Can Vick's dogfighting house be repurposed?

January 20, 2008 7:30 PM

Before he went to prison for dogfighting, Michael Vick trained his pit bulls at a 4,600-sq-ft house on 15 acres in Surry, Virginia. Earlier this year, local tax rolls valued the property at $747,000, but Vick hurriedly sold the house to real estate developer Ray Todd on the cheap, to aid his mounting financial troubles. Todd had hoped to resell the house for $1M at a December auction, and dozens of rubberneckers toured the property -- to gawk at the syringes left on the ground, the twenty kennels "like prison cells", and the outbuildings where the dogs were fought. Naturally, no one was buying. Still, Todd wants to recoup his investment, so he’s turning to a conventional sale this month… and failing that, is considering building (unbelievably) a bed-and-breakfast where pets are welcome. Enter The Vick House project: a Dallas charity called Jalie’s Butterflies is hoping to raise enough money online to buy the house and convert it to a non-profit animal shelter, under guidance of the SPCA.

But no good deed goes unpunished: from a post today at the Vick House blog, it appears that the charity has chosen to dissociate from PETA, removing them from their "Friends" page after after animal rescue activists opposed to PETA tactics have raised a fuss. Is this a case of “lemons into lemonade”? Or just a tempest in a teapot? And can a house where countless dogs were killed and trained to kill really become a good shelter for abused animals?

posted by pineapple (27 comments total)

Holy shit, I've never seen as many damn cookies as the USA today and ESPN site wanted to set for just looking at their poxy articles. What a load of crap.

Er. There was a story? Sorry. I got distracted.
posted by Brockles at 7:51 PM on January 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

And can a house where countless dogs were killed and trained to kill really become a good shelter for abused animals?

Why not? It's not like the new resident animals will know anything about what happened before, unless someone tells them, that is. I'd say this is making some good come from a bad situation. In fact, they should name it the "Michael Vick Memorial Animal Rescue" or similar, until Vick actually passes away, and the rename it.
posted by barc0001 at 7:56 PM on January 20, 2008

PETA used the Vick case to raise money that never went towards the pit bulls. In fact, they openly advocated that all the pits involved be put down without any temperament evaluation or chance at redemption even as they were sending out mailers and raising money. PETA has also openly called for the entire pit bull breed to be eliminated. The ASPCA gathered experts to do evaluate the dogs and all but one of the 49 were deemed to have placement potential.

That's why people are pissed.
posted by hindmost at 7:57 PM on January 20, 2008 [4 favorites]

Ooh, thanks for the follow-up, hindmost. That's helpful backstory to have.
posted by pineapple at 8:01 PM on January 20, 2008

And can a house where countless dogs were killed and trained to kill really become a good shelter for abused animals?

Depends on the house. If Vick chose this one because it was good for keeping animals, perhaps. If it just happened to be handy, perhaps not.

Symbolism is all well and good, but is this really a practical idea? Is there need for an animal shelter in the area? Is the house of the right size to serve that need? How much will it cost to renovate the house into something suitable for animals to inhabit (as Vick clearly didn't give a shit about treating them well)? Is 15 acres maybe a little much? Has anyone thought these questions through?
posted by Epenthesis at 8:04 PM on January 20, 2008

Michael Vick jerseys are being donated and used in animal shelters, I don't see why the house/property couldn't be used for good as well . . .
posted by [insert clever name here] at 8:10 PM on January 20, 2008

Meh - say what you will, but this poor breed has been bastardized and vilified thanks to people like Vick and his ilk. Anything that can be done to raise awareness and clamp down on fighting is a-okay in my book.

As an aside, I say this as a recent Pittie convert, myself. Coming from the world of 'safe' and well-bred Golden Retrievers and Labrador Retrievers we recently adopted a rescue Pit Bull named Cecil. He was found chained and starved in the backyard of his owners' house, his brother dead from starvation next to him and no teeth from having eaten rocks (!) and sticks. He is perhaps the sweetest, most loving animal I have had the pleasure of working with. Amazing, really, and utterly goofy looking with his tongue flapping about since he has no teeth to hold it back.
posted by tgrundke at 8:13 PM on January 20, 2008 [3 favorites]

This seems like a stupid idea. They could almost certainly buy a better property for use as an animal shelter for less money elsewhere.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 8:27 PM on January 20, 2008

This seems like a dumb idea. By next year, no one will remember who that guy is, and his name is not worth paying a premium for. Every single red cent that can go to dogs should go to dogs, not symbolism.

