The fine folks over at BAD RAP have some video footage of some of the dogs they rescued from Mike Vick's dog fighting facility in Virginia. I highly encourage you to watch the videos that are posted over at Dog Time to see the successful transformations of these dogs.
For those of you that have a soft spot for these kinds of dogs, you'll love watching their success.
For those of you who are skeptics, watch the video and keep in mind that these are dogs that were truly bred and trained to be fighting dogs (the VAST majority of these dogs aren't) and see how well they're doing when they have a knowledgable and caring owner.
And for what it's worth, I think I'm developing a little crush on little Jonnie Justus (pictured). He and my Stella would be quite a pair.
Hat tip: Gadab
I hate to say it, but I'm still a skeptic. Not of the dogs who have gone into foster care with Bad Rap and other organizations, but of the dogs who have been sent to sanctuary. I want to know why those dogs have been sent to sanctuary and what is wrong with them that they can't go into foster and be adopted out.
My glass is always half-empty when it comes to this breed, I'm afraid. With friends like me, who needs enemies, eh?
Posted by: katie | January 25, 2008 at 05:22 PM
The best place to find out information about Best Friends is on their website. I hope they don't get mad at me for sharing their secret stash of information.
"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. "
Posted by: Michelled | January 25, 2008 at 05:55 PM
Katie,
Here's a link to the most recent info on the dogs at Best Friends that Michelle referenced. They're going to be starting a daily blog over there to track their progress -- now that the final person has been convicted in the Vick case and the sancuaries can begin talking about the dogs. You can read more here:
http://news.bestfriends.org/index.cfm?page=news&fps=1&mode=entry&entry=AD2802EC-19B9-B9D5-9D9C19F7DD13ACF1
Posted by: Brent | January 25, 2008 at 08:02 PM
Thanks for this link, Brent. It is good to know that someone (lots of someones!) has deemed these dogs and this story worthy of their endless efforts. We can't help but hope that somehow, in some way, this story will help the hundreds of thousands of other dogs out there who are also worthy of our attention, care and concern.
Regarding Alert the Media (off to the right). It will be VERY interesting to see what medias bother to attend this event. If media sources who have made huge, hateful statements about dogs who resemble this breed do not bother to follow or cover this significant story, then we'll have one more piece of evidence against them and their exploitation of dogs of certain breeds. Suppose Nancy Grace will be there???
Posted by: Becky | January 26, 2008 at 09:56 AM
If the media event was only attended by journalists who have done some research, checked their facts and consulted actual experts before writing their articles, this meeting could be held in a phone booth.
Just saying...
Posted by: Caveat | January 26, 2008 at 10:07 AM
As I understand it, the dogs that went to "sanctuary" are either so fearful of people, or so dog-aggressive that they need more time to be socialized/evaluated. And they may never be able to have their own homes.
You'll see that the dogs BadRap and others are featuring are highly social towards people (after recovering from their fear) and have little-no overt dog aggression. (in fact, this emphasis on dog-friendliness is not necessarily in the long-term interest of pit bull rescue in general). They will almost certainly be ready to be permanently adopted within a few months.
The Best Friends dogs may never be adoptable, especially since BF also places an unrealistic focus on dog-dog friendliness. They rarely take/adopt pit bulls for that reason. I'm glad they saved these dogs, and the dogs will have a safe comfortable life, even if not adopted out. But pardon my cynicism.. the dogs brought BF about $400,000 in Vick's money (allocated by the court appointed guardian) and lots of publicity.
Posted by: EmilyS | January 26, 2008 at 10:36 AM
oh, and by the way.. you know who I'd love to see at the media event? HSUS.
I'd like the press to ask Pacelle to repeat to the world the HSUS demand that the Vick-tims be killed for their "unstoppable violent aggression", along with all other pit bulls seized from dogfighters.
I wonder if we'll ever know which, if any, of these dogs actually were fought. It's impossible to believe that Vick had so many dogs that he wasn't fighting, though it's clear that some of the dogs must have been on his "torture because they won't fight" list. Also impossible to believe he didn't keep records of dogfights he sent his dogs to...
