We can always hope.......

Come on now. Everybody knows the only thing better than a good old rooster fight is a good dog fight. And lets not forget the true man vs. animal fights...the bull fights.

I am no fan of Michael Vick, but it just blows me away how the media and also many individuals have jumped on this story and how happy they seem to be to see a celebrity brought to his knees.

Don't a bunch of you jump on me now because I have no intention to try and defend dog fighting. I have never owned a fighting dog, never attended a dog fight, never been involved in any way.

I do love to see martial arts fights, boxing and I hunt. Seems kinda of hypocritical to me to condemn one type of blood sport when I enjoy and participate in others.

The condemnation is not so much about dog fighting itself. It is about the cruel, torturous methods used to dispatch the losing dog. A humane ending that is done not for perverted enjoyment would be slightly more acceptable that hanging, electrocution and beating. Still, it is an illegal activity that he not only participated in personally, but profited from as well. If proven guilty, the penalty should be a harsh example of justice and not the hand-slapping typical of those with financial wherewithal and celebrity status.

SS

Anybody notice how much more tolerance we seem to have for an athlete who is accused of cruelty to a woman (Coby Bryant) than one who is accused of cruelty to an animal (Michael Vick)?

But wait, it's even more bizzare: Bryant was accused of actually performing the offending act of violence himself, whereas Vick is accused simply of owning the property where the offense took place and having knowledge of the offense.

With Bryant, there was no question that he would continue to play (and serve as role model for young people) until and unless he was convicted. With Vick, there is no question that he will never be allowed to play unless he is able to totally clear himself of the allegations.

Makes it pretty clear where women and dogs rate on the sympathy scale, doesn't it?

Amen Stonecreek. The reason we hear so much more about the Vick affair is because PETA is more vocal than the rest of the public and they care more for dogs than humans.

The state of louisiana has hung and electricuted humans, I cannot recall execution by beating in all honesty, but does not get the amount of pub this story gets.Again, PETA cares less when humans die.

quote:

Originally posted by eyedoc:
Amen Stonecreek. The reason we hear so much more about the Vick affair is because PETA is more vocal than the rest of the public and they care more for dogs than humans.

I'm sure no member of PETA, but generally speaking I like dogs a hell of a lot more than I like humans. I've not met a lot of purely evil, backstabbing, lying, dogs but I HAVE met a LOT of humans that fall into those categories....both through the law enforcement world and the corporate world.

Plus, domesticated animals look to the humans in their lives for aid and protection in a way and with a loyalty which their limited IQs turn to their distinct disadvantage when they are owned or used by a pure evil s.o.b.

Having said that, yes, there are some real inconsistencies in the legal world. One morning in 1960, I had to testify in two cases in the Justice Court in Hollister, California. One involved a man beating his dog. The other was of a man beating his wife. I had arrested both the previous evening.

Both were found guilty.

The man who beat his wife was fined $25, plus $1.25 court costs.

The man who beat his dog was fined $250, plus $12.50 court costs.

Luckily, both could pay their fines, as the going rate in those days was one day in jail for every $5 of the fine the convicted person(s) could not pay. The fellow who beat his dog would have had to serve 52 days in the county jail if he didn't pay, while the fella who beat his wife would have been out in 5 days.

I think everyone is missing the point... If you are a famous person, and you do something stupid, you deserve to get made fun of, and thats what makes America great!

John

I could careless if he gets brought to his knees. I could careless if he is a celebrity or makes minimum wage..

quote:

Originally posted by eyedoc:
Come on now. Everybody knows the only thing better than a good old rooster fight is a good dog fight. And lets not forget the true man vs. animal fights...the bull fights.

I am no fan of Michael Vick, but it just blows me away how the media and also many individuals have jumped on this story and how happy they seem to be to see a celebrity brought to his knees.

Don't a bunch of you jump on me now because I have no intention to try and defend dog fighting. I have never owned a fighting dog, never attended a dog fight, never been involved in any way.

I do love to see martial arts fights, boxing and I hunt. Seems kinda of hypocritical to me to condemn one type of blood sport when I enjoy and participate in others.

What's so different about a celebrity getting brought to his knees than some Joe Blow out here? Of course in this case celebrity piece of crap.

The difference is that if Joe Blow beat his wife to death it would hardly rate a blimp in the national news.But a celebrity is chaged with complicity in the killing of dogs and it is headline news for over a week.

Like Canuck said, we need to get our priorities straight.

