What the Hell Are They Thinking?

The post-plea, presentence phase of a criminal case can be a very interesting time. So it is with Michael Vick. For different reasons, Vick’s defense team, the NFL and the Falcons are all desperately trying to deflect and refocus the public’s attention. Vick’s defense team will continue to spin this as a “tragedy” for Vick’s family, for Vick’s teammates and for a “talented young man who is trying to rebuild his life after making a poor decision.” Classic: minimize the conduct and attempt to induce empathy for the defendant (oh, yeah, appeal to the religious right by invoking Vick’s newfound love of Jesus). This is the only hope Vick’s camp has of keeping him in the NFL. Serving a federal sentence is a second-tier concern—retaining access to a multimillion-dollar income is the top priority. Despite the disappointing decision of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to allow it as part of the plea agreement, why do you think Vick refused to admit to betting on his dogs? To improve his chances of staying affiliated with the league.

From the league and the team, the message seems to be, “We didn’t know Vick was a dogfighting thug… But, hey, it’s football season, so sit down, crack a cold one and watch the game!” The hope being that, just maybe, folks will stop talking about this situation.

Enter Whoopi Goldberg and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC). Coming at it from very different perspectives, each has generated yet another news cycle for a story that has very impressive staying power. Ms. Goldberg seems to be of the “View” that since Vick is from the “deep south” where she says dogfighting is part of the “culture,” his conduct should be measured against that backdrop rather than against the cold and impersonal backdrop of the federal criminal code and those pesky laws Vick repeatedly and systemically violated for years. Ms. Goldberg’s logic is so painfully flawed that one can’t help but feel sorry for her. If Ms. Goldberg’s reasoning is accurate, then judges should consider a hate crime offender’s “cultural heritage” as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The Goldberg mitigation argument would go something like this: “Your Honor, my client is from the deep south and he was raised in an environment of racial intolerance. Therefore, in fashioning a sentence for burning a cross in Mr. Smith’s front yard, I urge you to be sensitive to his cultural heritage and judge his conduct in the context in which he was raised. Simply put, he was raised to think that way and [by inference] just didn’t know any better.” Labeling this logic as offensive and insulting is being way too generous. The federal sentencing guidelines do not subscribe to this ridiculous view and no judge worth his or her salt does either. Shame on you Whoopi. You should have stayed in that coveted center square and steered well clear of commenting on federal sentencing practices.

Next up, the AJC’s story proclaiming that Vick’s extended involvement as a dogfighter was an “open secret” known to many well before his arrest. And yet, in the wake of Vick’s guilty plea, the brass within both the Falcons and the NFL would have us believe that they knew nothing of this side to Vick’s character. Do you honestly believe that any for-profit enterprise (team or league) preparing to invest tens of millions of dollars in a marque player would conduct a less-than-thorough background investigation of their investment or neglect to take steps to protect that investment once it’s made? Perhaps even more telling is this gem about the Falcons’ management, as reported by the AJC story: “The degree to which the team monitored off-the-field activities of its highest-paid player is not clear. Reggie Roberts, a spokesman for the Falcons, declined to comment.” Why would the Falcons decline to comment on this and why would the Falcons be anything less than clear about what they knew and when they knew it? It’s almost as if they are taking plays right out of Alberto Gonzales’ playbook. This is all-too predictable and, yet, sadly disappointing at the same time.

On the Radio

The New York Times ran a story earlier this week about the recent popularity of creating “life lists”—to-do’s for the long haul. I’ve got various lists lying around on crumpled post-its and envelope backs, and for the most part they look alarmingly bourgeois (restaurants to eat at, countries to visit, dance steps to learn). Clearly I’ve been too offhand in my goal setting. Because there’s one thing I really want to do someday, more than tango in Buenos Aires, play craps in Monaco, or sport cruelty-free couture at some lavish premiere. What I really want is to have my own radio show.

I love the radio. I adore Howard Stern, and I have a mega-nerd-crush on Ira Glass. I feel like I know them, you know? Much more than newspapers and TV, the radio seems, somehow, intimate. Like these people, via their voices, are in my living room with me while I make my bed and dry my hair and go about my life. There still remains something that is beautifully candid and unscripted and manages to capture people in all their unedited glory (for better or worse) on the radio that is long gone from television, if it ever existed there at all.

