Vick indicted

[JasonEvans]

Apparently Vick has been indicted on following charges…
- Transporting animals across state lines for the purpose of fighting
- Sponsoring dog fights

So, even though "innoncent until proven guilty" is a fundamental part of our justice system, it is not a part of the NFL. These charges bring shame upon Vick, the Falcons, and the entire NFL. As a result, I fully expect Vick to get a suspension from the commish.

How long will it be? I am guessing 4 games.

-Jason "hmmm, should the Falcons cut him, take a massive cap hit this season, and just move on with someone else? Probably a terrible idea but I hate Vick right now" Evans

[captmojo]

Careful. Hate him after he's convicted.

[ChrisP]

With the LAX case still very fresh in my mind, I'm trying REALLY hard to give Mike Vick the benefit of the doubt. While I certainly don't admire it, I can tolerate most of the other stupid things he's done, but as a huge animal lover, I can't look the other way here. I was reading some other board the other day (might have been ESPN, I can't recall) and some moron on there was trying to compare dog fighting to boxing and UFC fighting and that kind of thing. I can't believe some people cannot or will not see the distinction between two WILLING human participants stepping into a ring and dog fighting. Perhaps those idiots should also be thrown into the dog ring. Might help filter out the old gene pool.

Anyway...if - notice I'm saying IF - Vick is connected to dog fighting, I hope he gets the maximum possible sentence available. And if he does somehow manage to get out of it and play football again, I sincerely hope he breaks his neck and is paralyzed for the rest of his life. I mean that. In case you can't tell, I have ZERO tolerance for people that are cruel to animals. Payback's a B***CH Mike!

[dkbaseball]

Sounds lenient to me. I think the league should do whatever it can to stamp out this culture, which is far more unsettling than players getting their own dumb arses into fights in bars. At least a one year suspension upon conviction or the commish's office being convinced he's guilty, and if Vick becomes an unwanted pariah in the league and his career is torpedoed...that's fine with me. He's made plenty of money, and if there was ever a justifiable occasion for ruining an individual's career in order to set an example, this is it.

[billybreen]

The NFL should suspend him indefinitely until the legal proceedings complete. I think that's the right thing to do for several reasons:

1) He was indicted on felony charges
2) The evidence presented points to abhorrent, disgusting crimes
3) Other NFL players have made light of the situation, so the NFL needs to take a hard stance to show zero tolerance
4) Mike Vick is a star. Not giving him a suspension that mirrors the severity of Pacman's may look like favoritism.

If the allegations are proven, I won't be happy until Vick and the other 3 do as much time as the law allows for these crimes.

Now, some have pointed to the Duke case as an example of overreaction. I don't expect the Falcons to have their season canceled, the coach to be fired, or for the media to explode around this story in analogous ways. This case doesn't have all the race and privilege implications that made the Duke situation such a tangled mess. But these are very serious allegations, a significant amount of evidence, and a federal indictment.

The NFL has taken the stance that their athletes need to be held to a higher standard since they are role models in the community. If Vick is innocent, he should at least have given more attention to what people were doing on his property and in his name. That's the burden of being a superstar millionaire athlete in the nation's most popular sport.

[captmojo]

The NFL should suspend him indefinitely until the legal proceedings complete. I think that's the right thing to do for several reasons:

1) He was indicted on felony charges
2) The evidence presented points to abhorrent, disgusting crimes
3) Other NFL players have made light of the situation, so the NFL needs to take a hard stance to show zero tolerance
4) Mike Vick is a star. Not giving him a suspension that mirrors the severity of Pacman's may look like favoritism.

If the allegations are proven, I won't be happy until Vick and the other 3 do as much time as the law allows for these crimes.

Now, some have pointed to the Duke case as an example of overreaction. I don't expect the Falcons to have their season canceled, the coach to be fired, or for the media to explode around this story in analogous ways. This case doesn't have all the race and privilege implications that made the Duke situation such a tangled mess. But these are very serious allegations, a significant amount of evidence, and a federal indictment.

The NFL has taken the stance that their athletes need to be held to a higher standard since they are role models in the community. If Vick is innocent, he should at least have given more attention to what people were doing on his property and in his name. That's the burden of being a superstar millionaire athlete in the nation's most popular sport.

I agree with this assessment only I would add that the NFL assist with any legal investigations and all due speed to see this to trial.

[billybreen]

I agree with this assessment only I would add that the NFL assist with any legal investigations and all due speed to see this to trial.

Absolutely. They have a tricky line to walk because they need to show no bias (in either direction) but should expedite proceedings to whatever extent possible. Given the commish's actions to this point, I think he can handle this situation well.

[hurleyfor3]

I think I'll just award the nfl a one-year suspension from my teevee. I'm too busy traveling in September and October (see photographs from other thread) to turn it on much anyway.

[rthomas]

What year IS this?

[billybreen]

In the interest of disclosure, I donate frequently to the Humane Society and participated in campaigns to help get animal fighting elevated to federal felony status. As much as it disgusts me to read the details of these allegations (I've pretty much forced myself to stop), I only hope that increased awareness of the crime will help give it the social stigma it deserves.

"Dog fighting" makes light of it. What really happens is nothing less than animal torture and killing.

[dkbaseball]

What really happens is nothing less than animal torture and killing.

Did anybody post on here about the findings a week or so ago of the various ways they offed dogs at Vick's place who lost the fight but managed to survive? Really shocking. This is one of the biggest malignancies in American life today. It really came home to me about a year ago when a young college girl, who had just moved to Madison, WI the day before, took her dachsund outside and it was killed by a pit bull trained for fighting. The UW football player who owned the pit bull didn't seem to think it was any big deal.

This culture needs to be eradicated, and it can be. If these characters think they are going to jail they will stop, because catching them shouldn't be that hard. The NFL should do whatever it can to help stigmatize this behavior, which is taking thuggery to a whole new level.

[mapei]

This case doesn't have all the race and privilege implications that made the Duke situation such a tangled mess.

It doesn't?

[billybreen]

It doesn't?

It's not rich white kids allegedly raping an underprivileged African American woman. That has a salacious taste to it that this doesn't.

In fact, there is no race angle here aside from the fact that a rich African American man was charged. Is that what you are referring to? I don't see how that compares.

[AtlBluRew]

Let's make Nifongs fight each other instead!

[hurleyfor3]

It's not rich white kids allegedly raping an underprivileged African American woman. That has a salacious taste to it that this doesn't.

In fact, there is no race angle here aside from the fact that a rich African American man was charged. Is that what you are referring to? I don't see how that compares.

There most certainly are rich white team owners and league brass who want to make sure rich white corporate advertisers, teevee execs and season ticket holders continue to approve of the nfl enough to keep spending money on it.

[sportsgirl4]

As a dog lover, hearing some of the details of some of the things he is accused of doing made me sick to my stomach.

[billybreen]

There most certainly are rich white team owners and league brass who want to make sure rich white corporate advertisers, teevee execs and season ticket holders continue to approve of the nfl enough to keep spending money on it.

The issues of race and class divisions between ownership and players are at best ancillary. I didn't hear a huge racial outcry about Pacman's suspension (though I wasn't paying that much attention), and I think that is more analogous.

Cases like Kobe's and the Lax situation involved accused and alleged victims of different races, with class differences thrown in. That makes for a very different story. I still fail to see how this is comparable.

[4decadedukie]

Among my many deficiencies, I tend to be too quickly judgmental. However, our recent Lacrosse Hoax truly served as a strong re-indoctrination not to conclude precipitously and to view media reports with skepticism. Nevertheless, WTOP (DC’s all news station) reported this morning some truly horrible examples animal cruelty on Vick’s Virginia farm. If these allegations are proven through the legal system – and that’s “big if” – Vick’s conduct warrants serious NFL sanctions (beyond any legal penalties invoked). One has to wonder what type of human being would allow such maliciousness.