And going with the aside, as a professional dog trainer who got her first, purebred American Pit Bull Terrier in 1983, I can (and often do) testify that a well-bred bulldog is one of the finest, most intelligent, loving dogs that mankind has ever brought into this world. They're not the first breed to be ruined by assholes, and I'm hopeful that breed can someday recover from the past 15 or 20 disastrous years.
posted by freshwater_pr0n at 8:41 PM on January 20, 2008

Meh - say what you will, but this poor breed has been bastardized and vilified thanks to people like Vick and his ilk. Anything that can be done to raise awareness and clamp down on fighting is a-okay in my book.

Amen. I've gone on the record before and have to agree. They're some of the move lovable dogs on the planet, which made the Vick thing that much more heartbreaking.

I think this is an awesome idea.

tgundke, i adopted two rescued pits a couple of years ago. they came from a broken home, no telling what they went though, but they've become well socialized and very loving dogs. i pity anyone who sets foot in my house with bad intentions =)
posted by kableh at 8:50 PM on January 20, 2008

And can a house where countless dogs were killed and trained to kill really become a good shelter for abused animals?

Uh, yes? Are we worried about "psychic residue" or "negative energies" being left behind or something?

Also, yeah, a properly raised and socialized pitty is an awsome dog. I work at a kennel when I'm not in school, and the pittys at work are the ones who scare me the least. The only time that I have ever truly been afraid of being bitten was while trying to leash up a very territorial-aggressive Australian shepherd. All the pittys I've known would most likely just give you licks and tail-wags.
posted by Avenger at 9:03 PM on January 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

I personally think that a large degree of it is the name 'pit bull' that frightens people. Granted, there's a history (of people choosing these dogs as fighting dogs), but it's not exactly a name to inspire confidence in the average person. I personally prefer the term 'American bulldog;' it helps to alleviate a lot of the common misconceptions and fears (I didn't invent the term, but I can't remember who did).

That said, I think that it would be more appropriate to name it the 'anti-Michael Vick Memorial Dog Shelter,' though I'm solidly convinced of the possibility that the 'memorial' aspect of that may be imposed sooner than later. From what I understand of prison life, Vick would not be very high on the 'pecking order' and so realistically has a higher chance of getting shanked.

Considering how much I love dogs and how much I am abhorred by his actions, this would not be an unhappy turn of events in my own mind.
posted by Reth_Eldirood at 9:08 PM on January 20, 2008

I personally prefer the term 'American bulldog;' it helps to alleviate a lot of the common misconceptions and fears (I didn't invent the term, but I can't remember who did).

American Bulldogs are a different breed entirely. The are roughly twice as large as a proper sized pit bull. American Staffordshire Terriers are what the American Kennel Club calls pit bulls, however, many people argue even they have diverged. Now the American Staffordshire Terrier describes a smaller, stout dog. American Pitbull Terrier is the correct name by all accounts. Though I do think using their full name would go a long way over just "pit bulls".
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:53 PM on January 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

i pity anyone who sets foot in my house with bad intentions =)

i pity the random person on the street when the dog snaps and rips their scalp off.
posted by Rumple at 10:07 PM on January 20, 2008

I honestly think that if there are a whole lot of people inspired to donate money to help dogs because of this whole scandal, an animal shelter isn't the best way to spend that money. Once a dog ends up in a shelter, the battle has been lost already.

Education and diversion take money, too. Sue Sternberg is a controversial figure in the dog world, and I disagree bitterly with her on some points, but she has done some excellent work in this area.

There will always be young men who want a macho dog. There are ways to have macho dogs without abusing and neglecting those dogs, or making them fight. Pit Bulls are great at the sport of weight pulling, for example. I know plenty of manly men who compete in agility. There are also tuff-guy sports like Schutzhund, Mondioring, Working Trials and French Ring. These sports are highly stylized versions of attack-dog training, and at their best, everybody wins. The dogs get what they so badly need: structure, training, a job to do, and a close working bond with their handlers. The handlers get the rush of working with a well trained dog, and the competition gives them an outlet for their aggression.

What if all this money went towards low-cost or free training for inner city kids and their dogs? Training and competing with a dog is life-changing for someone who has grown up disadvantaged. A program that provided kids with just a few hours a week of classtime, and a place to practice, would not only divert kids from dogfighting, but God. It would give kids real power. For the first time in their lives, maybe, they would have a chance to see just how concretely goal-setting, hard work, problem-solving, empathy and teamwork can pay off.
posted by freshwater_pr0n at 10:34 PM on January 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

i pity anyone who sets foot in my house with bad intentions...

save just a smidgeon of that pity for when your pit rips a child's face off. even if it isn't sincere, it will still mitigate your situation somewhat if you do it on camera just right.
posted by bruce at 11:35 PM on January 20, 2008

I love the dog park. I especially love the dog park with a Standard Poodle in it (not my dog, just love watching them run).

Pit bulls are no worse than their owners treat them. Same with any other breed. I've met former shelter dogs that are Rhodesian Ridgebacks (sometimes mix), Pit (sometimes mix), German Shepherds (sometimes mix), Rott (sometimes mix), and they were all well cared for and friendly dogs, often rescued out of horrible situations: neglected, attacked, etc.

More people need to adopt dogs from shelters. Too many of these beautiful companions are being put down due to our own irresponsibility.
posted by ryoshu at 12:10 AM on January 21, 2008

Pit bulls are no worse than their owners treat them.

I love dogs but you couldn't be more wrong. Different breeds have different average temperments and behaviours. Pointers point. Retrievers bite ducks without breaking skin. Sheepdogs herd anything they can. Chihuahuas stare at you with "big don't step on me" eyes.

Pitbulls bite and do not let go. They also attack with a relentless circling action that can be completely unnerving when you are on the receiving end. These are not taught behaviours. They are tendencies that the animal has that must trained against.

In this sense I think all dogs breed for fighting ability are more like high caliber guns than children. They extremely dangerous unless they are handled just right. What are the odds that a pitbull owner and all strangers who encounter it handle themselves and it just right?
posted by srboisvert at 3:08 AM on January 21, 2008

Different breeds have different average temperments and behaviours. Pointers point. Retrievers bite ducks without breaking skin. Sheepdogs herd anything they can. Chihuahuas stare at you with "big don't step on me" eyes.

Pitbulls bite and do not let go.

And pitbulls were bred to have extreme inhibition to biting humans.

Really, I'm often shocked at the lack of knowledge about pitbulls on MeFi, considering most are so well versed in other subjects. A brief history lesson regarding pitbulls.

"Dog men would therefore breed accordingly to dogs that were proven game (tenacity), had wind (stamina), had talent (fighting style), had intelligence (pit artists) andcould be handled no matter how fired up they were (high degree of human friendliness). "


They had to be. They had to be able to pull the dogs from a fight without losing a limb. A dog that bit its handlers was culled. They have extreme dog aggression, but not human aggression.

Yes, its true that a portion of the breed has been corrupted by people that have the worst intentions or are clueless about proper breeding. But a well bred pit should have none of these problems.

I've heard from a few Animal Control Officers regarding pitbulls, and they have a weird reverence (and hatred) for underground dog fighting. Real underground fighting, not just a neighborhood match created by bored teens. The dogs bred for those fights are much closer to what a pitbull should be - lean, small, vicious and loving all at the same time. Pits with half their face torn off will wag their tails when handled by rescuing/seizing officers. No one, of course, approves of it, but its just a clear example of what these dogs are supposed to be. (which is where the weird reverence parts comes in).

Of course, the ACOs I refer to above were fans of the breed so take that as you will. But I think it says a lot about the dogs for an ACO to deal with the trouble that revolves around them, and still adore the breed.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 6:05 AM on January 21, 2008 [3 favorites]

i pity anyone who sets foot in my house with bad intentions

I'd pity people who set foot into your house with good intentions and your permission, but get bitten anyway because they can't read the STOP FUCKING WITH ME signs your pit is radiating. One of the bad things about pits is that they seem to send fewer such signals, so you don't know when you're nearing their bite threshold.

But breed legislation is still stupid. Dickheads will want dickhead dogs. At least pits are relatively small and, if well bred, bred for tractability and against human-aggression. Ban pits and dickheads will turn to fila brasiliera, presa canario, and other big mastiff-derived dogs that really were bred to kill people. Ban those, and people will just mistreat big mutts into viciousness.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:34 AM on January 21, 2008

Last thing said before most dog bites:

"Don't worry, he's friendly"

I'm more anti-Rottweiler myself. Dumbest dogs on earth, in my experience.
posted by joseppi7 at 7:31 AM on January 21, 2008

I heard about this book on the radio this morning. It sounds like it will be an interesting read.
posted by vira at 7:42 AM on January 21, 2008

I used to much more anti-pit than I am today, I had bought into the media hype and had too little experience actually dealing with them in person. Now after countless hours spent at the dog park and Humane Society I have no fear of them at all. (At least not as a breed. I've met individual pits that I didn't like, but I can say that for any type of animal.)

In fact, taken as a whole, I'd be much more prone to get a pit bull than I would an akita or a mastiff. Not only are akitas bigger, the ones that I've interacted with have almost always been overly aggressive.

I'm sure it's just confirmation bias on my part, but given my experiences, I'd take a pit over a lot of other 'safer' dogs.
posted by quin at 10:51 AM on January 21, 2008

I'd like to take this moment to register the teeth-grindingly irritating language that is not only using 'repurposed', but also the idea of using such a spectacularly inappropriate (non-)word to describe 'retraining' or 'rehabilitating' when such more accurate (and real) words exist. You don't 'change the purpose' of a dog. It's a dog. It barks and shit. And, indeed, shits.

I expect I will receive abuse for this viewpoint, but I hold the US military solely responsible for the prevalence of such words. Perhaps entirely irrationally, and maybe even solely based on the twattish way they portray them speaking in films when they want to sound important.


/pedant
posted by Brockles at 11:49 AM on January 21, 2008

Wow, Brockles... that makes two whines about the technical quality of my FPP, with no actual commentary on the topic. You know, there's a place for your kind; it's called MetaTalk.

While I was originally inclined to ignore your comment -- since you clearly just want to, well, whine, and not about "the issues, topics and facts at hand" -- I feel obligated to point out that what I suggested was headed for repurposing was not a dog but a building. And you can most definitely change the purpose of a building, which doesn't in fact bark or shit.
posted by pineapple at 2:25 PM on January 21, 2008

Ah, I thought the title was lifted from one of the articles, actually, as I seem to remember it being referred to in one.

Also, the discussion about the dogs being outright destroyed rather then even investigate if they could be re-homed distracted me.

My first whine wasn't about the FPP, it was purely and simply about the (two newspaper) sites. I'm not sure why they felt they needed to know quite so much about me just to read an article. I find multiple cookie requests (and those two were stunningly prolific) more irritating than subscription sites. But maybe that's just me.

I did acknowledge that there is a level of pedantry about the use of 'repurpose', but mangling the English language in ways as that annoys the crap out of me. But, again, I didn't blame you personally for it.
posted by Brockles at 5:13 PM on January 21, 2008

[insert clever name here]: They had to be. They had to be able to pull the dogs from a fight without losing a limb. A dog that bit its handlers was culled. They have extreme dog aggression, but not human aggression.

Let's note that extreme dog aggression is still a REALLY HUGE PROBLEM. A dog that can't be trusted to not attack other dogs and is strong enough to break away from their owner is still criminally unsafe.

Yes, its true that a portion of the breed has been corrupted by people that have the worst intentions or are clueless about proper breeding. But a well bred pit should have none of these problems.

I tend to think pit bulls have been bred in two different ways for the last hundred years or so - a small number by fans of the breed, who were selected to be totally unaggressive to everything all of the time, and a huge number by amateur dogfighters and assorted idiots, who either bred them for generalized aggression (the amateur underground dogfighters of today not being so skilled as the professional-ish ones of the past) or didn't breed them for anything in particular.

This has resulted in what we have currently - a small or moderately large number of wonderful dogs who are the kind you see on the internet with kittens perched on their heads, a large number of dangerous dogs with questionable genetics and mental stability, and a small number of cases where you get Cujo on wheels. Unfortunately, what the Pit Bull advocates don't seem to appreciate is the danger that the unstable and Cujo-esque pits pose to everyone else - yes, your well trained, well bred Pit is not a problem. It is outnumbered substantially by ones that ARE.

In my opinion, some kind of licensing should be required to own something that dangerous. I've got no doubt they can be totally safe if correctly bred and trained, but they are unsafe in unskilled hands, and frankly the public shouldn't have to deal with that.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:26 AM on January 22, 2008