care of all the dogs.” Huss, while acknowledging that the costs of care would be higher, recommended that rescues be allocated $20,000 for each “sanctuary dog” (the dogs who are likely to spend a significant amount of time, if not the rest of their lives, in a sanctuary or foster home). The judge reduced the amount to $18,275 per dog. He allocated $5,000 for dogs deemed likely to be adopted.

Best Friends estimates the average cost of lifetime care for a dog to be $40,000, but the cost of caring for the Vick dogs will probably be more. Because the Vick dogs need to live individually (most of the dogs at Best Friends live in group settings), they will require additional facilities. They’ll also need a higher ratio of caregiver time per dog, according to Hegwood.

Because of concern that dog fighters may try to get them, the Vick dogs will have more security, and the adoptions staff will require more in-depth background checks from potential adopters. As repugnant as it is, the fact remains that Bad Newz Kennels produced some dogs who would be prized by other dog fighters.

Of the 47 surviving dogs, 25 were classified as sanctuary dogs; Best Friends received 21 of those. (The 22nd dog that Best Friends received was assessed as being highly adoptable.)

The resulting stipend to Best Friends was $388,775. The other rescue groups, who took in four sanctuary dogs and 21 adoptable dogs, received $178,100.

The court paid the remaining $361,198 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which was responsible for the dogs during the legal proceedings. That amount includes the cost of transportation, care and feeding; $31,051 for the ASPCA’s behavioral assessment; and $100,000 in hourly payments and travel expenses for Huss.

Contrary to rumors and Internet speculation, Best Friends and the other rescues agreed not to “solicit money or conduct fundraising activities with the sole purpose of raising money for the care of one or more dogs received in the case.”

That agreement with federal officials, however, allows all the groups to talk about the life stories of the dogs as part of general fundraising activities. It also contains conditions for care of the dogs, including spay/neuter provisions and adoption restrictions.

Written by Michael Rinker
Photo by Molly Wald

The work of Best Friends is possible only because of your generous support. Click here to help us reach our goal of No More Homeless Pets.

To check out more Best Friends news, click here.

Log in to Post a Comment

Newest  <<   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >>  Oldest


January 28, 2008 : 9:39 PM ET
posted by: Paws
This is PAWS first facts are facts they are in it for the money I will forward more information on BF as I look it up in my links. Link 1 http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/Report.aspx?CharityID=1107

its is about the money maybe not for all the employees but for the business it is it is a business eitherway you put it. If I was offered personally I would have taken all of the dogs and money to my kennel which is much nicer then teres and would have personally kept them all myself. They would have had more attention nice green fenced paddack with indoor out door temp. controled runs.. They would have had a building to themselves forever.. Bathed 2 times a month and all... They would have top top notch care with me not the stress of 1500 other animals.. And yes the money would have lasted those dogs the rest of their lives with proper care over 500000. Yes I would have taken all of them I would have gone in my motorhome loaded with crates and took everyone of them. I run a boarding and grooming business and business is business. They would have been pampered with us and we would have terated them as our own pets til death. So don't say its for the love its a BUSINESS don't act so naieve' its the American way and can't candy coat it this was all business nothing more!!! Call me tomarrow I will still take the money and all the dogs!


January 28, 2008 : 7:52 PM ET
posted by: Pantaroo
I very rarely (if ever) post to blogs but felt compelled to do so after reading some of the comments about Best Friends' fundraising efforts srruoun the Vick rescue dogs. For those of you who, like I do, support Best Friends, perhaps the most productive thing would be to ignore the people on the blog who have - oddly enough - selected this forum to chastise BF for its fundraising efforts. I do not believe for one second that Best Friends took in Michael Vick's dogs just to solicit donations for the organization as a whole. Anyone familiar with Best Friends should just brush off that allegation. It is nonsense. However, and despite that fact, the sad truth is that some of those dogs (maybe many) will live the rest of their lives at the sanctuary and because the organization is committed to their lifelong care, it SHOULD be able to solicit donations to support them. It would absolutely absurd to tie best Friends' hands. What could possibly be wrong with obtaining donations to support specific animals - especially victims of horrific abuse? Isn't that what most if not all rescue groups do? As a society, we fail animals all of the time and as a society we certainly failed Michael Vick's dogs. Therefore, as a society, we should help support Best Friends as much as we possibly can and make restitution to those wonderful animals.


January 28, 2008 : 6:41 PM ET
posted by: kittychump
EmilyS - I would humbly disagree: I am very proud and glad that BF is asking for funds right away for any and in fact - if this were to happen too - for every single Vicktory dog. The amount of non-compensated person-hours and donations of materials and supplies and all that are going into caring for these dogs - after all that cold-weather construction - shows that BF had to hurry up and step up to the plate because, let's not forget, BF has been *officially awarded* the vast majority of the dogs in a precedent-setting legal decision, after BF contributed legal and expert-witness testimony and documentation/etc. to the actual case itself. How many animals not even directly connected with BF and/or this case might now have a chance? Isn't it worth it to collect much-needed funds now, while the case is so clear in everyone's mind & the legal decision is so recent - so that more follow-up can be done for the Vicktory dogs WITHOUT cutting into other BF funds desperately needed for supporting other legal and rescue cases? Getting real = having to deal. Money = help and it's needed, period. Praises and blessings to one & all who give what they can now, is all I can say!


January 28, 2008 : 6:27 PM ET
posted by: EmilyS
look cwdog: STOP POSTING about these Las Vegas pit bulls. That email is 2 years old, and the link to information does not work. If you have CURRENT information, post it, otherwise STOP. Now, if you want to investigate BFs role with Katrina pit bulls, you may be on to something that you can currently verify.

As for the Vick money, Best Friends received about $400,000 specfically to care for the Vick dogs (about $20k each). That is in the court documents; it's not a secret, and there's nothing wrong with them getting this money. The issue is why they need MORE, and why asking for money is the first thing they're doing.


January 28, 2008 : 6:24 PM ET
posted by: EmilyS
I got a clarification on the fundraising issue from Prof. Huss. Though she wouldn't comment on the specifics of the agreements with the USDA about caring for the Vick dogs, she did say that fundraising was allowed in general. But I do think it's a shame that the FIRST thing Best Friends is doing in introducing these dogs is to ask for money for them, and it does seem to contradict their previous statement (even if it is allowed by the terms of their agreement)


January 28, 2008 : 4:51 PM ET
posted by: tamara harris
The article about the Vicktory dogs brought tears. It is such a blessing that Best Friends and the other rescuers exist! The dogs deserve every minute and every penny that is lavished upon them.

Certainly it would be an even happier day if the pit bulls that end up at other shelters could have the same outcome. To be born a pitbull, and then have to die just because you ARE a pit bull, epitomizes the most insensitive and wasteful treatment of God's creatures.


January 28, 2008 : 3:41 PM ET
posted by: kittychump
pumpkin1: i'm a GA-member not a BF staffer - however, I believe that you must have read the explanations that Vick's 'funds' are not going to cover the care of these dogs & that further funds are going to be required. Whose side are you on, anyway?!!!!


January 28, 2008 : 3:31 PM ET
posted by: pumpkin1
"Best Friends and the other rescues agreed not to “solicit money or conduct fundraising activities with the sole purpose of raising money for the care of one or more dogs received in the case.”

If the above quote is true, why are you asking for donations for Little Red and Tug?



Newest  <<   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >>  Oldest