While I work on the concept for my show (wacky guests? people I just happen to find interesting? regular airtime for people who bring vegan baked goods to my studio?), I invite you to get to know some of our staff here at ALDF—on the radio:

-On May 15, KPCC 89.3 in Pasadena spent a quarter hour talking with Founding Director Joyce Tischler about ALDF’s plea to the LA Dodgers to stop selling their stadium’s iconic Dodger Dog until supplier Farmer John stops contracting with farms raising pigs in cruel gestation stalls.
Here’s what she had to say. (RealPlayer required.)

-Bruce Wagman, ALDF’s chief outside litigation counsel, joined San Francisco’s KQED on July 23 to discuss legal and social issues relating to animal fighting and other ways in which animals are abused for “entertainment.”
Tune in now.

-Just last week, on the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, ALDF’s Chief Contract Attorney Dana Campbell joined Los Angeles radio station KPFK for their show “Rescue Me,” looking at the legal issues affecting evacuation of animals in disasters, and the challenges that remain.
Listen to her interview.

An Open Letter to R.L. White, President of the Atlanta NAACP

Dear Mr. White,

I have long admired the NAACP as an organization that fights for those who are the victims of oppression and discrimination. As a teen growing up in the tumultuous 1960s, I looked to the NAACP as a beacon of hope in a world filled with prejudice, violence and injustice.  Animal Legal Defense Fund, the organization I founded, is built on the principles that Dr. King spoke of so eloquently when he envisioned “all of God’s children” joining hands in freedom. Those of us who work to protect animals realize that there will never be a “final frontier” of those who desperately need our compassion. In the ongoing effort to create a world that respects all of its members, those of us who work for defenseless animals are working at the roots.

To witness your representing the NAACP and defending Michael Vick is a betrayal of the trust that so many of us have placed in your organization. Perhaps naively, I’ve believed that people who have experienced oppression would learn from that to oppose the oppression of all others, not just those in their racial or ethnic group.

But, your active embrace of Vick appears to be a classic case of the good old boys circling the wagons to protect one of their own, regardless of what he has done. You stated that Michael Vick is being persecuted and treated worse than if he had killed a human. In other words, you are saying that since Vick was involved merely in dogfighting, what is all the fuss about? Since you don’t seem to know the answer, let me explain: dogfighting is a barbaric practice that has no place in a civilized society. It involves forcing animals to violently inflict bodily injury upon each other until one of the two fighters dies.  The training of the dogs is brutal.  In addition to the harm to the animals, which didn’t seem to faze you, there is also the gambling and rampant sale and use of drugs.  Investigators report that children are often brought to these events. Because of the violence, the drugs and the gambling that are all endemic to dogfighting, it is a crime in all 50 states, a felony in 48 states and a violation of federal law.

Michael Vick is not some uneducated, unemployed adult who cannot afford an attorney and was pressured into signing a false confession. He attended college at Virginia Tech, and has become one of the highest paid sports players in history, with a $130 million dollar contract. He’s an intelligent man who has made choices, all along the way. He made the choice to be heavily involved with dogfighting, to cruelly abuse, torture and kill dogs, and to become involved in gambling, another crime. Each and every time he participated in a dog fight, he made the choice to violate state and federal laws.  That he now faces difficult and uncomfortable choices, such as whether or not to plead guilty, is the price he must pay. For the NAACP to call that persecution, because Vick happens to be African American, is nothing short of a bald, two-faced lie.

Further, you stated that just because Vick pleads guilty doesn’t mean he committed the crime. To the contrary, sir; if he pleads “guilty,” that is exactly what it means. He will have to sign a written statement, in open court, that he committed the acts constituting the crime. A judge will have to make a factual finding that Vick understands that he is admitting his guilt and that Vick’s admitted conduct constitutes an actual violation of the charged crime.

A lesson that I learned in the 60s, and that I apply to our work every day, is that our worst enemy is the mindset that we can use, exploit and abuse others, because they are unlike us, less than us. As soon as we separate ourselves from “them,” whoever “they” are, we can justify doing wretched, horrible things to others. The examples abound: the KKK lynchings, the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, the current human rights crisis in Darfur…  

For me, that lesson applies not only to humans, but to all who have the capacity to suffer: the dog who is set on fire by a gang of teenagers, the pig confined for life in a crate so small that all she can do is stand or lie down, the deer, racing for her life from the barrel of a high powered rifle.  The best in humankind, the very best, comes out when we see ourselves in others and others in ourselves. Thou in me. I look into the eyes of a dog, or a chimpanzee, or a child in a displaced persons camp in Darfur and I see some one—an individual, with a life force and an intelligence—looking back at me.