The WTOP report can be found at: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=119&sid=1191923 (Among my many deficiencies, I tend to be quickly judgmental. However, our recent Lacrosse Hoax truly served as a strong re-indoctrination not to conclude precipitously and to view media reports with skepticism. Nevertheless, WTOP (DC’s all news station) reported this morning some truly horrible examples animal cruelty on Vick’s Virginia farm. If these allegations are proven through the legal system – and that’s “big if” – Vick’s conduct warrants serious NFL sanctions (beyond any legal penalties invoked). One has to wonder what type of human being would allow such maliciousness.).

[Bluedawg]

The NFL should suspend him indefinitely until the legal proceedings complete. I think that's the right thing to do for several reasons:

1) He was indicted on felony charges
2) The evidence presented points to abhorrent, disgusting crimes
3) Other NFL players have made light of the situation, so the NFL needs to take a hard stance to show zero tolerance
4) Mike Vick is a star. Not giving him a suspension that mirrors the severity of Pacman's may look like favoritism.

1) A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich so that means nothing. Ask the duke guys
2) But he has not been proven guilty of those crimes.
3) Use him as an example…regardless of the truth.
4) So you use his stardom against him; guilty forever

[BlueDiablo]

1) A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich so that means nothing. Ask the duke guys
2) But he has not been proven guilty of those crimes.
3) Use him as an example…regardless of the truth.
4) So you use his stardom against him; guilty forever

1) Contrary to popular belief, no ham sandwiches have actually been indicted. (In seriousness, I take federal indictments more seriously than state court indictments because I think federal prosecutors generally have more credibility and resources.)
2) The NFL is not bound by the same standards as the criminal justice system. The prosecutors will need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of twelve. The NFL need only conclude that there are enough facts to demonstrate that Vick's conduct has brought the league into disrepute. (I'm not familiar with the exact language of the character provision from the collective bargaining agreement, but my understanding is that it's fairly broad.)
3) I think it's pretty clear by now that some pretty heinous things were going on (from the perspective of the NFL's consumers, at least) and that Vick is connected to those things, at a minimum through owning the property and raising the dogs.
4) Star treatment goes both ways. Again, whether the prosecutors prove Vick's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the crimes charged in the indictment is almost collateral from the NFL's point of view.

[A-Tex Devil]

1) A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich so that means nothing. Ask the duke guys
2) But he has not been proven guilty of those crimes.
3) Use him as an example…regardless of the truth.
4) So you use his stardom against him; guilty forever

It's a federal indictment, so that is a little different. If you use Tank Johnson as precedent, though, I could see Vick getting suspended for half the season.

Tank was brought up on some pretty serious gun charges, and I don't think he's gone to trial for them yet. Then he was "involved" in a night club shooting in that people he was with shot someone. Suspended for 8 games.

The NFL is pretty clear now that if you associate yourself with trouble, you will get punished. VIck has been brought up on some pretty serious FEDERAL charges, he owns the house where all those dogs were rescued from, etc. etc. The NFL doesn't have to follow due process, and the things that happened around Vick warrant suspension for at least a half season based on precedent recently set.

As far as guilt in a court of law, certainly we should wait until the facts come out. It may be that Vick was really taken advantage of by family and friends. All the NFL is saying is that this was an avoidable situation, you embarassed the league, and we have the right to make you sit and stew for a while.

[billybreen]

Thanks AT and BD, that's pretty much what I would have said.

[Highlander]

The NFL should suspend him indefinitely until the legal proceedings complete. I think that's the right thing to do for several reasons:

1) He was indicted on felony charges
2) The evidence presented points to abhorrent, disgusting crimes
3) Other NFL players have made light of the situation, so the NFL needs to take a hard stance to show zero tolerance
4) Mike Vick is a star. Not giving him a suspension that mirrors the severity of Pacman's may look like favoritism.



Well, Ray Lewis faced Murder charges, and he was never suspended by the NFL, and Jamal Lewis was indicted and pled guilty to a federal charge and only missed two games, so I won't hold my breath that the league is going to suspend the Falcons starting QB for the year while he awaits trial.

And I agree that the details of this case are pretty disgusting. It's sad to me that (if true) Vick chose to risk everything he's earned over his career for something this dumb. However, considering his brother's spotty track record, doing dumb things while in the spotlight seems to run in the Vick family.

[billybreen]

Well, Ray Lewis faced Murder charges, and he was never suspended by the NFL, and Jamal Lewis was indicted and pled guilty to a federal charge and only missed two games, so I won't hold my breath that the league is going to suspend the Falcons starting QB for the year while he awaits trial.

That was then and this is now. Clearly the NFL is trying to clean up its image, and Tank Johnson and Pacman have been handled very differently from the Lewis duo.

[Windsor]

1) A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich so that means nothing. Ask the duke guys


Federal prosecutors do not indict anyone ... a Grand Jury does. In the real world do Grand Juries tend to go along with what the Assistant US Attorney's want? Yes they do. You sit on the Jury one day a week for at least a year. You get to know the A-USAs pretty well. It is a rare event for a GJ not to indict....it is also a rare event for an A-USA not to have his ducks in a row before coming before the GJ. It is NOT a rubber stamp formality "A-USA wants, A-USA gets" by a long shot.

Indictments are not about guilty or innocent. They are entirely based on the elements of the charges. It is a long way from that to a guilty verdict.

[mapei]

IMO grand juries may even do more harm than good, by giving public crediblity to one-sided evidence. On the whole we'd be better off without them.

[Dukiedevil]

That was then and this is now. Clearly the NFL is trying to clean up its image, and Tank Johnson and Pacman have been handled very differently from the Lewis duo.

That may be, but several of the ESPN commentators have mentioned that the new conduct rules are harshest for REPEAT offenders. As a first time offender, they will generally let due process run its course before handing down a punishment. While I think what he (alledgedly) did is horrible, I do not think he'll be suspended before the trial is over.

[billybreen]

That may be, but several of the ESPN commentators have mentioned that the new conduct rules are harshest for REPEAT offenders. As a first time offender, they will generally let due process run its course before handing down a punishment. While I think what he (alledgedly) did is horrible, I do not think he'll be suspended before the trial is over.

We'll see, but I think the gambling element here as well as his previous borderline objectionable behavior (the hidden compartment incident, flipping off his fans) might mitigate the benefits of prior 'good' behavior.

[Bluedawg]

I can't help but wonder if he wasn't Michael Vick would he have been indicted?

[billybreen]

I can't help but wonder if he wasn't Michael Vick would he have been indicted?

Well, the 3 other guys indicted are very much not Michael Vick.

[Bluedawg]

1) Contrary to popular belief, no ham sandwiches have actually been indicted. (In seriousness, I take federal indictments more seriously than state court indictments because I think federal prosecutors generally have more credibility and resources.)
2) The NFL is not bound by the same standards as the criminal justice system. The prosecutors will need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of twelve. The NFL need only conclude that there are enough facts to demonstrate that Vick's conduct has brought the league into disrepute. (I'm not familiar with the exact language of the character provision from the collective bargaining agreement, but my understanding is that it's fairly broad.)
3) I think it's pretty clear by now that some pretty heinous things were going on (from the perspective of the NFL's consumers, at least) and that Vick is connected to those things, at a minimum through owning the property and raising the dogs.
4) Star treatment goes both ways. Again, whether the prosecutors prove Vick's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the crimes charged in the indictment is almost collateral from the NFL's point of view.

1) I love ham sandwiches so I’m glad none have actually been indicted. However, it is all the same. Yes, federal prosecutors do have more resources but it is still a completely one sided case. The Grand Jury hears only what the prosecutor want them to hear. The accused has no voice.

2) Granted, all the NFL need only conclude that there are enough facts to demonstrate that Vick's conduct has brought the league into disrepute but a witch hunt by another name is still a witch hunt.

3) Absolutely, some pretty heinous things were going on and yes Vick owned the property but I’ve heard no creditable evidence, other than the words of the accused, that he raised the dogs. And I’m sure that the accused would not lie just to get a sweeter deal…correct?