I own two dogs.I take good care of them, feed , water , get them daily execise. I care for their welfare.

That said , I would give them both up , and all the other dogs in the world with them, to be tortured slowly and brutally to save any one innocent human that I did not even know.

This has come up in another thread. To me at least, the difference is that a dog is an animal. As is a deer , or an elk, or a cockroach.To kill an animal is not criminal in my eyes unless the animal belongs to someone else and you kill it without the owners consent.To kill a human is criminal ,in my eyes at least and this killing is infinitely more heinous than killing any number of animals.

That is your belief, and you have a right to it.

I, however, do not share it.

I consider it a morally heinous act to kill any animal or person to which one has pretended friendship and support, just because it is convenient.

As for some people...well, they just plain deserve killing. They've earned it in light of their behavior toward others. Very few domestic animals have, in my opinion.

Unlike many religious groups. I believe animals DO have both limited intellect and souls. I don't expect others to believe that, but I do, and I will not be apologizing to anyone for that belief.

I also believe they suffer pain just as much or more than we do, whether physical pain or the pain of betrayal by those they love and trust.

And that is just one reason that I believe that both cock-fighting AND dog-fighting are wretched commentaries on human behavior.

If I were on the jury, I would be conflicted.
He owned pit bulls, so he should go to prison.
But didn't he earn a reprieve by shooting some of them?

Canuck- Please don't think I am being argumentative as I ask my question out of honest curiousity. If you think animals have souls how do you justify hunting?

Eyedoc- You ask a very good question which I have had to wrestle with all my life. So, I take no offense at all in being asked, and obviously can only give the answer that represents my current thinking....no pretense at pronouncing an eternal absolute truth.


Basically, I do NOT justify hunting for any purposes other than self-protection (dangerous game under some circumstances, and varmints under some other circumstances), and food. And I suppose you can well imagine the various circumstances under which I have justified hunting men, and particpated with dedication and enthusiasm of a sort.

So, as in the last 20 years I have reached a stage and station in life where I do not need to kill for food OR self-protection, I no longer hunt except with a camera.

I still have drawn several big game tags and gone on several hunting trips in the last 10 years, but that's because I really enjoy being outdoors prowling the wild, with one or two good friends. I haven't, however, fired a shot at a big game animal since 1991, so far as I can recall. (I did carry a rifle, to save long involved philosophical discussions, but shot at no animals.)

(I must admit, that in 1998 I did go on a prairie dog hunt in western Montana and shot a bunch of PDs on a friend's ranch. But when the guy with me shot a badger, it pretty well shut down my interest in the hunt. The badger was causing no harm, and was simply cleaning up the PD carcasses.) Then to proove I am as imperfect and hypocritical as anyone else, I have several times shot "grey-diggers" locally up until about 1994.

That does NOT mean I don't shoot a lot of hunting guns at the range anymore...I do, almost every weekend except when my health won't permit it. I enjoy shooting, and I never know when my circumstances may revert to those of my youth so that I have to hunt. (During the depression if I did not hunt, we sometimes might not eat.)

What I have not yet had the wisdom to figure out, is why God created the world in such a manner that people either have to kill, or are even tempted to.

Perhaps one of these days I will be priveleged to know that answer, but probably not in my current state of being.


Edited to add: Guess I should also own up to doing a lot of elk control shooting in the early 2000's. Had forgotten all about them. They were shot mainly to reduce herd size to match their habitat and wsecondarily to reduce damage to ranchers' feedstocks for their cattle. All the meat was given to monetarily poor local folks in need of food. (I paid for the cutting, wrapping, and freezing out of my own pocket.) I quit prticipating because the killing was too much like murder for my stomach.

quote:

Originally posted by eyedoc:
Canuck- Please don't think I am being argumentative as I ask my question out of honest curiousity. If you think animals have souls how do you justify hunting?

It is time for their souls to be transformed.

Thank you for the reply. It seems at least a bit contradictory to me and I have a little trouble understanding how you reconcile some of those contradictions but each man is intitled to his opinion.

I do not reconcile the contradictions. I am not perfect. Like every human being, including yourself I'm pretty certain, I do not always live up to what I believe to be right.

To the extent there might be any reconciliation, I believe it would principally lie in what little difference if any there is between domesticated animals which have entered a mutual service contract with man, and wild animals which have not. I have never knowingly harmed a domestic animal in my possession or care, except in those instances where my family very much needed them as food, or they were in naturally induced agony due to age or disease and needed to be mercifully and quickly put down.