Those of us who have lived with or spent time around pit bulls, can attest to the fact that, when they are in a loving home, they are delightful, playful, charming dogs.  They like to go on walks, run in their back yards and do all the things that other dogs enjoy doing. They are faithful and devoted companions. They would never choose the kind of painful, ugly existence that Michael Vick and other dogfighters force them into.

It is disheartening to me that you and other NAACP officials urge us to offer Michael Vick our compassion, but the nameless, faceless dogs he abused and killed simply don’t matter; the suffering that he inflicted upon them is unimportant. I’d like to offer you the second chance that you ask me to offer Michael Vick. Look into the eyes of those dogs, battered and scarred through years of brutality, and tell me what you see.

Wishing you peace and perhaps, a deeper insight,

Joyce Tischler
Founding Director
Animal Legal Defense Fund

PetSmart's Dumb Decision

Knight, a black rabbit with large brown eyes, cowers in the corner of his cage at a Sonoma County, California, animal shelter. Like so many other bunnies, Knight was relinquished to the shelter by guardians who bought him at a local pet store and then decided they no longer wanted a bunny. Now scared and distrustful, Knight hides from strangers who come to the shelter, making it more difficult to place him in a permanent home.

Sadly, countless rabbits like Knight are purchased at pet stores and then abandoned at shelters – or worse, dumped in a park, where they will quickly be attacked by predators. In fact, most rabbits end up dead or discarded before their first birthday.

This reality makes PetSmart’s recent announcement to breed and sell dwarf rabbits in spite of its adoption partnerships with rabbit rescue groups all the more distressing. Their callous decision to sell rabbits while thousands of healthy bunnies languish in shelters across the U.S. and Canada will cause even more rabbits to be euthanized.

PetSmart claims that its sale of baby rabbits will not exacerbate the rabbit overpopulation problem because 1) all PetSmart dwarf rabbits will be spayed or neutered prior to sale, 2) PetSmart employees will be “trained to instruct the public” regarding their care, and 3) PetSmart will perform “customer-satisfaction surveys” after the purchase of a rabbit and will have a 14-day return policy, in case the rabbit “doesn’t work out.”

While spaying/neutering is good for the rabbit’s health, reduces certain behaviors like marking with urine, and prevents further reproduction, it does not prevent rabbits ending up in shelters or dumped in parks. Potential guardians must be carefully screened to ensure rabbits are going to loving homes and have the skills to care for these special beings. I live with five rescued rabbits in my home, and I can tell you that unlike dogs and cats, bunnies are high-maintenance animals; learning how to care for a rabbit takes time and certainly more instruction than you are likely to receive at a pet store (or even from the average veterinarian). Moreover, PetSmart’s “14-day return policy” emphasizes the public’s fickle nature and gives rabbit guardians a sense that these animals are disposable items, not intelligent, affectionate creatures who deserve our time and attention.

PetSmart has said they decided to sell baby dwarf rabbits only after consulting with a team of “pet care experts.” But according to the House Rabbit Society (HRS), the largest repository of rabbit care experts in the world, HRS was never consulted, nor, as far as they know, were any other rabbit rescue organization.

Petsmart reportedly selected baby dwarf rabbits as the “best type of rabbit for a family.” “This flies in the face of what most rabbit rescuers know from experience, and points to how sadly misinformed PetSmart’s decision is,” wrote HRS President Kathleen Wilsbach in a letter to PetSmart President Robert Moran. “Baby rabbits – like baby animals of any kind – are more destructive and require much more training and supervision than more mature animals, and dwarf rabbits are often significantly more skittish and harder to handle than larger rabbits. Further, dwarf rabbits have a higher incidence of dental disease due to their small, shortened head shape, and this can mean expensive veterinary care as often as every other month.”

Every rabbit (or other animal) purchased from a pet store or breeder means there is one less animal saved from a shelter – and potentially from death. Because of PetSmart’s decision to breed and sell rabbits in spite of its adoption partnerships with HRS chapters and other rabbit rescue groups, the House Rabbit Society and other animal organizations are now encouraging their members to shop elsewhere for their pet supplies.