4) Again, I believe that if he wasn’t Michael Vick, if he were me or you, he would not have been indicted. Federal prosecutors make their stripes by bringing down big names.

[JasonEvans]

From listening to the NFL pundits on ESPN and talkradio I get a sense that league will not suspend him because he is seen as a "first time offender."

In fact, I wonder if the league will ever have to suspend him. Either he will be aquitted or he will be convincted in court. If he is found guilty then the legal system's justice would probably trump anything the NFL can do as he faces up to 6 years and it seems likely that his prison time would keep him away from football for an extended period of time.

It will be interesting to see if Vick can focus upon football this coming season. That could be a real challenge.

-Jason "what a messed up family!! His brother should be earning a NFL paycheck today but he is even worse than Michael is" Evans

[Bluedawg]

...this was an avoidable situation, you embarassed the league, and we have the right to make you sit and stew for a while.

How? he owned the house...his cousin lived in it..a.ccording to him he didn't go there.

[Bluedawg]

Federal prosecutors do not indict anyone ... a Grand Jury does.

Spliting hairs. The prosecutor takes the casse to the GJ, and makes the case. The GJ will not hear the case unless the prosecutor takes it to them. They only hear the prosecutor's side.

[Bluedawg]

Well, the 3 other guys indicted are very much not Michael Vick.

The case against them was stronger.

[Dukiedevil]

Looks like the league is definitely taking a wait and see approach:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/18/vick.league/index.html

[Windsor]

Spliting hairs. The prosecutor takes the casse to the GJ, and makes the case. The GJ will not hear the case unless the prosecutor takes it to them. They only hear the prosecutor's side.

It may surprise you to know that Grand Juries (who can question witnesses themselves) ask some very dififcult and pointed questions. The witnesses most of the time are federal agents, and yes it is one sided but in my limitted knowledge, the Grand Jurors were keenly aware of the impact of an indictment and did not take their responsibilities lightly. A GJ can be party to an investigation prior to even having an indictment brought before them. The A- USAs are very good at feeling out the jurors to see if they have 'made' their cast. I personally know of one case that was under investigation where one party was indicted but not others....some unhappy A-USAs but that's life in the big courthouse.

[Dukerati]

The case against them was stronger.

How do you know this? Did you hear the grand jury testimony? As biased as the animal-lovers in this board are already against Vick (wrongly so IMO), it seems that you are equally biased in assuming that the charges are flimsy and that there is a vendetta against Vick. The truth of the matter is, none of us know what evidence the Feds have and knee-jerk reactions do more harm than good.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1) Grand jury indictments serve an important function in our legal system and doing away with them will only exacerbate the problem of federal prosecutors levying unfounded charges. Although they do have a high indictment rate, the grand jury serves as a check on the federal prosecutors to gather credible evidence before bringing charges

2) The NFL should not suspend Vick. I do not think there is much doubt that some terrible things happened at that house but there IS doubt as to how much Vick was there or knew about it. He has made some questionable decisions on and off the field but Vick, for the most part, is clean. You can not suspend him just for being accused. Let the evidence speak for itself.

3) I think Vick is guilty but hope to be proven wrong.

[A-Tex Devil]

You can not suspend him just for being accused.

That's what happened to Tank Johnson. And to some extent, Pac Man Jones, because he's only been arrested and indicted.

I don't know whether he should or should not be suspended, but it wouldn't be setting a new precedent.


How? he owned the house...his cousin lived in it..a.ccording to him he didn't go there.

If you own a house, you are ultimately responsible for what goes on there. Sure, you might have some indemnification agreements from a tenant if there is a lease, but let's say one of those dogs (and there were dogs on that property) bit someone -- Vick could very well be liable for that.

If you unknowingly rent your house to crystal meth dealers who turn it into a lab, and the house explodes, you'll be liable to the neighbors. If there was dog fighting on that property (is there any question that there was?), it's really not that much different. Even if he didn't know it was going on, he has responsibilities as the owner, and ignorance of illegal activity that could otherwise be curtailed by occasional checking in on your property is akin to negligence -- probably gross negligence.

[Dukerati]

That's what happened to Tank Johnson. And to some extent, Pac Man Jones, because he's only been arrested and indicted.

I don't know whether he should or should not be suspended, but it wouldn't be setting a new precedent.



If you own a house, you are ultimately responsible for what goes on there. Sure, you might have some indemnification agreements from a tenant if there is a lease, but let's say one of those dogs (and there were dogs on that property) bit someone -- Vick could very well be liable for that.

If you unknowingly rent your house to crystal meth dealers who turn it into a lab, and the house explodes, you'll be liable to the neighbors. If there was dog fighting on that property (is there any question that there was?), it's really not that much different. Even if he didn't know it was going on, he has responsibilities as the owner, and ignorance of illegal activity that could otherwise be curtailed by occasional checking in on your property is akin to negligence -- probably gross negligence.

Good catch A-Tex on the accusation thing. What I meant to say is that you can not suspend someone without having a stronger base other than a one-time indictment. Tank and Pacman Jones were suspended as repeat violators but Vick has remained largely clear of the law until this point. If the commissioner does decide to suspend Vick, that would open a can of worms that he could not contain. Can a girl accuse a player of rape and get him suspended? Where do you draw the line?

As for the owner of the house being responsible, is there legal precedent for this? I can not imagine that Vick would be held liable for dog fights occurring on his property without his knowledge. What constitutes negligence? So, if you own a property, you are legally obligated to check in on it once in awhile?

[billybreen]

As for the owner of the house being responsible, is there legal precedent for this? I can not imagine that Vick would be held liable for dog fights occurring on his property without his knowledge. What constitutes negligence? So, if you own a property, you are legally obligated to check in on it once in awhile?

Has everyone read the indictment? The indictment alleges that he was far from out of the loop on this. He approved and personally participated in several of the killings, so he was allegedly very familiar with the details of the fighting. The indictment alleges that he ran the show.

[BlueDiablo]

1) I love ham sandwiches so I’m glad none have actually been indicted. However, it is all the same. Yes, federal prosecutors do have more resources but it is still a completely one sided case. The Grand Jury hears only what the prosecutor want them to hear. The accused has no voice.

2) Granted, all the NFL need only conclude that there are enough facts to demonstrate that Vick's conduct has brought the league into disrepute but a witch hunt by another name is still a witch hunt.

3) Absolutely, some pretty heinous things were going on and yes Vick owned the property but I’ve heard no creditable evidence, other than the words of the accused, that he raised the dogs. And I’m sure that the accused would not lie just to get a sweeter deal…correct?

4) Again, I believe that if he wasn’t Michael Vick, if he were me or you, he would not have been indicted. Federal prosecutors make their stripes by bringing down big names.

1) Fair point about an indictment just being an indictment, and yes, grand juries do tend to give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt. Believe it or not, grand juries are intended to be a constitutional protection.

2) One man's witch hunt is another man's business decision, I guess. I don't fault the NFL here, whatever it decides. There's enough to make a business judgment either way.

3) From the reports I've heard/read: Michael Vick's name was on the Bad Newz Kennel license; One of the first things Vick did when he got his paycheck was to purchase the property on which the fights were held; and the fights had been going on for six years. Hard for me to believe he didn't participate, but it will be interesting to see how the rest of the facts play out. (Granted, it could all be a grand conspiracy to attack the Falcon's star--but underperforming--quarterback. Yeah, that's it!)

4) I'm not so sure. Someone lobbied hard to make this a federal crime, and it's my understanding that others have been prosecuted the past, despite not being one of the best (underperforming) running quarterbacks in the pros.

[billybreen]

4) I'm not so sure. Someone lobbied hard to make this a federal crime, and it's my understanding that others have been prosecuted the past, despite not being one of the best (underperforming) running quarterbacks in the pros.

I was one of those lobbying, but the law is new as of this year.


I wanted to be the first to share with you some fantastic news. Today President Bush signed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act into law. This is the culmination of an almost six-year campaign by The Humane Society of the United States and our allies to enact meaningful federal penalties for animal fighting.

