Sportsman of the Year?

**It took a little while for me to decide to write about this, but ultimately I just couldn't resist throwing in my two twisted cents.**

Recently, the Black Entertainment Television (BET) awards titled Michael Vick as "Sportsman of the year".  Of course, this enraged the masses - I don't think anybody is surprised by this.  But, there's this thing about the masses.  You see, I find that the masses tend not to think about things very much, they like to shoot first and ask questions later.  Me, I like to ponder... 

If you are so inclined, I highly suggest you have a little look-see at my Dog fighting Dissertation before you continue.  It'll at least give you a little bit of an idea of how I tend to look at the world - I like the "why" much more than the "what".

Allow me to preface this whole thing by stating that after some cursory research, I'm a little confused by the BET awards.  From the beginning of the BET awards in 2001 until 2009 the award for sports was titled "Male Athlete of the Year" and "Female Athlete of the Year".  If you have a look at the winners from those years, you will see that the pool of nominees has been pretty small.  This is very interesting to me because as a sports fan I can tell you there is no shortage of exceptionally talented black athletes.  I really truly don't get it.  Who nominates these people?  Do they even watch sports?  Where are the college athletes?  Football players?  Is Derek Jeter the only black man who plays baseball?  Is it a politics thing?  I dunno. 

Then there's the question of exactly how they choose to define "Athlete of the Year".  Does it have to be an athlete that is at the very top of their respective sport?  Or can it be a wide receiver who only makes the pro bowl once, but is exceptionally involved in the community and is opening a school for the blind next week?  I can tell you what *I* think it should be, but I'm the last person on earth who has any right whatsoever to tell Black Entertainment Television how to pick their award recipients.

So on to that name change.  I find it very interesting.  Why is it now called "Sportsman of the Year" instead of "Athlete of the Year"?  According to Dictionary.com, we have two "Sportsman" definitions to work with:

Sportsman
— n  , pl -men
1.	a man who takes part in sports, esp of the outdoor type
2.	a person who exhibits qualities highly regarded in sport, such as fairness, generosity, observance of the rules, and good humour when losing

I personally find that this change in name for the award is quite significant.  Especially if we assume the latter definition.  Should we make that assumption?  Hell, I don't know - but let's do it anyway.

Here it comes... are you ready for it...?

*I* think this change in name is probably the one thing that makes a reasonable argument FOR Vick getting the award.   

SETTLE DOWN!  Let me tell you why.

Did Michael Vick do some disgusting, terrible, hurtful things?  Yes, he absolutely did.  It doesn't particularly matter why he did them in this case - he did them.  The question is sportsmanship, and as an avid football fan I can tell you that from where I sit and what I have seen he has been a pretty stellar sportsman this past year.
When Vick came to play for Philly he brought a LOT of distraction with him.  I find he clearly recognized this and (I firmly believe he had help in this) he also recognized that the best way to do good by his team was to shut up, put his head down, and play his heart out.  And that is EXACTLY what he did.  He shut up, showed maturity (my gut tells me he has Tony Dungy to thank for this), and worked his ass off.  That's what a good sportsman does, he takes responsibility for his mistakes and works his ass off to help his team; he cans the trash talking that hurts his team and just does his job.  As far as "Sportsman of the Year" is concerned, I can't say I have too much argument against him.

I understand that a lot of people will hate him forever as a result of what he did, and to some degree I think that's fair.  What I think is dangerous is when people have a complete lack of ability to recognize any good someone has done because they don't like them.  Arguably, this is the very reason the US government is such a joke right now - everybody hates everybody and that means that nobody is even going to consider trying to compromise.  Life is not all black and white, people are not infallible, and forgiveness doesn't only help the forgiven.    

The real question, for me, is whether Vick will still deserve to be called "Sportsman of the Year" next year.  After a great 2010 season Vick has two options (assuming the NFL players and owners can find a way to get along) - Recognize that working hard, staying humble, and acting like an adult has gotten him where he is and continue to follow that road OR take his success for granted, start strutting around like an idiot peacock and throw it all away.  It's up to him, and I for one am very interested in seeing which path he chooses.  I'm rooting for him, and I can confidently say I will be the first one to tear him apart if he makes the wrong choice. 

As for the BET awards.  Well, I can't say I put much stock into them.  The system seems to be very flawed, and not very representative of the huge pool of exceptionally talented black athletes out there, which I happen to think is a shame.  So, in the end, I'd have to say I just plain don't much care about them.

How's that for an anticlimactic finish?

So, there you have it, my two cents.    


In other news....

Mendel got Reserve Winners Dog at the Kettle Moraine Kennel Club show on Saturday and I'm working on a tough to write post.  I don't know how long it will take me to write, but I'll get there.  :)

Devil's Advocate: Rosie the Newfie

I've read posts from a number of different bloggers about Rosie the Newfoundland who was shot (4 times) and killed by police officers.  The story is a sad one, that's for sure.  You can read it here.  I thought I might give my own take on the situation given that I often have a different view on these things than the majority of "dog people".

First let me say I do not find the police department or the particular officers involved to be without fault in this case.  Their actions were foolish and terribly disappointing.  More on that later.

However, I found my first huge problem with this whole story when I read that Rosie's owners left her outside while they left the house for a few hours.  This kind of poor judgment is something that makes me ask "Are you out of your $%&#ing MIND?" on a pretty regular basis.  I can think of about 20 different ways Rosie could have died as a result of being left outside while the owners were away.  This was pure foolishness on the part of her owners, and a huge lesson to be learned for people who think this is ok - it absolutely is not.

I had a boyfriend who left his dog outside while we went to a movie.  We had "disagreements" about the dog previously and I decided to just ignore it and let him do whatever he wanted since it wasn't my dog or my problem.  I didn't even like the dog all that much, but I can tell you I was a nervous wreck during the whole movie.  I couldn't even tell you what movie we saw, only that I kept imagining all 20 ways the dog could end up dead while we were at the theater.  I don't shut my mouth about this anymore.  Fortunately, the dog was fine.

So, since Rosie wasn't poisoned by the neighbor kids, teased and hit with sticks, hung and strangled by getting her collar caught on the fence, or any other number of terrible things that can happen when her people aren't there to stop it, she just jumped the fence to go explore the world.  Despite the fact that she ran in traffic, she wasn't hit and killed by that either.  Somebody called the police and tried to help her.


First, let me be very clear about this:  MANY people are afraid of dogs.  If you are going to be a dog owner and refuse to accept this fact, you are kidding yourself and putting your dog at risk.  It is in no way unreasonable to assume that the police officers who dealt with Rosie were genuinely afraid of her.  MANY people are not only afraid of dogs, they also know almost nothing about how to deal with dogs.  Again, failure to realize this is to the detriment of the dog and his owner, nobody else.  It is NOT the responsibility of ANYBODY who does not have a dog to learn ANYTHING about dogs for the benefit of dog owners.  It is also NOT acceptable for a dog owner to expect ANYBODY to like or even tolerate their dog just because they happen to like them.  It is NOT acceptable to expect ANYBODY to assume your dog is "friendly" just because you said so.  Don't EVER forget that.  EVER.
I can absolutely 100% guarantee that if I were to bring an adult Newfie into my mother's home, she WOULD be afraid of it at first.  She has grown to know and love my dogs, but strange dogs are a whole other story and Rosie's black coat wouldn't help matters.  Large black dogs are scary to many people no matter how sweet they are, and their owners need to be aware of this. 

Here's where my huge beef with the police department comes in.

Just as Police officers don't start an IV line on an injured person at the scene of an accident, they have no business attempting to catch and restrain a dog.  Contain the dog, yes, which they did by keeping her confined in a neighbors fenced yard.  The INSTANT she was no longer a danger to other people or herself, their job was done.  There is absolutely no reason they should have been trying to catch her, they are not qualified for that kind of work any more than they are qualified to start and IV line.  That is what Animal Control is for.  Even just looking at it from the standpoint of officer safety, they were putting themselves at risk by approaching a dog they are untrained and unqualified to deal with - guns don't always stop dogs, they could have been seriously hurt themselves as a result of their foolishness.

I have been working with dogs and people for long enough to know that NOBODY can tell me Rosie was a sweet perfect wonderful dog.  If I haven't seen it with my own eyes, I don't believe it.  Ever.  I have seen dogs people call sweet and friendly - they most certainly were not.  I am also well aware of the fact that people sometimes love their dogs to the point of making them monsters.  I'd say there is a good chance Rosie was a wonderful and very frightened dog, but for people to claim she was this perfect harmless defenseless dog without ever having seen her is a joke.  Just for good measure, I'll throw in the fact that if the owners hadn't left Rosie outside alone, they would have been there to tell the officers that Rosie was a wonderful dog and call her back home where she belonged. 

Now there's the fact that Rosie was not only shot 4 times, she was tasered.  This, to me, is another indicator of incompetence on the part of the officers.  I'd love to see the place in a police officer's training where it suggest a TASER as a good option in a case like this.  If it's there, somebody better do some long hard thinking on the topic... and maybe talk to somebody who knows a little something about dogs before they recommend it any further.  Talk about a good way to get very seriously hurt.

As far as I am concerned, there is plenty of responsibility to go around here.  Even if mistakes were made, nobody deserves to lose a dog this way.  I feel terrible for Rosie's family.  I hope that this series of events will serve as a wake-up call for dog owners who think it's ok to leave their dogs outside while they are not home (particularly those who live in urban areas); and for police departments to require officers to leave the tasks they are not qualified to deal with to the people who ARE when the opportunity presents itself.  It sure would save a whole lot of people a whole lot of heart-ache.  

Rant: Pet Legislation

If you are involved in pets in the US to any serious degree at all you are aware of at least some form of legislation that either has been implemented or is being considered for implementation in your state, county, or city (or one near you) regarding pets. The debates over these pieces of legislation are heated, to say the least. My opinions on the majority of them are heavily pragmatic in nature.

I find that actually evaluating each of these proposed laws is relatively simple for me – it comes down to two basic questions:  What GOOD can it truthfully do?  What HARM can it cause? 

One thing I don’t find to be helpful is jumping to conclusions or maintaining the belief that any piece of regulation is ultimately aimed at total domination.  For example, there are many who believe that much of this legislation is simply a stepping stone for the government (or anybody else) to reach the ultimate goal of taking away our right to own pets altogether.  I don’t.  In fact, to some degree I loathe this argument – I hear it all the time with gun control.  The fact is, just as the majority of rational people who want some kind of regulation on guns do not have the goal of taking them away altogether, I don’t believe the majority of rational people who want regulation on pets have the ultimate goal of making it illegal to own one at all.  I just simply don’t see it, and I find that way of thinking to be not only unproductive, but a further perpetuation of the fear mongering I believe to be the root cause of much of this legislation in the first place.  (more on that later)  I realize this belief is just the beginning of my divergence from the basic arguments of many who oppose these laws.  I understand the opposition, I just think there are better ways to justify it.

Let’s begin with Breed Specific Legislation (BSL).  While a large portion of these laws are aimed at what is commonly referred to as “Pit Bulls”, many breeds are involved.  Never mind the fact that “Pit Bull” is just an arbitrary descriptor with no truly specific meaning at all, many of the laws essentially ban well muscled stocky dogs with broad heads that “look scary”.  The idea behind the legislation being that since many of these breeds were used for the purpose of dog fighting or other aggressive purposes, they must pose some kind of threat to mankind.  Therefore, if we ban people from having them, they can’t bite, maim, or kill us.  Easy enough, I suppose, even though it’s already becoming painfully obvious this is a blatant case of fear mongering in itself.  Anybody who actually knows a dog who might be classified as a “Pit Bull” is well aware that this fear is not only irrational, but in most cases down right laughable.  Let’s just look past all that and start with that pesky question number 1 – What GOOD can it truthfully do?  The answer – not much.  As a society, the dog breeds we have found to be most frightening has changed nearly every decade.  In the 80’s it was German Shepherds, the 90’s vilified Dobermans and Rottweilers, and now here we are on ‘Pit Bulls’.  None of these breeds (or vague breed classes) have changed all that much in 30 years as far as the danger they pose to us and yet our perception of them has changed significantly.  The reality is any dog can bite; any dog can do serious harm, regardless of size or breed.  In all my years of working with dogs, the only breed of dog I have ever experienced a true attack (and subsequent bite) from was a black Labrador Retriever.  She seriously wanted to hurt me (and the people I was protecting from her) and her aggression was a direct result of genuine fear and lack of socialization.  In my experience, this is a major underlying cause of a huge portion of bites/attacks.  At that moment, in her state of mind, her breed was the last thing on earth that mattered.  I have no doubt in my mind that situations like this are among the leading cause of attacks on children.  When a dog is backed into a corner or put in a position that threatens or frightens him, he has precious few options – when a child is the source of the threat, aggression is a perfectly viable option for most dogs.  Breed is irrelevant, but what a dog perceives as a threat most certainly is not.  When a dog is left to his own devices to determine who and what is a threat (because his owner did not bother to teach him) or to determine what behavior is or is not acceptable, he will find aggression to be a perfectly acceptable reaction to a great variety of situations that we might find completely unacceptable.  This failure on the part of owners is not a breed problem, it is a people problem, and the banning of breeds will not even begin to solve it.   

What about question 2 – What harm can it cause?  I will admit for the “non-dog person” who simply doesn’t see the value in dogs as companions and has sipped from the cup of fear Kool-Aid, the banning of a few breeds here and there to “keep us safe” really doesn’t matter much.  To some degree, they're probably right.  Of course, that doesn’t account for the fact that the laws are blatantly discriminatory and an infringement upon the rights of responsible people who own and love these particular dogs.  It’s with this argument I am reminded of a statement made by Mr. Benjamin Franklin: 

 I'm not going to sit here and tell you I think all legislation/regulation is bad, I don't.  I find that a whole lot of it is a good thing.  In fact, had there been stronger regulation of our banking sector restricting things such as usury loans, we wouldn't be in anywhere near the mess we are financially right now.  I am not a person who finds the "free market" to be the best and only way.  (if we're being real, the "free market" has for all practical purposes ruined a number of our breeds already, which is a terrible shame)  I am, however, a person who will always oppose regulation that can not possibly solve the problem it claims it will solve or that will take away rights from those who have done nothing wrong, unethical, or inhumane.  

to be continued...

Weekend Rant: HSUS

Back around Christmas I posted about donating to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).   Given that I recently decided I would allow myself to express a maximum of one rant a week on my blog (friends would probably tell you I could provide one rant per day if I were feeling particularly motivated) and that the HSUS has been particularly involved in attempts to destroy things that are important to me and my 'dog friends' - I felt it would be fair to bring them up again.

I NEVER give my money to this organization.  Let me tell you why.

First, I don't appreciate being deceived.
Many people believe that when they give their money to the HSUS, it is going to the dogs, cats, and other animals in need of care.  They believe this because the HSUS goes to great lengths to trick them into believing it.  Sadly, it's not true.  You can read about one specific example of this here.  See, that place in your city often called the "Humane Society" that houses homeless dogs and cats hoping to be adopted is NOT The Humane Society of the United States.  They are in no way affiliated.  I know, sneeky, right?  The money you give to the HSUS is not really going to the care of those pets sitting in kennels in your town.  It's going to things like lobbyists, advertising, and board member salaries.  The HSUS is an animal rights group (much like PETA), NOT an animal care taking, fostering, or adopting organization.  In fact, many people call HSUS "PETA in a suit and tie".  There really isn't that much difference between the two.  Both are extremist groups, and both have ideals that do NOT represent the interest of the average animal lover or pet owner.

I want my money to go where I think it's going.  I don't like being tricked.  I want my money to go to the local dogs and cats who need it - not to a million dollar board of directors.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I think things like lobbying aren't important.  They are.  Lobbying is the way many of the GOOD animal welfare laws have been brought to the attention of legislators and passed.  Unfortunately, the HSUS fails here as well.  One of the laws the HSUS is currently trying to stuff down our throats would allow the (what is now) illegal search and seizure of the homes of dog owners / breeders who have more than 3 un-neutered dogs.  The "cover story" for the law is that it will help crack down on animal abuse.  The GIGANTIC problem is that it completely tramples on the rights of anybody who owns more than 3 dogs.  The simple reality is that a huge percentage of GOOD dog breeders out there own more than 3 un-neutered dogs AND they raise their puppies in their homes - the way they should (in my opinion).  A private home cannot be 'certified' by the USDA and therefor the breeder is open to having their home searched and their dogs taken from them.  Also, there are already laws prohibiting animal abuse, it's enforcement that's the problem - not a lack of laws.  (Of course, they don't want to talk about that part because anybody who takes a good hard look will see clearly that the lack of proper enforcement is a direct result of corruption, not a lack of legal ammunition.) 

This is an incredible threat to the health of many dog breeds.  Without those dedicated breeders, all we are left with is the average person who thinks their dog is great and decides to breed just because he can.  THOSE are the breeders who fill shelters and THOSE are the dogs who are often in for a lifetime of suffering due to health problems passed down to them because the person who bred them never bothered to make sure he was breeding healthy dogs instead of 'cute' dogs.

I don't speak from lack of experience on this topic.  Trust me.

One day, I'll tell you about this beautiful boy.  

I'm particularly emotional this week, so it's just not in me today.