What you can do:

Please speak up for animals and let PetSmart know that you are unhappy with their decision to sell rabbits in their stores rather than reach out to more rabbit rescue groups to expand their rabbit adoption programs. Please send PetSmart a polite letter or email, or give them a call to express your concerns:

Email: http://www.petsmart.com/global/customerservice/contactUsForm.jsp
or corpcommunications@ssg.petsmart.com
Phone: (800) 738-1385
Fax: (623) 580-6502

Snail mail:
PetSmart, Inc.
19601 North 27th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85027

You may also want to remind them that Philip Francis, Chairman and CEO of PetSmart, said in a July 1, 2000, interview with Allbusiness.com that “We try to stay on the side of angels with all animals. We do not sell certain animals for specific reasons.” The article then goes on to note that “Rabbits are also taboo. Six weeks before the Easter holiday bunnies become popular pet purchases, but 10 days later the majority of them wind up in shelters. For this reason, PETsMART will not sell rabbits, but it will carry rabbit food and supplies.”

Interested in rabbits as companions?

Rabbits are social animals who make great companions for those willing to provide a secure, loving, indoor environment. Indeed, consigning a rabbit to an outdoor hutch or cage constrains their natural behaviors, subjects them to the danger of predators and inclement weather, and denies you the pleasure of their company. Rabbits flourish indoors, where they can run, dance, and play in safety. You can even train them to use a litter box. But your home needs to be bunny-proofed, since rabbits, who are natural burrowing animals, have a strong biting instinct and will chew on your baseboard or nip through telephone cords. They also need frequent grooming.

Notwithstanding these caveats, rabbits make wonderful companions – especially for vegetarians because of their diet. Anyone thinking of bringing home a rabbit should do their homework by visiting sites like www.saveabunny.org or www.rabbit.org. If a rabbit is right for you, please do not buy from a pet store; instead, contact your local animal shelter, humane society, or rabbit rescue group for information about adopting a rabbit.

Mark Hawthorne is the contributing writer for ALDF’s quarter newsletter The Animal’s Advocate, and he serves on the outreach advisory council for Animal Place, a farmed-animal sanctuary and education center in northern California. He also volunteers with SaveABunny, a rabbit rescue organization.

On the Other Hand

Chances are that if you’ve caught even a glimpse of the news lately, you are now familiar with the gruesome world of dogfighting. With the recent indictment of Atlanta Falcons Quarterback, Michael Vick, this barbaric, underground activity has thrust itself to the media forefront. Public outcry has been massive and people have bombarded the NFL, Atlanta Falcons and companies who promote Vick via merchandise with letters and phone calls voicing their disgust and disapproval. Indeed, anyone who participates in such abuse of an animal should pay the price. But if anything has become clear with this recent case, it is that we as a society have very different ideas about what is abuse and what is not.

Dogfighting is cruel and despicably abusive, no question. But as we pet our beloved dog, oftentimes described as a family member, with one hand, we justify stabbing a fork into a piece of steak with the other hand. We condemn dogfighting because it is gruesome and so very unnecessary; animals dying for our entertainment can’t be thought of any other way. But is “housing” multiple chickens in a cage the size of an ice chest not cruel and unnecessary? Is cutting off their beaks and providing such little room to move around that their curling, overgrown nails anchor them to the wire floor of the cage not cruel and unnecessary? Or is it that our eggs benedict is worth that amount of suffering? Some argue that food is necessary, entertainment is not. Indeed, food is necessary, as is clothing, medicine and other things that help us through life, but producing these items in such disrespectful, abusive ways is not.

It is evident to me that our society has drastically juxtaposed views about animals. Americans spend billions on our pets each year keeping them healthy with organic food, proper vet care, and endless new toys, treats and bedding (and clothing for the fashion conscious crowd.) Yet we spend even more consuming products that cause immense suffering to millions and millions of animals. I ask you, what is the difference between the suffering of one being from another? Is a chicken not entitled to live a life free from unnecessary suffering, but our pet is? Does the rabbit really owe us its life to ensure that our fabric softener makes our clothes soft enough? Is our wool sweater worth the suffering of the sheep who grew it?

We love our pets because they are so very special. They make us smile when they curl up in our lap, cheer when they perform a trick just right, and cry when they leave this world. So why do we not afford this same respect to all animals? I assure you, they too are wonderful and special, and have the same desire to be safe from harm just as our pets do. Don’t we owe all animals our respect and compassion, not just those who share our home?