The law takes effect immediately. It provides felony penalties for interstate commerce, import and export related to animal fighting activities, including commerce in c0ckfighting[ weapons. It will make it much harder for criminals who engage in dogfighting and c0ckfighting to continue their operations. Each violation of the federal law may bring up to three years in jail and up to a $250,000 fine for perpetrators.

That was signed on 5/3/07. There hasn't been a whole lot of time for others to be prosecuted under the new federal law.

[DukeDude]

When I first heard that the feds took over the case, I felt that it was likely they would try to pressure Vick to make a plea bargain and give up other dog fighting operations around the country. Apparently that hasn't been offered, or he hasn't talked.

[johnb]

Killing dogs is sickening, but what's as disturbing is that people like this stuff. It makes me curious about what was going on in the Vick household that would lead them to such intense sadism and lack of empathy. It reminds me a bit of pedophilia in that both activities require that the perpetrator finds pleasure in inflicting pain and suffering. I'm sure that there are pedophiles who don't think they are hurting the kids, just as there are dog fight enthusiasts who believe that pit bulls are simply participating in a sport for which they were bred. In both cases, the rationalization is easily punctured by reality, but there is enough of a network of fellow perps that the shallow justification can slide along.

Now, of course, if you really want to see mass suffering, perhaps we could take a tour of a slaughterhouse (except that they won't let you in).

[Channing]

I havent had time to read the whole thread, but there is another issue that I have been wondering about. Assuming the allegations are true, and Vick is convicted, this was a large gambling ring. When there are large gambling rings, there is inevitably large quantities of money illegally swapping hands. What are the odds the IRS decides to get involved and see what might or might not be owed to them?

The IRS likes nothing more than to make examples out of people, I wonder if Vick is on their list.

[greybeard]

Killing dogs is sickening, but what's as disturbing is that people like this stuff. It makes me curious about what was going on in the Vick household that would lead them to such intense sadism and lack of empathy. It reminds me a bit of pedophilia in that both activities require that the perpetrator finds pleasure in inflicting pain and suffering. I'm sure that there are pedophiles who don't think they are hurting the kids, just as there are dog fight enthusiasts who believe that pit bulls are simply participating in a sport for which they were bred. In both cases, the rationalization is easily punctured by reality, but there is enough of a network of fellow perps that the shallow justification can slide along.

Now, of course, if you really want to see mass suffering, perhaps we could take a tour of a slaughterhouse (except that they won't let you in).

We're talking football here. The biggest scandal since Roman times in what is passed for a sport. Guys die in August playing football, but not other months. How come they continue to play football in August?

You been watching the news about the movement by retired players to get disability payments from the league. We're not talking all old guys; amazing athletes who are maimed, some who can't tell Tuesday from a baseball bat, by this so-called sport. How many guys get carted off the field each and every game with mind numbing injuries that we yawn about--torn ACLs, rotators, broken spleens, broken necks. And, people talk about steroid use.

Please, these guys are being paid for their body parts. Are selling their bodies for our entertainment. And, you want to know where their calousness comes from. "If you need an answer, I'll give one to you, . . . ." Our silence is from where, our collective silence.

[Shammrog]

We're talking football here. The biggest scandal since Roman times in what is passed for a sport. Guys die in August playing football, but not other months. How come they continue to play football in August?

You been watching the news about the movement by retired players to get disability payments from the league. We're not talking all old guys; amazing athletes who are maimed, some who can't tell Tuesday from a baseball bat, by this so-called sport. How many guys get carted off the field each and every game with mind numbing injuries that we yawn about--torn ACLs, rotators, broken spleens, broken necks. And, people talk about steroid use.

Please, these guys are being paid for their body parts. Are selling their bodies for our entertainment. And, you want to know where their calousness comes from. "If you need an answer, I'll give one to you, . . . ." Our silence is from where, our collective silence.


Are you saying we should ban football?!?

One key is that football is played *voluntarily* The dogs have no opportunity or capacity for such choice.

[billybreen]

One key is that football is played *voluntarily* The dogs have no opportunity or capacity for such choice.

I completely agree. That sounds like the flip-side of the arguments of dog fighting apologists who compare it to UFC, where men brutalize each other. In UFC or football, humans exercise free will to participate. (Also, humans aren't tortured and killed after they lose, but that's more germane to the UFC argument than greybeard's).

[RelativeWays]

As a Saints fan: THIS IS GREAT.

As an owner of two dogs: this is beyond terrible. I get physically angry reading the indictments.

Also as someone who tries to see both sides to every story, I feel just a little sorry for Vick. I don't think he ever considered any of the consequences of his actions. I think he has had a hard time separating himself from the bad influences and hangers on that have probably been in his ear since high school. I'm not saying he isn't responsible for his actions, he is. It would be nice if someone of his talent would wake up and grow up, and rise above these things.

[RelativeWays]

On another note, someone brought up that this case would not have the racial implications or bias that the Duke case does. While that is true, race will be a factor in the perception of Vicks character. Its not that he just happens to be a black quaterblack, its because dogfighting has very negative racial connotations associated with it.

[Stray Gator]

For those who haven't heard it, I urge you to listen to NPR's report on this story that was broadcast on Morning Edition today (which I caught on the drive to work)--and pay special attention to Vick's own comments (starting at about the 1:55 mark of the recorded story):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12056318

[JDSBlueDevl]

So, when does the crackdown on c0ckfighting begin?

[billybreen]

So, when does the crackdown on c0ckfighting begin?

It already has (http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/general/news/story?id=2928056).

[greybeard]

Are you saying we should ban football?!?

One key is that football is played *voluntarily* The dogs have no opportunity or capacity for such choice.

I'm not trying to excuse animal abuse. But, I am saying that football at bottom is more than just bruttal; it is violent and destructive well beyond what it needs to be.

They make a few rules to "protect" players, but only those that coincide with keeping the game as stunningly violent as it can be. Put them back in leather helmets and you will see the game clean up considerably. I'd bet a nickel that the type and incidence of injuries in rugby pale in comparison.

This is the environment controlled by the powerful that Vick has been emerced in his entire life. "Life is cheap in [that environment], Louie reminds Victor Laslow.

No, they should not outlaw football. Just stop the mayhem. If they can't do that, I'd be in favor of outlawing the game, entertaining as it is. Do I think that "they" will do either? No! Am I concerned for the pros? Sort of. But they are hooked and besides are getting big bucks.

Go to the rebah facilities where you live in the late afternoons, beginning say mid September on through say April. That will tell you who I am concerned with. And, it is not just football, but football is so far ahead of the other sports that it seems to me that it is there that the dangers must first be addressed. But, nobody but me and Bryan Gumbel seem to give a damn.

By the way, women have eleven times more ACL tears than men playing soccer and basketball. Yeap, your eyes heard me right. ELEVEN. What do we hear, "They are playing oh so much more like the men, and isn't that terrific!" Meanwhile, young women, girls for g-d's sake, are getting the kind of crippling injuries that will lead to not just knee replacements, but also other even more severe ancilliary health issues (hip replacements and back surgeries) when they are in their forties. "Meantime life goes on all around you." Bob Zimmerman.

[mapei]

greybeard, sometimes you get carried away too much, and you can't spell or type for crap. But I think you have raised some really important points. They don't excuse the dogfighting, which I condemn like everyone else. But the sport (not uniquely) is corrupt at its core.

Personally, I find this really sad. Mike Vick was the reason I got a little interested in college football again (I lost interest after Charlie Ward graduated). Since he left VT, I have been rooting for him in the pros. He may be the most exciting player I have ever seen, and I have wanted badly for him to succeed at it, which also means succeeding as a person enough to make football, not personal issues, the topic of conversation. I knew his background would be absolutely no help in that, but I had a lot of hope. Damn.

[AtlBluRew]

For those who haven't heard it, I urge you to listen to NPR's report on this story that was broadcast on Morning Edition today (which I caught on the drive to work)--and pay special attention to Vick's own comments (starting at about the 1:55 mark of the recorded story):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12056318

Ahh yes. Vick outraged a lot of people when he was seen on TV making those comments. To see his face and demeanor as he says it makes it even more offensive. It was outside the Fox Theatre on the night that the NFL's "lowlights" video of the Falcons' season was debuted. He went on to say that it was the fans' JOB to cheer for the Falcons and love them.

He just doesn't get it.

[greybeard]

greybeard, sometimes you get carried away too much, and you can't spell or type for crap. But I think you have raised some really important points. They don't excuse the dogfighting, which I condemn like everyone else. But the sport (not uniquely) is corrupt at its core.

Personally, I find this really sad. Mike Vick was the reason I got a little interested in college football again (I lost interest after Charlie Ward graduated). Since he left VT, I have been rooting for him in the pros. He may be the most exciting player I have ever seen, and I have wanted badly for him to succeed at it, which also means succeeding as a person enough to make football, not personal issues, the topic of conversation. I knew his background would be absolutely no help in that, but I had a lot of hope. Damn.

Thanks for the complement. My man T has told me any number of times I should be a talking head (found my inability to spell an impenetrable obstacle to operating in print, I have to assume); swears it don't matter in that context if you get carried away. Finds most of my insights provocative and fresh, particularly about basketball; the others he finds more than a tad off the mark, in particular my football-injury rant which I began making to him after the Skins second superbowl season, when literally half their team was on the DL. I thanked him for the complement but told him, "Feh, why try to get paid for something you enjoy doing for free." Even T knew that there was no arguing with that kind of logic.

[dukemomLA]

I think that any sports or entertainment celebrity who has been COMMITTED of a felony should be banned for LIFE!!

NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, etc. SAG, AEA, AFTRA, etc.

Sports I love have been denigrated by disgusting behavior on and off the field/court/ice.

And this post comes from a lifelong 'bleeding heart Liberal - proud of it."

Obviously the Vick brothers have 'issues.' Okay let them find a way to grow up without the assurance of a big paycheck for being a--holes.

All sports -- and most entertainment have been tainted by abhorrent behavior, drug abuse, guns, deaths, career-ending injuries, etc.

It's time to send a LOUD message. STOP this sh-t. And yet, I know that owners/investors will not follow my lead.

Send these losers to WWF.

[rthomas]

Listening to Sports radio this morning - (Out of bounds, Fox) - The radio dude, James Washington, made dog fighting sound like it was almost entirely a southern thing.

Is this true?

Just curious, but what other demographic does this appeal to? racial? economic (rich people)?


By the way, I loved what John Stewart said last night - Vick should be tied in liver and let the dogs have him.

[Bluedawg]

I think that any sports or entertainment celebrity who has been COMMITTED of a felony should be banned for LIFE!!

Just wondering...is steroid use a felony?

[Bluedawg]

1) (Granted, it could all be a grand conspiracy to attack the Falcon's star--but underperforming--quarterback. Yeah, that's it!)

I don't think it is particularly who he is but what he is. US Attorneys love to bring down big stars.

[blublood]

Listening to Sports radio this morning - (Out of bounds, Fox) - The radio dude, James Washington, made dog fighting sound like it was almost entirely a southern thing.

Is this true?

Just curious, but what other demographic does this appeal to? racial? economic (rich people)?

I don't know about dog fighting, but almost any ghetto, run-down flea market you go to in small Alabama towns will have roosters for sale. I used to think they were for eating or breeding purposes before my more-worldly husband told me the truth - they're for roosterfighting. (filter caught the more orthodox name) That's why they also sell steel spurs and chains.

Having said that, I doubt very seriously that these abuses are a problem limited to the South if that amount of money is changing hands.

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't think it is particularly who he is but what he is. US Attorneys love to bring down big stars.

Do they? It seems that from my personal past observation, local prosecutors, whether municipal or state, are much more likely to go after celebrities or public figures for reasons related more to the person than the crime.

I just can't think of (although I am certain someone will correct me) many Federal level witchhunts or over-aggressive prosecutions involving public figures. Local and state prosecutors have to be elected (e.g. Nifong) as do the judges in many states, which I think leads to some cases becoming more about the big score than the actual facts and the law.

[EarlJam]

Killing dogs is sickening, but what's as disturbing is that people like this stuff. It makes me curious about what was going on in the Vick household that would lead them to such intense sadism and lack of empathy.

I don't have much to offer in the way of insight here, but just thought this was a good, interesting point. The Vick household. This obviously goes well beyond dysfunctional. It does make one wonder just what is going on in that home that would lead to such behavior - if all of the alleged turns out to be true. Because yes, you would have to develop an "intense sadism and lack of empathy."

-EarlJam

P.S. Either way, seems he has to go. Even if he does play, the game-to-game distraction will be on a scale never seen before. When the Falcons come to town, or if they are in town, it (the storyline) will NEVER be about the game. He's finished.

[rthomas]

I don't have much to offer in the way of insight here, but just thought this was a good, interesting point. The Vick household. This obviously goes well beyond dysfunctional. It does make one wonder just what is going on in that home that would lead to such behavior - if all of the alleged turns out to be true. Because yes, you would have to develop an "intense sadism and lack of empathy."

I'm pretty sure that if you would kill dogs in such a inhumane cruel sadistic way as electrocution, you would probably be willing to do the same thing to a human. Just my opinion.

[Windsor]

Listening to Sports radio this morning - (Out of bounds, Fox) - The radio dude, James Washington, made dog fighting sound like it was almost entirely a southern thing.

Is this true?


Dog fighting is huge in several northern/northeastern cities...Detriot, NYC, Chicago come to mind. In those areas the participants are usually black. While they may live in low income areas keeping and training fighting dogs is expensive so they are not low income in the same way that the local drug dealer isn't low income - their $ comes from their illegal activities.

There is a second dog fighting sub culture which is still slipping below the radar. While investigators and 'animal cops' chase down the big rings there are many many people who own just one dog and participate in 'casual' fights with fellow single dog owners (my dog can beat up your dog). These owners are almost excusivley young, poor and male.

Sadly, even if a dog is rescued from the dog fighting world they are almost always destroyed. Retraining is nearly impossible, once you get the 'fight' in the dog you can't get it out. The nature of the fighting breeds makes a dog with this mind set a deadly weapon.

Just one more word about fighting breeds (and what makes them so)...the lovely Wizard (my Belgian Tervuren in my avatar) can out bite any pit bull. His breed generates around 350 lbs of bite force. Pit Bulls are around 250-275. Wizard is bred to herd sheep, something he does well by instinct (and a little bit of training!) the bull breeds (bull dogs, pits and the foundation stock of all the 'fighting' breeds) original purpose was to bait wild cattle, that is, bite it on its nose, lock your jaw and do not let go until it is dead. This allowed the local butcher to easily dispatch the hapless bovine. Breeding has continued to modify the nature and structure of dogs. (all instinctive dog behavior is a modification of hunting behavior ie. herding is the stalk, without the kill). Fighting line dogs are selectively bred for aggression. Wizard would take a good long time to provoke, and if he decided to bite you he would bite you once and then hold his bite to see if you 'gave up'. A fighting bred pit has a hair trigger particularly for other dogs, once they bite their instincts kick in and they will not stop or release until they or their vicitm are dead. In addition to all the other horrible things dog fighters do they have also created hundred and hundreds of four legged weapons who have no hope of being able to live a normal 'dog' life (and tarnished the reputations of the bull breeds who when well bred are perfectly wonderful companions).

As a dog person (gee, can you tell?) I am hoping there is special place in hell for anyone involved in dog fighting.

[BlueDiablo]

Dog fighting is huge in several northern/northeastern cities...Detriot, NYC, Chicago come to mind. In those areas the participants are usually black. While they may live in low income areas keeping and training fighting dogs is expensive so they are not low income in the same way that the local drug dealer isn't low income - their $ comes from their illegal activities.


An aside that is completely off-topic: In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt demonstrates that the vast majority of local drug dealers are low income. In fact, crack dealers at the lowest level would be better off working at McDonalds. Just like many companies, you have to work your way to the top of the pyramid to make an real money dealing drugs.

[greybeard]

Dog fighting is huge in several northern/northeastern cities...Detriot, NYC, Chicago come to mind. In those areas the participants are usually black. While they may live in low income areas keeping and training fighting dogs is expensive so they are not low income in the same way that the local drug dealer isn't low income - their $ comes from their illegal activities.

There is a second dog fighting sub culture which is still slipping below the radar. While investigators and 'animal cops' chase down the big rings there are many many people who own just one dog and participate in 'casual' fights with fellow single dog owners (my dog can beat up your dog). These owners are almost excusivley young, poor and male.

Sadly, even if a dog is rescued from the dog fighting world they are almost always destroyed. Retraining is nearly impossible, once you get the 'fight' in the dog you can't get it out. The nature of the fighting breeds makes a dog with this mind set a deadly weapon.

Just one more word about fighting breeds (and what makes them so)...the lovely Wizard (my Belgian Tervuren in my avatar) can out bite any pit bull. His breed generates around 350 lbs of bite force. Pit Bulls are around 250-275. Wizard is bred to herd sheep, something he does well by instinct (and a little bit of training!) the bull breeds (bull dogs, pits and the foundation stock of all the 'fighting' breeds) original purpose was to bait wild cattle, that is, bite it on its nose, lock your jaw and do not let go until it is dead. This allowed the local butcher to easily dispatch the hapless bovine. Breeding has continued to modify the nature and structure of dogs. (all instinctive dog behavior is a modification of hunting behavior ie. herding is the stalk, without the kill). Fighting line dogs are selectively bred for aggression. Wizard would take a good long time to provoke, and if he decided to bite you he would bite you once and then hold his bite to see if you 'gave up'. A fighting bred pit has a hair trigger particularly for other dogs, once they bite their instincts kick in and they will not stop or release until they or their vicitm are dead. In addition to all the other horrible things dog fighters do they have also created hundred and hundreds of four legged weapons who have no hope of being able to live a normal 'dog' life (and tarnished the reputations of the bull breeds who when well bred are perfectly wonderful companions).

As a dog person (gee, can you tell?) I am hoping there is special place in hell for anyone involved in dog fighting.

Wow, Windsor, did you just complicate things for me. I've long been of the view that all pit bulls and others of their ilk posed too great a danger to society to be tolerated. After reading your post, still convinced that local, county and state authorities should outlaw pit ownership. But can see that my view concerning similar breds might need to be more nuanced. Now, if I could only tell the difference.:confused:

[Windsor]

Wow, Windsor, did you just complicate things for me. I've long been of the view that all pit bulls and others of their ilk posed too great a danger to society to be tolerated. After reading your post, still convinced that local, county and state authorities should outlaw pit ownership. But can see that my view concerning similar breds might need to be more nuanced. Now, if I could only tell the difference.:confused:

There are no dangerous breeds...there are dangerous dogs in every breed, and incredibley dangerous owners. One of the worst dog attacks I ever saw (it was dog on dog) was started by a golden retreiver.

The last dog that got thrown out of one our agility classes for human aggression was a choclate lab (before that it was (no joke) a Yorkie.

Toy breeds are the worst biters overall...fortunatley for the toy poodles of this world they don't inflict the same damage and don't make headlines!

If you ban pit breeds I assure you the scum who fight dogs will either a) have them anyway or b) find another non-banned breed to vicitimize.

Obvsiously I vehemently oppose breed specific legislation, but on that point perhaps we shall agree to disagree :)

[alteran]

Killing dogs is sickening, but what's as disturbing is that people like this stuff. It makes me curious about what was going on in the Vick household that would lead them to such intense sadism and lack of empathy. It reminds me a bit of pedophilia in that both activities require that the perpetrator finds pleasure in inflicting pain and suffering.

IANAP, but it sounds more like psychopathy or one of its antisocial variants. IIRC, torturing or excessive cruelty to animals is considered a major warning sign of violent psychopaths, and a potential precursor to doing the same in people.

[billybreen]

Obvsiously I vehemently oppose breed specific legislation

Word life. I'm with Windsor.

The number one breed in attacks last year (can't find the citation for this, but I saw it in one of the Vick articles) was the C0cker Spaniel (my breed). You just never hear about other attacks because the evil Pit Bull has become something of a media focus. Similar to many years ago when we had the 'Summer of the Shark' and that was all you heard about, yet over the same time frame more people were killed by sand holes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19334698/).

[greybeard]

Word life. I'm with Windsor.

The number one breed in attacks last year (can't find the citation for this, but I saw it in one of the Vick articles) was the C0cker Spaniel (my breed). You just never hear about other attacks because the evil Pit Bull has become something of a media focus. Similar to many years ago when we had the 'Summer of the Shark' and that was all you heard about, yet over the same time frame more people were killed by sand holes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19334698/).

There's getting attacked and then there is getting ATTACKED. I'll take my chances with your c0cker spaniel; pit bulls are another matter. Does your spaniel hold on to the death; if so, maybe I'll reconsider.

Windsor just finished saying that pit bulls have been bred to kill, or just about, or did I read the post wrong. I'm for gun control laws too.

[billybreen]

There's getting attacked and then there is getting ATTACKED. I'll take my chances with your c0cker spaniel; pit bulls are another matter. Does your spaniel hold on to the death; if so, maybe I'll reconsider.

Windsor just finished saying that pit bulls have been bred to kill, or just about, or did I read the post wrong. I'm for gun control laws too.

Well, my c0cker spaniel wouldn't bite anything that isn't a tennis ball, so he's a bad comparison. But the second most bitey breed is the German Shepard, and that can do more damage.

The majority of fatal Pit Bull attacks involve packs of animals, and that again comes back to the carelessness or malice of the owners.

[DevilAlumna]

Perhaps the reason C0cker spaniels have more attacks attributed is because until recently (when labs took over), they were the top breed registered as pets with the AKC. More dogs = more dog bites.

Now, in terms of percentages, and lethality/seriousness of attacks, pit bulls (and their varietals) lead the way.

I totally agree with Windsor, though -- blame the owner, and breeders, not the dog.

A good owner, particularly for pit breeds, should know the temperament of the dog's lineage before buying; a responsible breeder should NEVER breed any dog known to attack humans (or show serious dog aggressiveness.)

A good owner should know the tendencies and histories of the dog breed, and again in the case of pits, understand that the dog-dog attack reflex could come out at any moment. If you ever see a pit off-leash at a dog park, take your dog and skedaddle. Clearly, the owner is an idiot.

That said, I've known some amazingly sweet pit bulls. They are known to be great family dogs -- protective of their pack, but very gentle with the kids. They also take to obedience training well. The dog on Little Rascals? A pit bull. (When I told my dad that, he totally changed his tune on banning pits.) It's just that they can go idiopathically crazy when they get involved with another dog.

And totally aside, wasn't it a yorkie that chewed off a sleeping toddler's fingers last year? Or was it a chihuahua?

[DevilAlumna]

Bulldogs were, just like pit bulls, originally bred for bull-baiting. Their flat faces allowed them to hang onto the bull's nose and still breath themselves.

Of course, since then, that instinct (except to tug/pull, and hang on to anything for dear life) has been bred out of them. They were so "cute" that as bullbaiting went out of fashion/need, people more bred the dogs for companionship -- now, they are the laziest of lapdogs due in part to genetics.

My guy (see my avatar) is the perfect dog for our DINK family -- he sleeps 20 hours a day, in his crate (whether he's shut in or not), and his version of exercise is running up and down the hall a couple times.

[A-Tex Devil]

If you ever see a pit off-leash at a dog park, take your dog and skedaddle. Clearly, the owner is an idiot.