Also, my opinion has changed as a I grow older and hopefully more mature and understanding. In many, many, ways I am not the same person I was when I was younger and more ignorant and callous.

Hopefully, you and everyone else are also changing in light of your and their experiences in life. That is called "learning from experience" and is part of the natural educational process as I understand it.

Anyway, I really don't care who else, if anyone, shares my view. This is the view I operate on, and is the deal I have with the God to whom I will eventually report. You have to make your own deal, as does everyone else.

If that deal involves ignoring the ethical aspects of animals suffering, so be it. (I AM NOT suggesting you believe that way, am just referring to the great anonymous "others" that accompany us in this world.) Eventually every one of us has to pay the costs of the deals we make in life.

I have been very open with y'all about my views, and it is not because I expect you to share them. Just wanted you to fully appreciate that animals are not pieces of junque to be treated with disdain and lack of caring, at least not in everyone's view. ...And to confirm that I believe Michael Vick has earned everything he is is getting so far.

A few ex-cops have told me that they consider dog-fighters as usually a very mean class of criminal--and not just for what they are doing to/with the dogs.

I am not defending Michael Vick and I hope no one here mistakenly thinks that to be the case.My thinking is that this matter is being blown way out of proportion by the media because of Vicks celebrity.A local couple in my home town was indicted for starving and beating there three year old child to death and it hardly made the news.Vick is front page national news for weeks cause he was complicit in the killing of some dogs.

AC- I thank you for your open and frank discussion of your beliefs.

You seem to have lost your lust for killing.I see that a lot in older hunters. I think it reflects both physical, hormonal and mental changes that take place as we mature (good) and peak, then start the inevitable decline(bad).I am not so blood thirsty as I once was.

Phyically we become less able.We may choose to pass on a doe simply because we do not want to exert the effort to clean it.Many gravitate toward trophy hunting and will only shoot a really special example of a species.Others give up hunting altogether.

On the mental side of things, seniors sometimes become much more atuned to their own mortality and the fact that they are rushing toward that "meeting with their maker". You elluded to this in your last post actually.

Reduced levels of testosterone in the elderly population may also lead to less agressive tendencies as well.


The end result is the same regardless of the cause.Older hunters generally shoot less and reflect more.

On another note, since you mentioned a religous inclination in your last post I wonder how you reconcile the line of thought that some animals have souls against the teachings of the Bible which states that the abscence of a soul in animals is what makes man different from animals.(This from the book of Genesis)Do you practice a religion that models after a middle-eastern theology or do you practice Christianity and maintain a different idealogy than what is taught in Christianity?

Please accept as fact that I am not attempting to be argumentative, condescending, all-knowing or self righteous.When corresponding on-line the lack of tone, inclination, voice pattern and hand gestures can somtimes leave one wondering if the poster is being facetious, sarcastic or truely sincere.I am sincere, I am enjoying this dialog, and I would probably enjoy it even more if it were taking place over a cup of coffee or at a campfire under the stars in nortern Alberta.Again, thanks for your reply.

Frankly the media attention is well placed. The very fact that kids hero worship the celebrities places an additional burden upon them to conduct themselves in a lawful respectable manner that provides a worthy role model. So many kids look up to these folks that I think it is a fine idea to make an example of them to show that the activities they were engaged in are unnacceptable and punishable.

I agree that it is sad that some one who beats their wife senseless would recieve a lesser penalty. Fixing that issue falls in the hands of our respective lawmakers.

I stared this as a pun and it has taken a turn or two and that is fine. It reminds me of several guys standing around the back of a pickup truck drinking beer and solving lifes problems.


SS

Sharpshooter- For what it's worth, I thought the picture was funny.


Do you think dog fighting is akin to murder or do you think it is a lessor crime and meerly deserves the attention because it is a celebrity that got caught acting up?

What if the dog fighting were legal where it took place? Would that make a difference to you? (IN my state cock-fighting is still legal.) Would you say it is OK as long as it was legal?

I feel like what Michael Vick did was wrong because he broke the law of the land.Maybe he thought it should not be against the law but it is.You cannot choose which laws to obey.I just think that the whole ordeal was blown way out of proportion.

Try him , find him guilty, sentence him and forget him.Why is that so much more newsworthy than the death of Marcus Spears about a month ago or the homicide I referred to in my earlier post?

quote:

Originally posted by eyedoc:
Sharpshooter- For what it's worth, I thought the picture was funny.


What if the dog fighting were legal where it took place? Would that make a difference to you? (IN my state cock-fighting is still legal.) Would you say it is OK as long as it was legal?

I feel like what Michael Vick did was wrong because he broke the law of the land.Maybe he thought it should not be against the law but it is.You cannot choose which laws to obey.I just think that the whole ordeal was blown way out of proportion.

Try him , find him guilty, sentence him and forget him.Why is that so much more newsworthy than the death of Marcus Spears about a month ago or the homicide I referred to in my earlier post?

Obviously, dog fighting is not murder. It is of course a lesser criminal issue and yes the attention is due to his status for the reasons I stated above.


If the dog fighting had occured in a legal jurisdiction, we would not be having this discussion. As such it is not legal and I think that is correct. In a location that considers it legal, I would imagine the populace has made it so through either state law or local ordinance. I may not agree, but the majority has spoke.



Yes. Conduct a fair, forthright trial and if found guilty, punish him to the extent the law permits. Then get on with life. I think the media sensationalism is simply the extension of the American public becomming weary of posh treatment those of his status typically receive when caught.


SS

Eyedoc-

I appreciate your courtesy and your thoughts. You are correct, of course, in much of what you say about the effect of the aging process on the "killer instinct" in humans. It is one of the reasons the violent crime rates are so much higher in youth of 18-30 than in those of 50 and over.

I'll try not to drag this out...we should already have moved it to somewhere other than the "humour" forum.

I am not a Christian, nor judaic. Never will be. That does not mean I have not studied the Bible and the Talmud. I disagree with the Bible's teachings about animals not having souls. I personally do not recognize the Bible as the word of God, but as the words of the men who wrote it....and that was their opinion.

Still, the Bible contains a great deal of real wisdom.

For instance, there is the part about man having dominion over animals. There, I simply feel that men have often misconstrued "dominion" to mean solely "power", whereas, I interpret "dominion" as meaning both "power over" AND "responsibility for" animals (and the whole earth). I think man has the power to help both wild and domestic animals in many ways, and the responsibility to do so.

Thus, I can see man having a role in keeping animal numbers in proportion to their habitat through the use of hunting, and to mercifully weed out those with disease, genetic defects, and so on. Of course that is not the same thing as fixating on trophy size, but includes more of the European "game-keeper" approach in removing those which do not contribute to the health of the whole herd.

The one thing I would caution, though, is that we need to also guard their habitat for them.

Just as animal numbers need to be kept in check despite indiscriminate wild reproduction, so do human numbers. That's so both animal and human habitats are not destroyed needlessly.

Funny, we make a big thing about controlling indiscriminate reproduction by domestic animals, but we seem to feel affronted by the thought of applying similar controls to indiscriminate human reproduction.

Anyway, thanks again for your courtesy and thoughtfulness on this subject.

Best wishes,

AC

Lets put things into light... Michael Vick is an Asshole, famous or not.

When hunting, the prey has the ability to hide, to run, to fight, or whatever option is available to them. Domesticated dogs don't stand much of a chance if they're caged, tortured (how else do you get them mean), and then put in a small cage with an equally ill tempered animal.

Yes the media is fickled with what they focus on, I think they should bag on everyone equally for evil crimes. There was once a time that Americans wouldn't tolerate evil, now it seems that we have to justify it to seem civilized.

They should put his ass in a cage with a bunch of ill tempered convicts and let him get beat to death. Oh wait, that is uncivilized.

John

quote:

They should put his ass in a cage with a bunch of ill tempered convicts and let him get beat to death. Oh wait, that is uncivilized.

No, make it in a cage with a bunch of those dogs he made mean. Starve them just enoough that he will look like dinner and turn them loose. Let that loser feel what the dogs that lost felt, sharp teeth. on Vick.
Paul B.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul B:

quote:

They should put his ass in a cage with a bunch of ill tempered convicts and let him get beat to death. Oh wait, that is uncivilized.

No, make it in a cage with a bunch of those dogs he made mean. Starve them just enoough that he will look like dinner and turn them loose. Let that loser feel what the dogs that lost felt, sharp teeth. on Vick.
Paul B.

+1

While the focus of the attention is on the cruelty to animals, what amazes me is the lack of attention given to illegal gambling. In my understanding, the only reason to fight these dogs is to gamble on the winner. If the operation was as large as reported, I don't think it is much of a stretch to think that organized crime would be involved in the gambling. If this is true, the big story would be on another professional athlete mixed up with gambling.