Posted by: EmilyS | January 26, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I have two pits - one female and one male. I have had them since they were puppies - the female o got her when she was 3months and my boy i got when he was 8weeks. They are a huge part of my family- My three kids and i adore them. They have never been agressive towards any of my childres. My two year old cuddles with them and the dogs just let him wiht no problem. If you treat Pits right they will be good to you. Its how you raise them.If you teach a kid to be mean and fight thats what the child will do- If you love a child and are a good parent to them they will show that in there daily activity. I dont mean to compare a kid to a dog but it is the same way. Teach a pit to fight be mean and you get just what you taugt them. Please give pits a chance.
Posted by: n/a | January 26, 2008 at 06:18 PM
They do know to some degree which dogs were fought - they have scars. Some fights may have been accidental but seeing as Vick ran a dog fighting ring we can probably be safe making the mental leap...
WOW, I just LOVE how the organizations taking in the dogs tourtured by Vick get so much critisism. Why should the orgs taking in the dogs NOT get any of Vick's money? If they had to scrape up donations from the general public would that be better? So what if BF are getting some positive press and some cash for doing a GREAT thing!?
Posted by: MichelleD | January 27, 2008 at 01:20 PM
THANK YOU for that Michelle -- was about to write the same thing! Besides, 400k is not all that much when it comes to rescuing dogs. BF took on something no one else was willing to do. I don't feel like anyone has a right to put them down for it. I wouldn't have a problem w/ them getting even more of Vick's money. They will NEED it.
I am personally grateful for those who are doing what I'm not able to do.
Posted by: Becky | January 27, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Is it a great thing that BF is doing though? That's where I'm stuck. The dogs that Bad Rap took are fantastic dogs and I fully support the work that Bad Rap is doing (as well as Our Pack, whose singular Vick rescue dog is already a certified and working therapy dog). But I'm still uncomfortable with the whole sanctuary bit. I don't think it is in the best interest of these individual dogs or in the breed as a whole to keep dogs who are not stable enough to function in the real world.
Posted by: katie | January 27, 2008 at 04:00 PM
I'm sorry, Katie, I'm not understanding your reservations here. I don't understand what is wrong w/ the 'whole sanctuary bit'? Or how what BF is trying to do is not great?
Admittedly, perhaps I have not thought it all thru and maybe you could elaborate more? Still, I don't understand how this opportunity to receive proper care, some human companionship, compassion and affection, even if it's for the rest of their lives, is not in the dogs' best interest?
Don't they deserve this? And what exactly do you mean by 'not stable enough to function in the real world'? What is wrong w/ a sanctuary being their 'real world'?
It seems to me that there are a lot of other dogs in shelters and foster homes that are not yet stable enough to function in the 'real world' and don't we try to help them and give them a chance?
Don't we support plenty of humans who are not stable enough to function in the 'real world'? Does this mean they do not deserve a life?
Also, I don't believe that their instability or inability to function in our world has yet been established. My understanding is this is the purpose of the sanctuary -- as a place where they can be properly cared for until that determination has been made.
I am not aware of any expert or reputable study that has established or proven that dogs w/ this background cannot be helped. I know that it has been assumed, but might this be an opportunity for us to learn more about this?
Posted by: Becky | January 27, 2008 at 04:26 PM
BF had taken in quite a few pitbulls a couple years back, then claimed they couldnt get rid of them via adoption and was sending them out to other smaller rescues, for example, one gal in Las Vegas. It nearly BK'd her. I recall reading BF said they could only adopt out "so many pitbull dogs." BF spent $140k to bring in imported dogs from Beruit. BF held their symposium where they discussed the fact that dogs were dangerous bec they were bred to be dangerous. (If that is true, what of the environment and rehab/resocializing) BF spends $5k+ on one kitten. So it's subjective as to their spending of other people's money (donations) as for Brap, they only take in the dogs they know they can get out. If it isn't dog/person aggressive they can probably find it a home. They only place 35 (thirty five) dogs a year. Also they supported SB861 in CA and are actually the co-author of it, along w/Animal Nations. These are all facts.
Posted by: Sabrina Kennedy | January 27, 2008 at 05:28 PM
"I don't think it is in the best interest of these individual dogs or in the breed as a whole to keep dogs who are not stable enough to function in the real world."
That's SOOO animals rights BS I don't even know how to begin...but Becky pretty much addressed it so I don't need to anyway.
Sabrina, I know much of what you are saying to be true. Badrap did pull their support eventually - FWIW. They get a lot of flack for the small number of dogs they adopt out but they're goal is to train and nuture dogs to be ambassadors for the breed - not save every pit bull out there. If people don't agree with that goal then by all means, DON'T give them your money!! (OR BF for that matter.)