Its weird. I used to agree with this statement, but the best friend of my 2 boxers at the dog park happens to be a pit bull. My dogs seem to have more problems when confronted by an unneutered male - regardless of breed. To me that is what you want to stay away from at the dog park. Now I'll say that an inordinate number of male pit bulls and their varietals seem to be unneutered at a mature age -- a testament to the typical pit owner, I think, who even if they don't engage in fighting, want their dogs to appear "tough."

I'm all for spay/neutering laws unless you are a licensed breeder. I mean, why not? What's the harm? Not sure how that would affect "show dogs" but let's weigh priorities, you know?

[Windsor]

Windsor just finished saying that pit bulls have been bred to kill, or just about, or did I read the post wrong. I'm for gun control laws too.

NO NO NO the breed was bred to hang on until what it was holding was dead..which was originally the butcher. Dogs that are really bred to kill are those that go to ground (ie hunt vermin) any terrier, dachsies etc.
Also Ridgebacks and one or two others that slip my mind

[DevilAlumna]

Now I'll say that an inordinate number of male pit bulls and their varietals seem to be unneutered at a mature age -- a testament to the typical pit owner, I think, who even if they don't engage in fighting, want their dogs to appear "tough."

I'm all for spay/neutering laws unless you are a licensed breeder. I mean, why not? What's the harm? Not sure how that would affect "show dogs" but let's weigh priorities, you know?

And now with these -- Neuticles (http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html) -- dogs can be sterile and STILL appear tough! :)

[dukechem]

This is a quote from an article in the Washington Post this morning:

"The NFL Players Association issued a written statement that said: 'It's unfortunate that Michael Vick is in this position, as these allegations are extremely disturbing and offensive. This case is now in the hands of the judicial system and we have to allow the legal process to run its course. However, we recognize Michael still has the right to prove his innocence. Hopefully, these allegations are untrue and Michael will be able to continue his NFL career.'"

If these charges prove to be true, I'm with most everyone else in hoping he gets the maximum penalty.

[Windsor]

I'm all for spay/neutering laws unless you are a licensed breeder. I mean, why not? What's the harm? Not sure how that would affect "show dogs" but let's weigh priorities, you know?

Showing (as in confirmation as the Westminster etc) is all about improving the breed and rewarding the best examples (oke really its about politics and what handler you pay but I'll save that for another thread) they MUST be intact to show in the breed ring in every venue.

For agility, obedience and other 'companion events' the dog may spayed/neutered (and they can partake if they don't have regular papers if they are really a purebed dog in AKC)

I have 3 males - one neutered, two not. Wizard still shows in confirmation so he needs his. Jester the lab's growth plates are not yet closed. Once they close (at about 2 years of age) he will be. For the record, I have never had one of my intact boys get out and have his way with some I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. in all they years I have owned/shown dogs.

An amusing interlude: When you show a dog in confirmation the judge checks that he has two. Really. That is something you have to train a dog to tolerate without jumping, moving, snarling etc. You know who your true friends are when you stack your dog (the stance that he should be in when the judge examines him) and they will 'check' for you (without making faces).

[billybreen]

Nike is delaying the release of a Vick product line (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/07/19/bc.fbn.vick.nike.ap/index.html?cnn=yes), saying in part that they are

concerned by the serious and highly disturbing allegations made against Michael Vick, and we consider any cruelty to animals inhumane and abhorrent. We do believe that Michael Vick should be afforded the same due process as any citizen; therefore, we have not terminated our relationship.

[throatybeard]

(filter caught the more orthodox name)

This is absurd. Mods, is there any way we can alter what the filter catches?

I remember once James' filter rejected a post because I had a college football post that said ...Colorado, Oklahoma.

[greybeard]

NO NO NO the breed was bred to hang on until what it was holding was dead..which was originally the butcher. Dogs that are really bred to kill are those that go to ground (ie hunt vermin) any terrier, dachsies etc.
Also Ridgebacks and one or two others that slip my mind

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[alteran]

The number one breed in attacks last year (can't find the citation for this, but I saw it in one of the Vick articles) was the C0cker Spaniel (my breed). You just never hear about other attacks because the evil Pit Bull has become something of a media focus.

Let's be fair-- I'm sure media hype plays a factor, but the comparative rarity of Kocker Spaniels* ripping off somebody's face also plays a significant factor. In fact, I'd say it's the biggest factor.

Lawn darts are illegal in this country. If used carefully, they're not really all that bad. But if used carelessly, they can be phenomenally dangerous to the owners, their neighbors, and any nearby children. And unfortunately, the vast majority of us live near people that are in many ways careless.

Same thing with dog breeds-- a crazy Kocker Spaniel is a nightclub joke. A crazy pit bull is an immediate threat to all around-- but most specifically children.

I don't know enough to say for certain that breed-specific legislation is a good idea, but I feel very comfortable saying that we shouldn't rule it out.

--alteran

* I'm with throaty that it is absurd to have to type "Kocker Spaniel" to get around a filter.

[billybreen]

Let's be fair-- I'm sure media hype plays a factor, but the comparative rarity of Kocker Spaniels* ripping off somebody's face also plays a significant factor. In fact, I'd say it's the biggest factor.

Same thing with dog breeds-- a crazy Kocker Spaniel is a nightclub joke. A crazy pit bull is an immediate threat to all around-- but most specifically children.

In a follow-up post I said:


Well, my c0cker spaniel wouldn't bite anything that isn't a tennis ball, so he's a bad comparison. But the second most bitey breed is the German Shepard, and that can do more damage.

The majority of fatal Pit Bull attacks involve packs of animals, and that again comes back to the carelessness or malice of the owners.

And as a follow-up to questions about breed specific legislation, taken from healtypet.com (http://www.healthypet.com/library_view.aspx?ID=16&sid=1):


It's also true that some breeds simply have more ability to injure people than others do. Though it's no more likely to bite than a smaller dog, if it does bite, a Great Dane can do much more damage than a Maltese, for example. (Even very small breeds can be dangerous to children, however.)

A study performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, analyzed dog bite statistics from the last 20 years and found that the statistics don't show that any breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. The study showed that the most popular large breed dogs at any one time were consistently on the list of breeds that bit fatally. There were a high number of fatal bites from Doberman pinschers in the 1970s, for example, because Dobermans were very popular at that time and there were more Dobermans around, and because Dobermans' size makes their bites more dangerous. The number of fatal bites from pit bulls rose in the 1980s for the same reason, and the number of bites from rottweilers in the 1990s. The study also noted that there are no reliable statistics for nonfatal dog bites, so there is no way to know how often smaller breeds are biting.

[Chard]

Socializing your dog has a lot more to do with temperament than what breed they are.

Dogs deserve better. (http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/home.html)

Dog fighters are a low form of pond scum. Mr. Vick is partially responsible no matter what. He is the owner of the property. We'll get to see the extent of his involvement in the coming months.

[BlueDiablo]

Lawn darts are illegal in this country. If used carefully, they're not really all that bad. But if used carelessly, they can be phenomenally dangerous to the owners, their neighbors, and any nearby children. And unfortunately, the vast majority of us live near people that are in many ways careless.

I miss lawn darts. Are the really illegal, or have toy manufacturers just stopped making them?

[greybeard]

Windsor, does pepper spray work? I used to run just when I saw pit-bull types. Now, I've got to go on line, pull down pictures of all these breeds, and be prepared. Good thing I'm lazy and drive everywhere.:)

By the way, they have dog parks? In DC, they don't even have parks for soccer. Wish that one was a joke! True story.

The dog lobby in DC is this strong: the one and only soccer league for kids in DC spend couple of hundred thousand to fix up a soccer field for its "travel" league teams. Dogs took it over, well actually their owners, when not in use. But, I think that only gigunda dogs were allowed, and the owners love to frolic and throw things so you know their dogs can really stretch their legs. They especially used to love it when it rained too much for the field to be used on weekends for games. You know, too wet to play or the field would be torn up. The dogs had so much fun.

