Vacaville Police Defend Officer Punching Police Dog in Viral Video

APRIL 29, 2021 UPDATE: Good news — the Vacaville police officer who beat his K-9 partner will no longer be a police dog handler, according to interim Police Chief Ian Schmutzler. Not-so-good news — Schmutzler refused to comment on whether the officer faced any discipline or animal cruelty charges.

In a brief but very disturbing cell-phone video that’s gone viral, a Vacaville, Calif., police officer straddles his K-9 partner, punching the dog’s face. Hard.

The video was taken last week by Roberto Palomino, who’d been getting some tools from his warehouse when the incident occurred. “I can still hear the dog crying,” Palomino told CBS13. “There was an officer beating a dog really bad. It was closed-fist punching in the face to a dog. He punched the dog several times before I was able to get it on camera.” He was afraid to approach the officer, but he did the right thing and posted the video on social media.

Almost as disturbing as the video was Vacaville Police Captain Matt Lydon’s response to it. He told the San Francisco Chronicle the officer was holding the dog in a “standard” position of dominance because during a training exercise, the year-old Belgian Malinois had lunged at the officer and tried to bite him.

“In that situation, that’s a position of dominance where the dog is put on its back, and the canine handler takes that position, and that’s a submission position to let the dog know that the handler is in charge,” Lydon said. “I know there is a hand strike in question from the handler to the dog. There are certain scenarios where that may be appropriate, but we’re looking into this specific scenario.”

In a Dec. 29 Facebook post, the Vacaville Police Department (VPD) also defended the police officer, insisting the 25-second video “didn’t show the moments before, when the canine became aggressive toward its handler.”

In what specific scenarios would striking a dog ever be appropriate? Most dog trainers and animal behavior experts strongly advise against hitting a dog during training. Instead, using positive reinforcement such as praising the dog or giving them a treat when they do something right is much more effective and humane than negative reinforcement, which is punishing a dog when they do something wrong, as the Vacaville officer was doing. According to Lydon, the officer had in fact rewarded the dog with a toy after the dog successfully sniffed out narcotics. But when he took the toy away, the dog allegedly became aggressive.

“Physically threatening or harming an animal is never acceptable, regardless of the animal’s behavior,” wrote veterinary behaviorist Jeannine Berger, DVM, in a blog on the San Francisco SPCA’s website. “Dominance training damages the relationship with our dogs and causes more problems than it solves — being aggressive toward your dog will often cause your dog to become more fearful, anxious and potentially aggressive.”

Dominance training may get thumbs-up from the VPD, but it’s opposed by major organizations including the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior and the Association of Professional Dog Trainers.

Fortunately, perhaps because of the outrage on social media over the incident, the dog has been removed from the handler’s “care” and is currently staying with a third-party trainer while this case is being investigated. According to the VPD’s Facebook post, a veterinarian examined the dog and found no signs of injury or distress.

When the investigation is complete, “the City of Vacaville will take appropriate action – including any necessary discipline and/or training, as well as any needed changes to policies and procedures to ensure the police department’s canine program is in line with industry best practices,” the city wrote on its Facebook page Dec. 30.

Many thanks to Palomino, who likely saved this poor dog from further abuse by taking the video and posting it on social media. He deserves a reward, while the officer deserves to be charged with animal cruelty and never allowed to have another K-9 partner. Hopefully the City of Vacaville will keep its promise and have its police department undergo training in how to humanely train animals.

Here’s the very disturbing video, if you can stand watching it.

Photo: Roberto Palomino/Facebook

3 Reasons Why Cloning a Hero Dog Was Not a Good Idea

Six years ago, David and Alicia Tschirhart, who was pregnant at the time, went on a mountain hike in Escondido, Calif., with their yellow Lab, Marley. When Alicia reached down to grab what she thought would make a good walking stick, Marley raced over to her and started barking.

Marley’s actions saved Alicia’s life. It wasn’t a stick that she was reaching for — it was a rattlesnake.

Sadly, not long after the birth of the Tschirharts’ daughter, Marley was diagnosed with cancer. Although the hero dog didn’t survive it, he lives on…sort of.

Last December, the Tschirharts welcomed a new yellow Lab puppy into their family. Ziggy isn’t just any yellow Lab. He’s Marley’s clone. The Tschirharts paid $50,000 to have another dog who looks and acts, they say, just like Marley.

Ziggy was created by the scientists at ViaGen Pets, the only company in the United States that clones dogs and cats. They did this by inserting a skin cell from Marley into the nuclei of eggs that were harvested from donor pets. To start the embryo’s dividing process, it was given a shock. The modified embryos were then implanted, via invasive surgery, into a surrogate dog who gave birth to Ziggy.

ViaGen Pets charges $50,000 to clone a dog or $35,000 to clone a cat.

Sure, we’ve all probably fantasized about cloning a beloved dog so we’d have a carbon copy of them around for many more years to come. But then we consider the cost and ethics, and for most of us, the idea remains just that: a fantasy.

Still, there’s currently a one-year waiting list at ViaGen Pets. Here’s hoping some of those people wanting to clone their pets become aware of these three reasons why it’s really not a good idea.