My point is there is a LOT of stuff out there worthy of criticism - BF taking these dogs in to either adopt or live the rest of their lives is not one of them in my book.
Posted by: Michelled | January 28, 2008 at 09:53 AM
Just to be clear, Bad Rap never supported SB 861. We don't support any BSL. And, fwiw, we don't exclude dogs from our program solely for showing dog aggression.
And, Michelle's right in saying that our goal in adopting out pit bulls isn't to place every homeless pit bull out there. Our main goals have always centered around education.
The dogs coming from Bad Rap's program are not only family pets, but also serve a bigger role of educating everyone he/she comes into contact with. As seen in the Vick sitch, the dogs do most of the work when it comes to teaching the public what our breed is about.
Taking that into consideration, in my opinion, I don't think that quantity should be more important than quality.
Posted by: Christine | January 28, 2008 at 01:12 PM
This is why you shouldn't believe everything you read and double check your facts. I do think there was some other legislation that BR pulled their support from that is getting confused here? I tried to find it so if Christine checks back maybe she can address that...
This further demonstates why the AW world can't make much progress. Everyone is too busy finger pointing and in-fighting to look at where we can move forward on common ground.
It's unbelievable that BF and BR and getting flack about saving these dogs lives...
Posted by: Michelled | January 28, 2008 at 02:31 PM
BAD RAP: PLEASE STOP LYING ABOUT SB861
You helped WRITE the bill.
You have stated that you did it because you thought a total breed ban was likely otherwise.
Everyone knows it: everyone has seen the emails from Speier's office. To claim that you didn't "support" something you helped write is the height of hypocritical, disingenuous b***s***.
More than any other organization, you LEGITIMIZED this chink in the armor of California's no BSL provision, precisely because you're a pit bull rescue group.
I'm one of many people who won't support BR because of your work for SB861, and because of the lies you keep telling about it.
And by the way, what is BR doing with the $50k you got for the Vick dogs?
Posted by: EmilyS | January 28, 2008 at 03:32 PM
I would commend Brap for helping APBTs, however I would not commend them for co-authoring SB861 as it stands. However,Emily is correct as to the facts. The press did a good job of POSITIVELY pointing out something done for APBTs in the face of the Vick case--and if that is what it took to do it, then so be it. We don't run the media, BUT positive blurb is still better than negative. And it would be a positive note as to the Tellings case, if it is heard. I suggest Sonya give the real data to the Denver papers, just to see if they would publish it??? LOL
Posted by: Sabrina Kennedy | January 28, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Michelle, we initially supported AB 1634, the all breed mandatory s/n bill mainly because it had the potential of eliminating CA's current allowance for bsl. But the language got so crazy that we couldn't support it.
Emily, call it what you like but we never came out and supported 861. If we did, we would be encouraging places to implement it instead of promoting voluntary spay/neuter.
It's no secret, so I'll tell you the same thing we told our conference attendees a few years back: We did help cap any potential bsl to mandated spay/neuter only as it related to overpopulation. In light of the political momentum at the time, the things happening behind the scenes, the seemingly frequent pit bull attacks being reported in the CA media in quick succession that led to an increase in public hysteria, we felt the removal of the prohibition against bsl was inevitable. Without any limitation written into the law, jurisdictions would have had unfettered discretion to use it as they wished, which included a total breed ban.
You call it supporting bsl, I call it limiting bsl. I am sure you will continue to disagree with our decisions, and it sucked big time to have had to be in that situation, but there you have it. It does little to argue about the past especially when it's the same argument on a different day.
As for the V-dog money, we plan to use it for the care of those dogs.
Posted by: Christine | January 28, 2008 at 05:29 PM
well, Christine, it depends on what the meaning of "is, is", right?
Bad Rap's Clintonian notion of the truth does you no good.
You supported the mandatory s/n of AB1634 at first, even though it was clear from the beginning how bad it was. The bill didn't "get" crazy.. it was always crazy. You helped write SB861 and you never spoke in opposition. You can say you didn't support it, but people understand the English language and what actions mean, and don't mean. The opposite of "support" in the real world is not "don't support".. it's "oppose".
If you opposed SB861, you would have joined with virtually every pit bull organization in the state and the country who opposed it. You are the ONLY organization that thought supporting it to prevent more draconian BSL was a smart political position. Other organizations regard your actions as a stab in the back.
