A post-prison Michael Vick is partnering with a national animal rights organization to help end dog fighting - can he be the face of change?
flickr photo by Valerie Everett
It's a funny thing, the way that our culture holds certain people in esteem. From celebrities, politicians, professional athletes, when they fall from grace for any given reason, it seems that we're equally rapt with the fallout.
In the compelling case of Michael Vick being involved in a dog fighting ring, this was especially true as it seemed that what came to light in 2007 crossed so many of our society's cultural and personal paths; from pet lovers, football fans and everyone in between, there was a mix of outrage and apathy or even indifference.
None of those are really surprising to me. I'm all-too-aware of the variance of opinions that are expressed here on the pets section and elsewhere, and, quite honestly, I find that interesting.
It's not always easy to hear — the indifference and apathy — but certainly interesting, and here's why: We live in a period of time that has three very distinct ways of thinking (much of it fueled by a generation one was born in) when it comes to the treatment of animals, domesticated or not, and they are paving the way for how animals are treated in the future.
It's a strange brew of an older generation who, in many cases, saw cats and dogs as outdoor animals who were given basic care, a previous generation who was stemming that tide and saw a shift in thinking about ethical standards of treatment, spay/neuter and the human/animal connection — and the current generation (and of course members from previous generations) who have evolved even more and have fueled quite the push to raise awareness and better standards or care for animals of all kinds.
And let's not forget cultural and geographic influences!
It's been an interesting thing to watch, for someone who is immersed in the culture of pets as I am.
Why am I bringing all of this up?
It's because I think that it's important to remember all of this, and to keep a sense of objectivity when thinking about a dog fighting ring was able to reach the size of the one Vick helped to create. (But he did not do it alone.)
Now before the incensed opinions are offered about how I seem to be sympathetic to Vick — trust me, I'm not. Far from it.
The thing is, Vick is just the tip of the proverbial hidden iceberg. He was able to carry out such horrible acts because he had stature and money — and because other people were willing to be a part of it all, or to look the other way. Part of it was a cultural thing.
Dog fighting existed before Vick (he in fact, says that he had been involved with the activity as early as age 8 and at that time didn't know that it was illegal), and it's still happening across the country.
This case did shed much-needed light on a problem and has precipitated awareness and change on peripheral topics (things that are even happening in Washtenaw county), like the plight of the "breeds" that are so often associated with dog fighting and other unsavory human deeds: Pit bulls.
During the time that he served in prison after his conviction, Vick reached out to Humane Society of the United States' President and CEO Wayne Pacelle to talk about the idea of assisting the HSUS's community-based programs that reach inner-city youth.
Pacelle knew that, by-and-large, supporters of HSUS would be opposed to the idea, but he also understood that the collaboration could reach young people in urban communities, where dog fighting has been popular.
Click here to read my interview with Pacelle from last summer. He was in Ann Arbor to talk about his book, "The Bond: Our Kinship With Animals, Our Call To Defend Them"
A few days ago, NPR's 'All Things Considered' featured Vick and Pacelle to talk about the controversy and the strategy to help end dog fighting — and how they are teaming up to support H.R. 2492, the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act — and to no doubt plug Vick's new book.
Click here to read the transcript of the interview.
The truth is, no one knows if Vick is truly sorry for the right reasons for his role in dog fighting, besides Vick of course. We can expand on that point until the cows come home, but none of that changes what is.
What is undeniable is that we are a society that loves to see those in the public eye rise, fall and even rise again, regardless of the circumstances.
Do you think that given Vick's history and current stature in our culture, that he can be an effective catalyst for positive change when it comes to highlighting the treatment of animals?
Connect with us by adding your comments below, and by taking the poll.
Lorrie Shaw leads the pets section for AnnArbor.com. Connect with her on Google + or e-mail her directly.
Comments
RunsWithScissors
Tue, Jul 31, 2012 : 6:24 p.m.