Do not take my words to mean I don't think people should rescue.  That's not the case.  Both of my mutts are rescues and both of them are amazing dogs.  My Lilly came from one of the best foster Moms I could possibly ask for - I send her updates and pictures all the time and she's even going to come watch us compete in Rally this fall.  As far as I am concerned, a rescue dog is often well worth the risk.  HOWEVER, losing the exceptional purebred breeding stock found in the homes of thousands of exceptional breeders across the US would not just be a shame, it would be an outright tragedy... and a deep infringement on the rights of citizens.  

THIS is why I NEVER give money to the HSUS and I do not buy from companies who advertise for or give donations to them, either.  I find the best way to donate is by giving supplies the shelter in your area needs.  When I see the brand of dog food my local shelter uses on sale - I buy some.  When paper toweling is on a great sale - I buy a bunch.  When my dogs get bored with some of their toys, I wash them and donate them.  Many pet supply stores even have a bin you can put the stuff in right there so you don't have to make a special trip out to the shelter.  And if I ever decide to give money - I'll give it directly to the shelter or rescue I want it to go to. 

Educate yourself, and ask questions.  The dogs will thank you for it.

Add:

I use a stat counter for my blog because I'm always curious where people who happen upon my blog are from, etc.  I darn near fell out of my chair when I looked and saw over 400 page loads yesterday from places all over the country.  After a little searching, I discovered that HumaneWatch shared my post on Facebook.  So, welcome to my dorky little blog, HumaneWatch Facebook people.

Ex Scientia, Veritas et Virtus   (latin: "from knowledge, truth and power")  

When I finally graduate, these words will be tattooed on me.  I know of no more true words to be uttered.

Being an organization who seeks to empower and enlighten, I commend HumaneWatch for their hard work.  If you are not familiar, please check them out.  www.humanewatch.org  (I don't agree with everything you will find on the site, but I still think it's well worth a look.  The more you know, the better choices you can make.)

PLEASE NOTE, this blog is not and will never be for the purpose of stirring up controversy or argument.  If you read my other posts, you will see that it's simply the story of me and my dogs.  Nothing more.  Anybody who actually knows me, knows exactly how I feel about farm animals and anybody who just happens to stumble upon this one post really doesn't have any grounds on which to attack me personally.  Take it elsewhere, I'm not interested.   

If you're going to give...

PLEASE know what you're giving to.

Lots of people donate to various charities during the holidays.  I'm still not sure exactly why this is - considering there are so many other financial strains at this time, but I guess that's just how it is.

So, I feel in some small way it is my duty to remind people to know what they're giving to before they just hand over their cash.

Some people have the money to be able to give without a second thought.  That's not me.  It's important to me that my money do the most it possibly can - because there's not much of it.

This is an organization many people are familiar with.

I NEVER give my money to this organization.  Let me tell you why.

I don't appreciate being deceived.  Many people believe that when they give their money to the HSUS, it is going to the dogs, cats, and other animals in need of care.  They believe this because the HSUS goes to great lengths to get them to believe it.  Sadly, it's not true.  You can read about one specific example of this here.  See, that place in your city often called the Humane Society that houses homeless dogs and cats hoping to be adopted is NOT The Humane Society of the United States.  I know, sneeky, right?  The money you give to the HSUS is not really going to the care of those pets sitting in kennels in your town.  It's going to things like lobbyists, advertising, and board member salaries.  The HSUS is an animal rights group (much like PETA), not an animal care taking organization.  In fact, many people call HSUS "PETA in as suit and tie".  There really isn't that much difference between the two. 

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I think things like lobbying aren't important.  They are.  Lobbying is the way many of the animal welfare laws have been brought to the attention of legislators and passed.  I'm also not going to tell you that I necessarily agree with everything the HSUS lobbys for.  (but that's a whole different discussion)  Either way, I want my money to go where I think it's going.  I don't like being tricked.  I want my money to go to the local dogs and cats who need it.

THIS is why I NEVER give money.  I find the best way to give is by giving supplies the shelter needs.  When I see the brand of dog food my local shelter uses (Purina Dog Chow in Green Bay) on sale - I buy some.  When paper toweling is on a great sale - I buy a bunch.  When my dogs get bored with some of their toys, I wash them and donate them.  Many pet supply stores even have a bin you can put the stuff in right there so you don't have to make a special trip out to the shelter.  And if I ever decide to give money - I'll give it directly to the shelter or rescue I want it to go to.

So, if you're going to give this holiday season (and I hope you do), just remember that all is not as it seems.  Educate yourself, and ask questions.  The dogs will thank you for it.