A million bucks to care for fifty dogs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dogs
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the financial implications and ethical considerations of caring for 50 pit bulls previously owned by Michael Vick. Participants explore the costs associated with housing, feeding, and rehabilitating these dogs, as well as the challenges of finding them homes. The conversation touches on legal aspects, public perception, and the potential for euthanasia.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the high costs associated with caring for the dogs, suggesting that the amount requested may be excessive compared to typical kennel operations.
  • There is speculation about the long-term care costs, with estimates ranging from $250,000 to $600,000 over a decade, depending on the dogs' adoptability and health needs.
  • Participants express differing views on the adoptability of pit bulls trained for fighting, with some arguing that they may never be trusted as pets, while others highlight their potential as friendly and trainable animals.
  • Concerns are raised about the legal implications of freezing assets versus seizing them, with some suggesting that the funds may be held in escrow to ensure care for the dogs.
  • Some participants reflect on the societal perception of Vick's actions, noting that public sentiment may be harsher towards animal abuse compared to other forms of violence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on the costs and care of the dogs, with no consensus on the appropriateness of the financial estimates or the dogs' potential for adoption. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best course of action for the dogs and the implications of Vick's legal situation.

Contextual Notes

Participants operate under various assumptions about the dogs' health, age, and potential for rehabilitation, which influence their cost estimates and opinions on adoptability. There is also uncertainty regarding the legal status of the funds and the implications of asset freezing.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
...In court papers filed Tuesday, the government asked U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson to issue a restraining order that essentially would freeze about $928,000 to fulfill Vick's legal obligation to cover the costs of caring for the [50] dogs and finding homes for them...
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2007-11-20-1081248146_x.htm

Holy cow! Are they hiring Halliburton to do this? Okay, maybe this guy is a scumbag, but that is outrageous!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I wonder how much it costs to operate a kennel when you have to house 54 dogs? With pit bulls, there's no telling how long it might take to find homes for them since they're so discriminated against, so you need to pay for their food, and sanitation, and the staff to do that, and the heating and water bills for the facility, rent of the facility space (I guess), any medications/vaccinations they might need.

I don't know how that works in terms of leftover funds? Freezing assets isn't exactly the same as seizing assets. It could be something more like an escrow account so the money is there for the full worst-case scenario, that all the dogs have to live out the rest of their lives unadopted and in a shelter, but if they're adopted out quickly, then those assets go back to him. There should be a separation between what is being paid in punitive damages, and what is being paid for actual costs to care for the animals.
 
Moonbear said:
Well, I wonder how much it costs to operate a kennel when you have to house 54 dogs?

I would bet that our local humane society does much more for much less.

Really I'm surprised that hey didn't just destroy the dogs. I doubt that pit bulls trained to fight could ever be trusted as a pet.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
Really I'm surprised that hey didn't just destroy the dogs. I doubt that pit bulls trained to fight could ever be trusted as a pet.

Yeah, I'd have a hard time understanding that either. But, again, for whatever reason they decided not to destroy the dogs (bleeding heart judge or jury?), the likelihood that they won't be able to adopt them into homes really could be a factor in the amount they are expecting to spend to house those dogs in a kennel. I'm figuring that just for shots, deworming, routine vet care and food, it'll probably cost $25,000/year for all the dogs, not counting staff salaries (I think the Humane Society can get away with volunteers, but in a case like this, why not expect the caretakers be paid) and other overhead costs. Not knowing how old the dogs are, assuming an average of 10 years (some pups might be around 16 years, while other older dogs might only be around 6 years or so), that's already $250,000 just in food and routine vet costs. Add on salary and benefits for the equivalent of one full-time staff member to feed and clean and monitor, for even a low-paid wage, you're into another $35,000/year probably. So, that's up to $600,000, and nothing extraordinary has been done for them. Add in the uncommon vet bills to treat injuries and illnesses, some toys and treats, collars and leashes, and figure the cost of everything would go up over 10 years just due to inflation, and there really isn't a lot left at the end.

Of course, I'm operating on an assumption that these dogs will not be fit to be adopted out. If the plan is to see how many can be adopted out within a year and euthanize the rest, then yeah, those expenses are ridiculously inflated.
 
I think it's just freezing them in escrow just to make sure the money's there.

He's facing at least 4 other lawsuits for $25.8 million and he's already got his house up for sale. If they don't do something, he won't have any money to meet the court order to care for the dogs and find homes for them. I wonder if he could actually go from a $13 million dollar a year superstar to becoming a homeless person wandering the streets.

I think he'd have a better chance of getting back into the NFL or at least capitalizing on his fame in one way or another if he'd committed rape or violent assault instead of abused dogs. Abusing dogs seems to really strike a chord with the public.
 
Pit bulls are incredibly alert, trainable, and aware of their surroundings and can be wonderful pets. I know the owners of several, and the dogs are friendly, obedient, and sometimes too exuberant when they want to greet me (paws on chest, tongue headed for face). I wouldn't want to place Vick's dogs with families with kids, though, even if they have been retrained and socialized. When a dog has been rewarded for years for aggression and split-second exploitation of a rival's missteps or weaknesses, that's a recipe for mauled children. Likely, Vick's dogs have been socialized primarily to adult males and they might regard children (even briefly) as rivals to be attacked when the right mix of circumstances arise.