RC

Its rather fruitless to get all worked up about relative press coverage of crime. People get murdered all the time and it doesn't make the national news, because people get murdered all the time. Ironically, the classic metaphor for "news of the unusual" is the "Man Bites Dog" headline.

As for Kobe Bryant, you must have been in a coma when there was a gigantic mediastorm covering his trial. And when he was acquitted. Society in general is still down on him for cheating on his wife, so its not like he got a free pass. The Bryant case was a "he said, she said" in which it turned out the "she said" part was a mess. In Vick's case, there is a lot of evidence and testimony that he was directly involved. I live in southeast Virginia, and a lot of folks here have known about his involvement for years. The federal court in which he has been indicted has a 95% conviction rate. So innocent until proven guilty, but at this point only a fool would bet on his innocence.

And lets not forget his other shenanigans; the pot incident at the airport, and the "Ron Mexico" affair. Its not like he's been a choir boy.

Just to balance the record a bit, it's obvious that you folks don't know jack shit about dog fighting. They, just like successful football players, boxers, hockey players, and such, are pampered, well tended, "loved" darlings. They are not starved nor "made mean". They are conditioned just like any other athelete. Any training they get is to sharpen traits they are born with. The dogs enjoy what they do. They really do. At a normal fight, there are two handlers and a referee in the ring with the two dogs. So the vicious, maneater dogs that get all the press aren't the same ones that are in the ring. Rarely do the fights result in a dogs death. Kinda like football games.
All that said, I've never been to a dog fight. Nor would I be interested to go to one. But while I lived in Tn and Ok, I knew several folks that fought dogs and the difference between their dogs and the pos's that get all the bad press was worlds.

quote:

Originally posted by rcasto:
While the focus of the attention is on the cruelty to animals, what amazes me is the lack of attention given to illegal gambling. In my understanding, the only reason to fight these dogs is to gamble on the winner. If the operation was as large as reported, I don't think it is much of a stretch to think that organized crime would be involved in the gambling. If this is true, the big story would be on another professional athlete mixed up with gambling.

RC

A very astute observation, I suspect. And, with that size of operation, I also suspect there was a LOT of money changing hands.

"Dirty" money also seems to have a habit of making those who can get access to it into "dirty" people as well. That in turn may taint the whole area sometimes.

For example. In 1961 I was a member of a group of LEOs who raided a cock-fight in a secluded rural box canyon in central California. We took with us a JP, and every attendee was tried right there where they were apprehended (on the one road out of the box canyon). No one asked for an attorney or a later court date. I suspect that was because the fines were so small in those days...$25 fine and $1.25 court costs.

Anyway, things went smoothly until one fella who spoke poor English and was later deported as an illegal alien, complained about his $25 fine. He said words to the effect of "I already pay my $25!!" Our response was "Huh?"

More on-site investigation yielded the information that a senior California Highway Patrol officer knew about all the cock-fights in advance. He then charged the particpants and attendees $25 each before each fight date, for assurance they would NOT be raided or arrested.

Why he was allowed to retire with full benefits immediately afterward, rather than being charged and tried himself, I will never know for sure. But I can only assume that a substantial amount of money changed hands even farther up the line.....

I volunteer at a dog shelter. I deal with the dogfighting issue all too frequently. I am currently fostering a pit mix that was used as a "bait dog" when he was about 9 weeks old. For those of you that think dog fighting is cool, read up on "bait dogs";

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0218_040218_dogfighting.html

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=6829163

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/popsicle.html

http://network.bestfriends.org/florida/news/17388.html

http://www.outlawchinooks.com/Blood_Sport_Bait.html

http://www.bulliebuddies.org/Dog_Fighting.htm

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/07/dognapping.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20011102/ai_n10748124

http://midwestbtrescue.org/howl/index.htm

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/sadreality/6.php

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060223/dog.shtml

quote:

Osborne Animal Clinic has offered a $500 reward for tips leading to the arrest of whoever duct-taped a dog's mouth shut and tossed him in a commercial garbage bin.

The dog, a mixed breed shepherd suspected of being used for dog fighting, is still alive, but has multiple injuries to his face and legs and will need his right leg amputated.

...

The dog's eyes were swollen and had what appeared to be many bite wounds about 48 hours old. The lower third of his right leg barely dangled by a piece of skin and had begun to rot.

The gruesome sight was even more disturbing to Osborne because it was the second time the city has found a dog wrapped in duct tape and a plastic bag since last summer.