There is NO good BSL, and if the position of Bad Rap is that a little bit of BSL is all right, then that confirms the suspicions of most pit bull people, especially those who believe in responsible breeding and the NEED for responsible breeders to maintain the breed: that you are not to be trusted.
Now I suppose you'll tell me that you "support" breeding, too?
But you don't, do you? That's why you push for mandatory s/n. You are uniformly negative about "breeders" and never distinguish between categories. Which is kind of "odd" as well, considering there's a very fine hobby breeder who is a big supporter of yours.
>
Posted by: EmilyS | January 28, 2008 at 06:25 PM
A while back, someone in a smaller community close to KC was on a committee of experts to make recommendations on legislation for their Dangerous Dog Ordinance. They were told to come back with two options, one that was Breed Specific, and one that wasn't. She didn't favor BSL, but it was a forgon conclusion that BSL was going to be an option for the council. So she ended up persuading the committee to go with not just "pit bulls" but including other breeds like German Shepherds, Dobermans, Akitas, Chow Chows, Huskies and few other breeds.
This person of course got ROASTED by "experts" saying she shouldn't have added more breeds. However, instead of 20 people or so showing up to fight a "pit bull" ban, nearly 100 showed up to fight for "their breed" -- even one AKC German Shepherd owner admitted the only reason she was there was because it affected "her breed".
The council went with the breed neutral ordinance.
I guess the moral of this story is that people who are in the trenches politically in their cities get to know their politicians and the environment. In many cases, you realize the admistrators are "going to do something" -- and sometimes you're stuck helping them come up with the less-bad ordinance.
It becomes really easy for people to criticize from half a continent away -- who don't know the mood, the environment, or the people. I've met more than a few people in this political world that pride themselves on never compromising on an ordinance. The vast majority of these people don't 'win' very often, and end up coming off as irrational and all gets lost.
I don't know the specifics of Bad Rap's involvement with these bills. And honestly, I don't care. In all of the world's problems when it comes to dog issues, I am 100% positive that Bad Rap is not the enemy. In fact, even if they aren't always perfect (who is?), they have done FAR more for the good of this "breed" than the vast majority of groups out there.
And I'd recommend that some of you who insist on trying to rake BR over the coals not lose site of that...
Posted by: Brent | January 28, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Wow. Just wow.
I'm sensing some serious hostility but I'm not going take the bait to get into a pissing match, Emily, especially because this blog was (and should be) about the incredible, nationwide, positive PR that our breed has gotten over the past few days.
Suffice it to say that your accusations are flat-out wrong, and borderline defamatory. Bad Rap's always been forthcoming with its decisions and will continue to be, despite knowing that not everyone will agree with us all of the time.
Personally, I think our breed has more than its fair share of challenges without armchair critics mixing in rumors of conspiracy theories, ulterior motives, and hidden agendas (promulgated by our own breed's advocates no less), but that's just me.
It's been a good couple o' days in the public eye for pit bulls. Let's hope this is a tipping point and sign of better things to come.
Posted by: Christine | January 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Thank you BADRAP for all you've done to help these dogs.
As far as BR & SB861 -sometimes you have to play the hand you are dealt. Kudos to BADRAP for being in the game and playing the hand the best they could.
Lofty ideals are nice - but reality is what we've got to deal with.
You know, if you don't do anything, you don't make mistakes - nice position to be in - but hardly a position by which one can judge others.
Posted by: Karen | January 29, 2008 at 06:25 AM
"defamatory" LOL
well, please explain precisely what I posted that "defamed" Bad Rap. I don't see where you actually denied anything I posted.
Otherwise, all I see is your typical "we are above criticism" "everyone else is wrong" response of the type that I often see from Bad Rap... many occasions on which you publicly attack those who dare to post the truth (or simply to disagree). You have never hesitated to publicly post slams against people, even those with far far more experience in rescue than you. So to play all hurt and injured at my comments is just a wee bit hypocritical.
Posted by: EmilyS | January 29, 2008 at 09:34 AM
Emily,
Your comments implying the improper use of the $50k -- with no evidence, thoughts or rational basis for the claim. THAT'S what is defamatory. It's one thing to disagree with one of their decisions on policy (which again, is really easy from your couch half a continent away), but it's another to make completely unfounded or unsubstantiated comments regarding the use of money. That's where you crossed a very big line...
Posted by: Brent | January 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM