BayTails

Barring a miracle, Michael Vick's victims will be the only ones to die for his crimes.

The prosecutor in the case wants the 50-odd confiscated dogs, taken from hell and being kept in "undisclosed locations" at shelters in rural Virginia, to be killed, and 5 p.m. Eastern today marks the deadline for their putative owners to claim them before Judge Henry Hudson issues an order on their fate. In theory, he has two options, selling them, which no one expects to happen, and killing them.

This means that at such time as the dogs cease to be "evidence," they'll die. If by some chance they're in a "good" shelter, someone they've bonded with and grown to love and trust will commit the ultimate betrayal of that love and trust, taking them for what they think is a jolly outing and conning them with blandishments that everything is OK while someone else pumps their veins full of Fatal-Plus. If they're in the type of "shelter" that abounds around the country, they'll be hauled to the death chamber wailing, peeing and dragging their feet by sadistic thugs who forcibly hold them down for the lethal injection. Or, since this is in the rural South where such things are still accepted, they'll be thrown in a metal box, shut in, and left to struggle and scream in pain and terror for the endless minutes it takes the deadly gas to kill them.

True, in the time it takes you to read this column, this is happening to hundreds of puppies, kittens, dogs, cats, and assorted other critters across the country, most of whom have done nothing except, say, have a sniffle, or be yet another large black dog, or have a treatable medical condition, or have an owner who died, or be in a cage that has to be vacated for the next unfortunate. None of which is even remotely acceptable. But for Vick's dogs to be twice victimized, and at the hands of the "justice system," is the very definition of obscenity.

The rationale for killing these dogs? Statements from "animal rights groups" like PETA, who have been calling for the dogs' blood on the grounds that they're "ticking time bombs." Conveniently missing from PETA's grandstanding is their stated agenda of killing ALL pit bulls, not to mention their sorry track record of taking animals from shelters and individuals with promises to find them homes, killing them in their death van, and throwing their remains in dumpsters.

Then there's the Humane Society of the United States, which aside from the occasional bit of disaster relief and such does no hands-on work with animals and maintains no shelters, preferring to focus on "advocacy." Its position, amid crocodile tears, is that the dogs must die, and it urges people to "mourn" the still alive and well dogs by sending big bucks to the HSUS anti-dogfighting war chest.

Never mind that the people who actually work with dogs, including rescued fighting dogs, think it's very likely many of them could be rehabilitated. Nor that James Smith, the shotgun-toting animal control officer of Surry County, where the dogs are being held, says, "They are not violent to humans."

And frankly, the issue here is not whether they're violent to humans, the issue is that Michael Vick owes these dogs a life of care and comfort as a minor reparation for what he did to them. For those who aren't candidates for adoption, and there probably are some, Vick should be required to fund the construction and staffing (with savvy, caring people) of a secure facility in which the dogs live in the most homelike setting they can manage. Perhaps the former premises of Bad Newz Kennels. And, of course, they should be spayed and neutered.

It is perfectly within the power of Judge Hudson to require Vick to do so as a condition of accepting his plea bargain, and Vick has plenty of ill-gotten money to do it. For this reason, some of us have launched an online petition encouraging the judge to stop listening to the usual suspects and do right by these dogs, and we heartily encourage folks to sign it.

Since the prison system has largely abdicated its responsibility to keep those in its custody safe, some may find a silver lining in the likelihood that Vick and his sorry-ass cronies are pretty likely to experience some of what they inflicted on their victims once they're behind bars. However satisfying the thoughts of vengeance may be, they should not be a distraction from the urgency of seeing to the safety and well-being of the former inmates of Bad Newz Kennels.

"Many years ago, my mother and my siblings made a long awaited escape from violence in our home away from my father. Our beautiful dog Clyde could not come with us and my father at the time had him put to sleep. I still cry. Thank you Senator, from Clyde and family."
— California

Comments on the ASPCA's online petition thanking California State Senator Sheila Kuehl, author of S.B. 353

When we hear of domestic violence victims who endure years of abuse from their tormentors, we sometimes find our shock and empathy mixed with the burning question of why they didn't just get out before, in all too many cases, somebody wound up dead.

The reasons are as unique as the victims, but one that's increasingly apparent is that they're afraid to leave because their abuser has threatened to harm or kill their animals — according to the New York-based ASPCA, 83 percent of directors of the largest battered women's shelters in the U.S. said their clients discussed incidents of pet abuse in the family; 71 percent of pet-owning woman in shelters reported that their animal had been threatened, injured or killed by their abuser; and 49 percent of pet-owning victims who fled their abusers continued to worry about their pets after they entered a shelter. Exacerbating the problem — as we saw during Hurricane Katrina, most shelters that take humans won't take animals.

"One of the reasons women don't leave is because they don't have a safe place for their animals," says Keri Fennell of the Marin Humane Society. "It's a very common thing, but people don't know about it." "Battered women's shelters don't allow animals. This leaves (abuse victims) with two lousy choices — staying in their abusive relationships, or leaving their pets behind," adds Scott Delucchi of the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA.

That's why, starting in the '90s, both groups, as well as San Francisco Animal Care and Control, stepped up with programs offering safe havens for the pets of domestic abuse victims in their respective counties (regardless of gender, though to date those using the program have been women, partly because of referrals from groups serving abused women). Companions in Crisis at Marin, the Safe Pets Program at Peninsula Humane, and the Safe Pet program at SFACC offer a secure, protected place for the non-human family members to stay — usually for anywhere from a few days to a few weeks, but there's wiggle room depending on the individual situation — while the human family members are getting themselves to safety.

In all but a couple of cases at both Marin and Peninsula Humane over the years, pets and humans are eventually reunited. (According to Judy Choy at SFACC, all the pets in the program so far have rejoined their people.) In rare instances, the abuse victim is so overwhelmed she asks the shelter to find the pet a new home, and they do.

Surprisingly, given current levels of reported (as opposed to hidden) domestic violence, relatively few — rarely as many as a dozen per year — have taken advantage of these programs. "I see it as a matter of the word not getting out that the service is available, because domestic violence is still rampant," says Fennell, who adds that Marin Humane is looking at new approaches to outreach, perhaps a card the police could leave with victims when they're checking out abuse situations.

Shelter folks involved with the program say that however many people and their pets they can help, it's one of the most rewarding aspects of their job. Says Delucchi, "For most women we help, their pet is the only thing right in their lives. It's incredibly rewarding to provide them temporary housing at no cost."

On Another Front

Historically, the problem has been made worse by the fact that the law, burdened by the antiquated viewpoint that one's non-human family members were simply "property," had no way to protect animals caught up in these situations.

That may be about to change. Currently pending in California's state senate is S.B. 353, authored by Senator Sheila Kuehl. It provides that courts may specifically assign custody of animals to one party in a domestic dispute, and also provides that court orders requiring the abuser to stay away from the victim may specifically require staying away from the animals as well. If it passes, California will join Maine, Vermont and New York, which have also enacted similar legislation. Here's to it becoming a trend.

Monitored by rescue workers from The Humane Society of the United States , Mariah and Sahara -- a mother and daughter pair believed to have been together since the younger one's birth 17 years ago -- will find open pastures to roam, plenty of food and proper medical care.

The rescue of these two horses and 28 others came after The HSUS and The Fund for Animals won a court ruling closing down Cavel International, the last operational horse slaughter plant in the country. The horses had been offloaded and were queued up to be slaughtered when news of the court decision reached Cavel managers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture pulled inspectors from the plant.

More.