Oh my. Mentioning Michael Vick & dog fighting is akin to dropping a match in the gas tank. Before Vick was convicted I hadn't given dog-fighting much thought - other than being against it. It seemed dog fighting was a shadowy thing done in remote areas involving backward-thinking people. Now I know better. I think Vick can be a catalyst for change. Not in and of himself but by provoking such passion as seen in these postings. I won't buy his book, I won't excuse his behavior yet I will make a mental connection between greater awareness of this atrocity and his part in it. Maybe, just maybe, there will be an end to dog-fighting and perhaps Vick's felony conviction & celebrity status has something to do with that.
dieselchono
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
Lets see.....the face of change. I can only imagine if at the age of eight you are enjoying seeing blood, torture and death of animals who have NO choice in the matter...what is your real heart like now after letting Satan himself lead you and your heart for so long? The face of change? The only reason he's doing this now is to keep making money! And...shame on those who are behind him!!!!
Madeleine Borthwick
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 6:24 p.m.
Oh, please. Mr Vick is trying to backpedal to try to undo the mess that he landed himself in. He's not fooling me for ONE SINGLE MINUTE.
julieswhimsies
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 5:42 a.m.
No. I haven't noticed anything he's done to cause positive change in how animals are treated.
Jan Dykema
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 4:26 a.m.
LOL Humaewatch has no "members.'
Jan Dykema
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 4:21 a.m.
excuse me.. what part of : "The thing is, Vick is just the tip of the proverbial hidden iceberg. He was able to carry out such horrible acts because he had stature and money -..Part of it was a cultural thing. " it was a cultural thing did I miss?" you state that Vick was a part of a "culture " that condoned the torture of dogs.. what culture is that that Vick lived in that condoned the torture of dogs? Black culture? Poor people culture.. ghetto culture? which one or is there something I missed? Vicks "culture' had nothing to do with the sadistic torture of dog. Many people lied in the same "culture" and did not torture dogs. So which part was his "culture" Please let me know. If getting off by saying.. heck it as a part of my "culture' no criminal would spend any time in jail.
suzyelectracuted
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 3:16 a.m.
Ms. Shaw Jan Dykema is a member of Richard Berman's front group Humanewatch. Humanewatch is funded as are all of Berman's front groups, by well-hidden corporate sponsors. These corporate sponsors pay Berman to attack worthy organizations like the HSUS, the Center for Disease Control, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, teacher unions, labor unions and the minimum wage. Humanewatch is inhabited by puppy millers, back yard breeders, rooster fighters, dog fighters, exotic animal traders, and factory farmers. In light of Jan Dykema association with Humanewatch don't expect any fair viewing or critique on your article. Dykema hates HSUS with a passion born of her fear that HSUS's animal advocacy will have a negative impact on the contents of her wallet.
julieswhimsies
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 5:50 a.m.
I have also heard about puppy mill ties with the AKC. (That was an aside) I am afraid I have to agree with suzy.
Jan Dykema
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 4:26 a.m.
nope I am an American Kennel Club judge.. breed an occasional litter of well bred puppies and love my dogs and my country. My wallet is fine although not made any heavier by my passion for my dogs.. in fact much lighter but I would not have it any other way. The rest of your post is pure bunk. I use my own name how about you?
Jan Dykema
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 7:05 p.m.
" Part of it was a cultural thing. " no it is NOT a "cultural thing" . This a cop out by Vick and the HSUS to blame something else for a sociopaths personality. Most people in Vicks "culture " do NOT fight dogs. What "culture" do you actually write about? Black culture? Poverty culture? What "culture" defines Vicks? "Lest we forget cultural and geographic influences! " What? Dog fighting takes place all over the USA.. there is no "geographic" influence. Most people who live in Vicks "geographic are" do NOT fight dogs. having money and stature did nothing to help Vick torture and kill animals. He did that all by himself. It is the sign of a sick mind.. to blame it on where he lived and his "culture" is wrong and prejudicial. One good thing came from the Vick debacle.. HSUS changed their long time stance on killing any "pit bull" caught in a eb of dog fighting. Until they were caught by begging for money for Vicks dogs when they did not even have the dogs and were forced by pressure from the aftermath and outpouring of sympathy from the public to change their stance they have killed or caused to be killed THOUSANDS of "'pit bull" type dogs. Heck Pacelle/HSUS even called for Vicks dogs to be killed. But when it can down to brass tacks. Pacelle saw that killing the dogs would get him less money and lots of bad press.. so it policy was changed. But the killing has not. "Shelters" still follow the old HSUS guidelines of killing any dog that"looks like" a "pit bull".. any idea where they got the idea that that was an OK thing to do? Old habits die hard..
Lorrie Shaw
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 2:19 a.m.
Jan, I think that you've taken my statement, "Lest we forget cultural and geographic influences!" and looped it in with my talking about Michael Vick. I was talking about the vast variance of opinions/comments that I see not only on my posts, but elsewhere on animal-related topics - and how a lot of factors shape that. In my dialoging with people, I do find that one's experience in their specific culture bears a lot on how what people find to be acceptable or not, and yes, geography goes with that hand in hand. Thanks for chiming in.
Jan Dykema
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.
Seems your commenters know more abut the HSUS than you do .. or perhaps you were taken in by the slick talk and .. Oh Look I wrote a book about my "bond" with animals.. let me remind you: "I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I'm kind to them, but there's no special bond between me and other animals." ---Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, as for Vick.. please.. he saw a way to make money.. and so did the HSUS..it is all about the money.. HSUS got 50K check from the Eagles.. did you know about that? Meanwhile dog fight cases INCREASED in Philly after Vicks "join up" with the HSUS neither Pacelle not Vick care a fig about animals...what they do care about is the bottom line.. you have obviously been duped by not one but two snake oil salesmen.
noshopadopt
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 5:50 p.m.
I think I see the issue here. You did not refute the other comments on the 8/5/11 article that shed light on HSUS and Pacelle, until I inferred that you 'endorse' them/him. I draw that conclusion from the fact that there is no mention in either of your articles- this one, or 8/5/11's, of the opposing view regarding the organization and its leader. I simply believe that in light of the articles, a mention of that would have been acceptable. It was not meant to be a personal attack on you.
Lorrie Shaw
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 2 a.m.
noadoptshop: Doing an interview with an author coming to town for an event is something that is done here on AnnArbor.com - and elsewhere. That's what the piece in August of 2011 consisted of. My refuting your comment on August 2011's piece was warranted. No one else made any comments about my endorsing HSUS. They did, however, state their own feelings about HSUS, and there's no problem with that. But you noted: "I was very disappointed to see you seemingly endorsing HSUS." No where in the piece do I endorse anything. To infer that a writer endorses a person or an organization that they represent because they've interviewed them is to say the least, incorrect. As for Saturday's piece, my job is to write about a topic like this in an unbiased fashion, and simply to stick to the facts at hand. That's what I did. An opposing view of HSUS isn't necessary in this case, given the context of the piece. I respect your point of view, but it seems that you are drawing conclusions on what mine is. Thanks again!
noshopadopt
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 5:13 p.m.
*catalyst
noshopadopt
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 5:12 p.m.
Lorrie, thanks for your response. Yyour first point is to suggest I reread your article, and more thoroughly, because you seem to think I am unable to understand it. I too am a 'mindful and self-respecting' commenter and was not trying to be unpleasant. I believe that If it were to be journalistic and thought provoking, it would not have contained only references to: Vick's 'proactive' collaboration with HSUS & Pacelle, 'HSUS's community-based programs for inner city youth', Pacelle 'knowing that together they could reach young people in urban communities', a link to your 2011 interview with Pacelle, and a link to NPR's interview with Vick and Pacelle. Whether Vick can be a catalyzt for positive change hinges greatly on who he collaborates with, therefore differing viewpoints on the organization and its leaders is necessary. I do what you encourage- read, think for myself, research facts, and make my own decisions; not blindly following any given group. The link I mentioned is just reference for more thinking material as it were.
BHarding
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.
If he really has changed, and feels remorse, etc. let him work on convincing his previous contacts with dog-fighting to put an end to it. But, they aren't going to buy his book, and he shouldn't profit from his wrong-doing. He should not do any good deeds in the limelight, if he has any to do.
Lorrie Shaw
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.
BHarding: You bring up an excellent point in this conversation. I appreciate that. In the NPR interview, Vick indicated that: "...Wayne and I have talked about this before - I didn't have to do this, or I could have done it for a year. And every time Wayne calls me, or if there's something that I can do to help, I'm always there. I've spoken at numerous places, and we have no contract. It is based on how we both feel and what I feel is right because my thing is, I don't want this to go on. I don't want animals to continue to be hurt. I don't want kids to end up in prison behind pointless activity." I understand what you're saying about performing good deeds in the limelight - as well as the whole book thing. Do you think, though, that it's important for him to not only to try to use any influence that he may have with previous contacts *and* youths in the community as well? I think it's all about context. I am eager to hear your reply. Thanks so much!
noshopadopt
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.
Lorrie, are you still promoting HSUS? Comments on your 8/5/11 article (link above) gave very good information regarding Wayne Pacelle and HSUS, and also refer to www.humanewatch.org where the truth about them can be found.
Lorrie Shaw
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.
noadoptshop: You might want to read the piece again, and perhaps a bit more thoroughly. I've not given an opinion one way or the other on any organization. I'm not sure how you extrapolated that I promoted anything. Facts are facts, and I simply presented them. That's the job of any mindful and self-respecting blogger. I believe that readers can make decisions on their own about the facts at hand. This piece was written from a journalistic standpoint, if not a thought-provoking standpoint as is most often the case in what I write. I encourage people to read, then to think for themselves and hopefully a mindful, meaningful dialogue ensues so that topics can be explored fully as people wish to. As for specific groups like the one that you speak of, there are many who dispute each other and the like. This piece, as I clarified in my question, is not specifically about Pacelle, or HSUS. It's about Vick, and if he at this point can be a catalyst for positive change when it comes to highlighting the treatment of animals. I welcome your response.
ravensrun65
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 12:34 p.m.
Vick is in no way any sort of human anyone should look up to. He's a murderer, plain and simple! All younger generations will learn is, murder innocents and accept a plea deal, then gain back all your money and fame. To allow this SUBHUMAN access to more victims, is akin to allowing a pedophile to work at a pre-school!!! H$U$ teaming up with Sick-Vick was bad enough, this is just too much. He and his CRIMES AGAINST ANIMALS, are a prime example of what is wrong with our society. The general public needs to wake up and stop supporting these TRUE CRIMINALS! DO NOT buy ANYTHING Vick is associated with, don't buy anything from any corporate sponsors of his, end this misled campaign of putting innocent victims in the hands of abusive murderers!
Nancy Bragg
Sat, Jul 28, 2012 : 9:59 p.m.
sat july 28 12 LET US FOCUS ON this vick creature.... I have GREAT difficulty believing he can change!!! He like so many others, should be on an Animal Abuser Registry! They do exist!!! There is even a petition to charge those who watch the dog fights...Do not buy anything he is promoting!! Last week there was something in the news - his kids want a pet! I turned purple for "animal abuse awareness week, but am staying purple!!!!" THERE IS ALSO TURN ORANGE FOR PREVENTING ANIMAL CRUELTY!!! vancouver canada
Lorrie Shaw
Sat, Jul 28, 2012 : 10:06 p.m.
Nancy, I understand that you do not think that Vick is a changed person, and that's understandable, given the scope of his crimes. The question that I posed, though, looks at a more broadened view: Do you think that he *can be a catalyst* for positive change when it comes to highlighting the treatment of animals? Thanks for taking the time to read - and comment.
a2citizen
Sat, Jul 28, 2012 : 6:33 p.m.
You can take the cat out of the jungle...
Ted Hill
Sat, Jul 28, 2012 : 8:26 p.m.
But you can't take the jungle out of the J... oh nevermind that don't work. (;