Public Attention Drawn to Cruelty

Public Attention Drawn to Cruelty in Dog Fighting for Sport

Since the earliest days of history, mankind has been drawn to sporting competitions where the outcome of the competition is the survival of the fittest. Such competitions took place in the days of Rome, when Rome's citizens were entertained by the bloody and deadly competitions between gladiators. Such was the competition, too, in the medieval era when warrior knights would joust in competition. Bloodletting for sport - amongst man and animal - has existed throughout time. As we historically approach modernity, competition between men became formalized, like boxing and wrestling, and where a fight to the death was once expected, modern respect for life dictates that the competition's winner be declared before death occurs; although it sometimes still happens. Competitions between pitting animals against one another in bloodletting fights for sport and the entertainment of the public has likewise changed. In America, pitting animals, like cockfighting, is illegal; although it still takes place, but is "underground" or being staged in places and ways that elude the authorities and out of sight of an easily offended public. It has also become especially taboo in America and in other nations around the world to use domestic animals, dogs and cats and virtually any animal that can be tamed and trained to live with and amongst mankind; in bloodletting competitions for sport. In other words, the use of dogs to entertain and sustain an illicit gambling industry, although it does take place in America - is not legal and, as we have seen in the case of professional football player Michael Vick, is enough to enrage the public into demanding the most severe application of legal penalty and incarceration for those people involved in such an enterprise.

The Vick case cast the public spotlight on the illegal sport of dog fighting. It was particularly difficult for an animal loving public to see the gaming dogs kept in cruel and inhumane conditions on Vick' property, in rural Virginia. Many people claimed to be unaware of the fact that dog fighting was a wide scale and profitable illegal enterprise. They found themselves baffled by the fact that a promising young NFL star would risk his career as an NFL football player and the opportunity to earn millions of dollars to indulge a sick and illegal penchant for dog fighting. Even more disturbing were revelations that Vick had personally destroyed animals, dogs, in cruel ways because the animals were not winners in the fight arena.

Michael Vick's celebrity aside, it is astounding that the general public claimed to be unaware of the fact that dog fighting still takes place in America. It is even more astounding in lieu of the fact that there is, and always has been, controversy surrounding the animals used in the fighting American Bull Terriers, or more commonly known as "pit-bulls."

National Geographic carried an article on dog fighting, pointing out that it was illegal in every state in the Union, and, in 47 out of 50 states, it is a felony (NG, Cruel Contest). "Still, law-enforcement officials and animal-care professionals say they've seen a recent increase in the blood sport. 'There's so much of it going on [nationally],' said Detective Mike Vadnal, who for 12 years has investigated animal crimes for the Broward Sheriff's Office in Broward County, Florida. 'It's out of control (NG, Cruel Contest).'" Widespread and illegal, there apparently are few resources to assist law-enforcement in combating the crime, because one man was so bold as to create and publish an underground magazine on the sport called "Sporting Dog Journal," which resulted in his arrest (NG, Cruel Contest).

It is perhaps further astounding that many Americans seemed unaware of the sport of dog fighting when, according to Sporting Dog Journal, fights are staged before crowds as large as 200 people (NG, Cruel Contest). That is a very large gathering of people in any one place to go unnoticed. but, thus far, they have been able to operate largely because law enforcement turned their heads away from it, having more immediate matters to deal with. That is, until the Vick case. Now the public, backed by lobbies of animal rights groups like PETA, has forced law-enforcement to take a proactive approach in enforcing the laws governing dog fighting.

It might be accurate to say that the Vick case was a public relations coup for animal rights groups. Non-profit organizations, like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), humane societies and other animal protection groups, rely on free advertising to generate interest in their causes, programs and to also generate contributions in support of their organizations. (JA#1). For not for profits, "Paid ads are not very efficient, and expensive. The message must be credible, public serVicke announcements are usually the best method the org has to justify their spending, and showing it at multiple incidents (JA #1). So it is easy to see how animal rights group benefited from, and will continue to benefit from, the Michael Vick case. It is the equivalent of thousands of dollars in free advertising for their mission, and probably resulted in increased donations.

Not for profits are always to attach themselves to a celebrity whose celebrity power can draw people to the organization's cause, and bring in donations. However, when the celebrity is, as was Michael Vick, one who has everything to gain by way of opportunities, and everything to lose by participating in illegal activities, and add to that the fact that the illegal activity arises out of cruelty to domestic animals, then it cannot be anything but a windfall for those animal rights organizations that advocate on behalf of domestic animals.

The Vick case achieved for animal rights groups one of the most important objectives in an advertising campaign; to bring about a "change or reinforce an existing behavior or attitude through marketing (JA #2)." Suddenly, the world was paying attention to the incident and the practice of dog fighting. "Trying to establish ethical standards, importance of being creative, being a part of the client's issues (JA#3)" was suddenly easier when the world was listening and following the media attention surrounding Vick. The overwhelming public response in the U.S. And other countries around the world was enough to demonstrate that the mantle of animal rights was a popular one to wear. The change in the social status of people who were breeding dogs for profit and blood sport was a change that brought them unwanted attention. Animals started turning, abandoned to the streets, at shelters, and, in the brutal instances, killed and discarded. It was the raw and brutal facts of the matter arising out of the sport, and it only served to strengthen the non-profit's part and purpose in the eyes and mind of the public.

Since the Vick case, there has been an increase in the number of commercial, internet advertising, and other advertising mediums used in drawing public attention to animal rights. "Advertising success depends to a large extent on what desired outcome the advertiser seeks (JA #4)." Part of the reason for this is because modern man has come to see himself as a member of a civilized society, and likewise sees those animals such dogs, cats, horses, and even some animals that are of a livestock breed; as being civilized with him. "We are unconsciously effected by subliminal embeds. It has an indirect effect on our attitude and behavior (JA#5)." When we see images of tortured domestic animals, our subconsciously gives rise to outrage probably before we even have an opportunity to verbally express ourselves on the matter.

Some credit must be given to contemporary journalists too. In an effort to capitalize on the story, they conducted endless interviews with animal rights groups, and in peripheral stories featured pet owners claiming their family pet was kidnapped and used to train vicious sporting animals. "Interviewers set the rules of a survey interview for respondents. An interviewer's behavior and demeanor guides survey interaction (JA#6)." Thus, the television journalist interviewing the dog owner, the non-profit CEO, or some other sympathetic person in connection with the story on dog fighting, is actually creating a pool of public support to which to play further stories before as the individual story of Vick unfolds.

To some extent, the media dictates how the public should react to a story. In the case of Michael Vick, the media tested the waters, perhaps not wanting to take on the major organized sports giants that stood a lot to lose if Vick were found guilty - which he subsequently was. But it was worse in that Vick was also proven to be intolerably cruel to animals, and that was enough to cause the NFL to release him because the public began to question what kind of men played professional football. Then at least one of Vick's teammates, surely in an effort to downplay the incident, reacted as though dog fighting was a common and acceptable thing. Unfortunately, no one wanted to be associated with the idea that dog fighting for sport was an acceptable social pastime. In surveying the player's responses to Vick's situation, the journalists were bringing about public reaction to be evaluated to determine what direction to take their stories in. It demonstrated that,.".. survey respondents who experience difficulty answering questions respond differently to related subsequent questions than do those who do not experience such difficulty (JA, Effects of Survey)."

The story of animal abuse in dog fighting was one that caused polls to be taken to measure public opinion. That public opinion was in strong support of the animals that Vick had abused and used in an abusive manner. The journalistic tactic was one wherein the journalists used the opportunity for the public to speak out, to be heard, to participate in the outcome of Vick's legal proceedings as an incentive to be surveyed publicly. "In an effort to counter mounting problems of non-cooperation, survey organizations are increasingly offering incentives to respondents, sometimes before or during the first request for survey participation (JA Differential Incentives)." In other words, journalists needed the participation of both animal sport fighting supporters, and non-supporters alike. Therefore they created an incentive in getting those individuals to speak out publicly on the issue.