1. Adopt, don’t shop (or clone). There are thousands of homeless pets, including plenty of yellow Labs, available at shelters and rescues (find a Labrador rescue group here). You will literally save yourself tens of thousands of dollars while saving a life in the process.

2. The exorbitant cloning fees could help thousands of homeless dogs. Along with the $50,000 ViaGen charges to clone a dog, there’s a $1,600 fee for “genetic preservation,” the biopsy to remove cells from the original dog. Think of all the shelters and rescue groups that would benefit from a $51,600 donation instead.

3. Cloning pets is unethical. It’s opposed by major animal welfare organizations including the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). According to a 2019 Gallup poll, the majority (66 percent) of Americans believe it’s morally wrong. Considering that 1.5 million pets are euthanized in animal shelters every year, it makes much more sense to save their lives than to create clones that won’t necessarily share the original pet’s personality.

Instead of cloning Marley, I wish the Tschirharts had instead paid his heroic act forward by saving a life — of a doomed shelter dog.

Photo: CC0 (that’s not Ziggy or Marley)

Denver’s Unfair Pit Bull Ban Could Have Finally Ended, But the Mayor Says No

People like me who have spent years advocating for the end of breed-specific legislation (BSL) — unfair laws, including breed bans, that single out dogs only because of how they look — were overjoyed earlier this week with the news that the Denver City Council had voted 7-4 to end the city’s 30-year Pit Bull ban.

Finally! It was so encouraging that the city officials of Denver, whose ban was one of the world’s most notorious, had realized BSL does not increase public safety. It’s also a big waste of money, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforce. All BSL effectively does is punish well-behaved dogs and responsible dog owners.

But cancel those party plans. In a letter to the Denver City Council yesterday, Mayor Michael Hancock decided he could not “in good conscience support this legislation.” He claimed he’d heard from “thousands of residents” about the end of the ban. (And you can bet he heard from the hate group behind DogsBite.org, a website founded by a dog bite victim who wants all Pit Bulls destroyed.

Hancock claimed he talked to experts in veterinary care. That’s interesting, because the largest veterinary care group in the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, opposes BSL because it’s unfair and ineffective.

Although the Pit Bull ban could have been lifted, there still would have been special requirements for the owners of Pit Bulls, mixes and dogs that happen to look like Pit Bulls. The owners would have had to register their dogs with Denver Animal Protection, obtain a breed-restricted license, and have no more than two Pit Bulls.

Yes, these regulations singling out these dogs are still BSL (and B.S.), but removing the ban would have been an important, positive step.

“At the end of the day, I must ask whether passage of this ordinance would make our homes and neighborhoods safer or pose an increased risk to public safety,” Hancock wrote in his letter. “I have concluded that it would pose an increased risk.”

It would really be helpful to know what, if any, facts led the mayor to this decision. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), for example, states that it’s unaware that BSL makes communities safer for children or adults.

Denver’s Pit Bull ban was enacted in 1989 after a 3-year-old boy wandered into his neighbor’s yard and was fatally attacked by an unspayed Pit Bull who was chained to a carport, according to the Denver Post. Three years earlier, another of the owner’s dogs had bitten an 8-year-old boy. Because of that one irresponsible owner 30 years ago, thousands of Denver residents have had to make the terrible choice of finding a new home for themselves or their beloved dogs, or relinquishing their pets to the city to be euthanized.

“Breed bans usually come on the heels of a fatal dog attack, a knee-jerk reaction by city and county officials that might pacify a community for a while, but doesn’t do a thing to keep communities safer,” notes the Best Friends Animal Society. “It’s much easier to institute breed bans than to look at what caused those attacks.”

The potential good news is that Denver Councilman Christopher Herndon, who proposed ending the Pit Bull ban, promised he will introduce a ballot measure allowing voters to end the ban next November.

“I’m disappointed the mayor is choosing to disregard the science on the issue of breed-specific legislation,” Herndon said in a statement, according to the New York Times. “Research tells us breed-specific legislation is ineffective at keeping communities safe and experts in the field — from the local level to the national level — agree it is no longer best practice.”

So, Denver voters, please do the right thing in November and end your city’s unfair Pit Bull ban. You’ll not only be saving a lot of money but also the lives of countless dogs.

Photo: JussyD

Really, NFL? Dog Killer Michael Vick Gets Gig as Pro Bowl Captain

In the NFL, you can’t seem to get a job if, for example, you protest peacefully during the national anthem. Colin Kaepernick hasn’t been signed by any team ever since 2016, when the former San Francisco 49er would take a knee during the playing of the “Star-Spangled Banner” to protest the killing of African-American men by police officers.

Yet in the NFL, you sure can get a gig if you beat Pit Bulls to death with your bare hands. That’s right, Michael Vick is back, unfortunately. The NFL proudly announced last month that the dog killer is going to be one of four “legends captains” for the 2020 Pro Bowl.

Funny, Vick’s bio in the NFL press release exults his career as a player for the Atlanta Falcons and Philadelphia Eagles, but somehow fails to mention his career as the owner of an illegal dog-fighting operation.

As everybody probably knows, Vick went to prison for 18 months in 2007 for running the Bad Newz Kennels in Virginia. According to the federal indictment, Vick himself killed poorly performing dogs by hanging them or repeatedly slamming them to the ground. When three dogs survived being hanged, Vick helped hold their heads underwater until they drowned.

Soon after he got out of prison, Vick was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles and resumed his NFL career.

Some people argue that Vick served his time, so it’s time to stop being outraged. But those chilling facts from the federal indictment are not something that’s easy to get over. And many of us believe that Vick was remorseful only because he got caught, and not because of the horrible things he did to dogs – which he never has apologized for.

All those innocent dogs Vick killed never got a second chance. Why should he?

If any NFL officials happen to be reading this, here are a couple of suggestions for players much worthier of being Pro Bowl legends captains:

  • Former wide receiver Torrey Smith paid the adoption fees for 46 homeless dogs and cats from BARCS (Baltimore Animal Rescue and Care Shelter).
  • Ronnie Stanley, an offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens, went to BARCS three years ago with a special request: He and his girlfriend only wanted a dog who had been in the shelter for a long time. They took home Winter, a Pit Bull/Retriever mix who’d been left to die in a vacant house with no food or water. (That terrible situation was arguably better than being a poorly performing dog at the Bad Newz Kennels.)

Say No to Michael Vick as a Pro Bowl Captain!

Thousands of people are protesting the NFL’s hiring of Vick. You can protest by boycotting the NFL and its sponsors, and by signing these online petitions:

  • As of Dec. 7, more than 319,000 people have signed an Animalvictory.org petition to remove Vick as a Pro Bowl captain. “Out of the hundreds of professional football athletes who have led upstanding lives, the NFL has chosen a convicted dog-fighting organizer as someone who they want to honor,” it says.
  • Over 290,000 people have signed a Change.org petition started by Joanna Lind. “When is the NFL going to take any responsibility for the behavior of its current and former players?” Lind writes. “To honor a man who had zero regard for animals is unacceptable.”
  • Another Change.org petition started by Brande Wood has over 62,000 signatures. “The NFL, Disney, ESPN, the city of Orlando, and Camping World Stadium should not be condoning the torture and murder of dogs by allowing Michael Vick to be involved in the Pro Bowl — or any other professional sport,” Wood writes.
  • A Care2 petition has more than 67,000 signatures. “[L]et Michael Vick and the NFL know we will never forget what he did and we do not condone this type of behavior!” it says. “He needs to be banned completely from the NFL. There is no excuse for animal abuse!”

Photo: Jason Bacon

Allowing Dogs on Doorless NYC Helicopter Tours Is a Truly Terrible Idea

 

Last year, five passengers taking a FlyNYON tour over New York City were killed when the helicopter they were riding in crashed into the East River.

FlyNYON, which is facing lawsuits and federal investigations over that accident, is still in business. It offers “doors-off” flights so that passengers can dangle their feet and legs 1,000 feet above the ground for super awesome, super Instagrammable photo opportunities.

Now FlyNYON is apparently trying to drum up more business by allowing dogs on its sightseeing helicopter flights.

This is a terrible idea for at least a couple of reasons. One is that the helicopter doesn’t have doors, so it seems like it could be possible for an extremely stressed-out dog to squirm out of their harness and owner’s lap, and jump out. Why would that dog be so stressed out? Because of the loud noise and the fact that the dog is 1,000 up in the air in a doorless helicopter. Frankly, I’d be terrified, too.

FlyNYON is “flying dogs high above New York, offering thrill-seekers the chance to dangle their feet — and now their pet — above city buildings, bridges, waters and more,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said at a news conference today, NBC New York reports.

Schumer, Sen. Bob Menendez, the Humane Society of the United States and PETA are all urging FlyNYON to stop these dangerous flights. Schumer also called on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to look into a “loophole allowing doors-off [flights] to remain operational in the first place.”

It’s extremely disappointing that FlyNYON has what it calls a “special partnership” with the nonprofit Pilots N Paws. Volunteer pilots with this organization provide transportation for animals so they can be rescued and adopted. How on earth could they be on board with the awful idea of allowing pet dogs on doors-off helicopter flights? There are much safer and more humane ways to raise funds.

A FlyNYON spokesperson insisted in a statement that the company is “fully compliant with all FAA operating and safety standards.”

But, as Schumer said, to allow dogs on its flights “is a sheer jaw-drop.” He said the same company involved in last year’s fatal crash is now “strapping in dogs for people to snap pictures of while the animals all but dangle high above New York skies, experiencing the sound of the rotors and who knows what other cruel things.”

The dog-friendly flights are “cruel and inhumane,” according to Brian Shapiro, New York state director for the Humane Society of the United States.

The FlyNYON spokesperson invited Senators Schumer and Menendez  to come to the company’s New Jersey office “and discuss this very important matter.” Hopefully the senators will do just that and convince flyNYON why it’s very important not to allow dogs on their helicopter tours.

Photo: FlyNYON/YouTube screen grab

Exit mobile version