The league wanted to put a beautiful iron fence around the field so that well, you know, they actually could play soccer games on it. Most DC travel teams now pay thousands to play on fields in a suburban soccer plex. Is that a dog park?

[alteran]

I miss lawn darts. Are the really illegal, or have toy manufacturers just stopped making them?
The bad news: while they are not technically against the law, they are banned for sale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_darts) in the US.

The good news: Happy Fun Ball (http://www.happyfunball.com/hfb.html) is still legal in 16 states.

--alteran

[Windsor]

Windsor, does pepper spray work? I used to run just when I saw pit-bull types. Now, I've got to go on line, pull down pictures of all these breeds, and be prepared. Good thing I'm lazy and drive everywhere.:)

Pepper spray might work....better to avoid an attack altogether. The absolute WORST thing you can do when confronted with an aggressive dog is RUN. Running makes you prey. Prey is bad. Very bad. (The worst thing you can do if your dog has run off is chase it. That's a game...I run you chase. Turn around and run like mad away from your loose dog...they'll chase you )

You'll be better of just learning to read dog body language than memorizing the breeds! It really is pretty easy. Dogs are not sneaky. They send very clear signals as to their intentions...if only people would read them.

[alteran]

Well, my c0cker spaniel wouldn't bite anything that isn't a tennis ball, so he's a bad comparison. But the second most bitey breed is the German Shepard, and that can do more damage.

The majority of fatal Pit Bull attacks involve packs of animals, and that again comes back to the carelessness or malice of the owners.

Good point. I guess what I didn't make clear is that I am by no means asserting that breeds are the core problem-- but that people poorly managing their inherent dangers is. Much like lawn darts.

In a perfect world, we could pass "responsibility" legislation and not worry about dangerous things. But in the real world, thoughtless people are going to remain ignorant of the dangers and continue to obtain things that are dangerous to all around them when handled carelessly, and the rest of us are going to have to deal with the consequences.

So, sometimes, it's sensible to legislate potentially dangerous things (like lawn darts) despite the fact that bad management is the real issue.

A badly managed toy poodle is not terribly dangerous. A badly managed pit bull is-- certainly more dangerous than lawn darts, which are banned.

You make a salient point-- Rottweilers, Shepherds, even Golden Retrievers can be every bit as dangerous as a Pit Bull, given bad circumstances. Where do we draw the line?

That's where I fall back on what was my original conclusion-- I don't know enough to say for certain that breed-specific legislation is a good idea (in fact, it may not be)-- but I sure as heck am not going to rule it out.


Socializing your dog has a lot more to do with temperament than what breed they are.

Unless I'm mistaken, that has never really been in dispute in this thread-- and I'm certain I'm not disputing it. The point I'm making is that since bad owners are inevitable, perhaps the inherent dangerousness vis-a-vis a breed's physical characteristics (say, bite strength, size) and instinctive characteristics (say, clamping on until their victim dies) should be considered in responsible public policy decisions.

Let me emphasize that a key word here is "considered."

There are many laws regulating animals-- and even specific breeds-- based primarily on the criteria I have given above. No breed of animal is a significant threat when handled responsibly, yet legislators have made decisions banning breeds because of the inherent dangers they present when poorly managed.

I simply do not see any rational reason why dogs should be treated any differently.

--alteran

[greybeard]

Pepper spray might work....better to avoid an attack altogether. The absolute WORST thing you can do when confronted with an aggressive dog is RUN. Running makes you prey. Prey is bad. Very bad. (The worst thing you can do if your dog has run off is chase it. That's a game...I run you chase. Turn around and run like mad away from your loose dog...they'll chase you )

You'll be better of just learning to read dog body language than memorizing the breeds! It really is pretty easy. Dogs are not sneaky. They send very clear signals as to their intentions...if only people would read them.

Widsor, most of what I've said has been to present the other side. But thanks for the info. I have had people with what I shall call scary dogs around my block and I did not like it, particularly since I had small children at the time. One, a pit, I believe, was next door (I live in a row house). Next door was a rental property, rented to a group of young guys. The property was rented through an agency; absentee owners. I had no difficulty in complaining to the agency, which in turn had no difficulty getting that dog gone. The other dangerous dog I believe belonged to a grown child of a neighbor, and was a visitor. When that doggie was in the area, which was usually on the weekends, my kids played in a fenced yard, not the front stoop.

BTW, true story, I had a neighbor who was a terrfic outdoorsman. Knew how to read animals and everything. While hiking with friends in Alaska, encountered a bear in a field near the only river crossing for miles. He was the first to go; no one else followed. Robert Bell was his name; a DC lawyer; made a gruesome story in the Washington Post. Grey "I only report the news, I don't make it" Beard

[Windsor]

The other dangerous dog I believe belonged to a grown child of a neighbor, and was a visitor. When that doggie was in the area, which was usually on the weekends, my kids played in a fenced yard, not the front stoop.


A wise decision. Children are particularly at risk. They run, they scream, they make erratic movements...all of the wrong things. Always err on the side of caution with children and dogs particularly young children. Most dogs bites on children come from the family pet and in it is usually the dogs 'first' bite.

Just as *lots* of car accidents could be prevent if drivers used common sense and a) paid attention to the actually driving part rather than their lunch, phone, passengers et al b)didn't drink if they were going to drive. Most (not all) dog incidents could be prevented if some common sense was used.

My dog club sends people out to most of the elementary schools and we do meet and greets and some tricks but most importantly we are trying to teach dog safety and responsible pet ownership. Our two most popular dogs at these events are....pit bulls, ironically my poodle doesn't go because he's not reliable around small children (he has never even tried to bite, but his body language tells me 'get them out of here'). I get a lot of abuse from the pit owners over that believe me!

I can always read what a dog is signaling, unfortuantley sometimes the methods to handle a situation don't work...at least I'm dealing with dogs not bears!

[DevilAlumna]

You'll be better of just learning to read dog body language than memorizing the breeds! It really is pretty easy. Dogs are not sneaky. They send very clear signals as to their intentions...if only people would read them.

Couldn't agree more. I highly recommend the book, "The Other End of the Leash (http://www.amazon.com/Other-End-Leash-Patricia-McConnell/dp/034544678X/ref=pd_sim_b_4/104-4275391-6741561?ie=UTF8&qid=1184959521&sr=1-16)." Not only is it entertainingly written, but you'll learn to look at your dog, and your interactions with it, in a whole new way.

[Windsor]

Couldn't agree more. I highly recommend the book, "The Other End of the Leash (http://www.amazon.com/Other-End-Leash-Patricia-McConnell/dp/034544678X/ref=pd_sim_b_4/104-4275391-6741561?ie=UTF8&qid=1184959521&sr=1-16)." Not only is it entertainingly written, but you'll learn to look at your dog, and your interactions with it, in a whole new way.


A superb choice!! One of my favorites and one the very best books on the subject.

For general training information "Dog Training for Dummies (http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Training-Dummies-Pets/dp/0764584189/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-0255950-4975125?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184960464&sr=1-1)"is wonderful. It covers a lot of info without getting lost in the theory and doesn't bash other training methods.

One more thing: unless you are Cesar Milan don't try to be Cesar Milan.:D

[mapei]

greybeard, I think you may have been intending to be ironic, but there are de facto dog parks all over the DC area. The Belt Road side of Fort Reno near my house, for instance. I can also count on seeing loose dogs in Little Falls Park every time I ride my bike there between Massachusetts Ave and the Capital Crescent Trail. I think there may be controversy over whether to make them legally sanctioned, but they exist, with or without legal authority.

[greybeard]

Sometimes life is stranger than $*!&

My fried Judy, who always just e-mails me jokes, and owns no dogs herself, just sent me an e-mail regarding the danger, as in deadly danger, "is there any other kind," raisins and grapes pose to your pooches. Nope, I'm not joking. according to Judy check out http://www.snopes.com.critters/crusader/raisins.asp, at least I think that I got that right.

[billybreen]

Sometimes life is stranger than $*!&

My fried Judy, who always just e-mails me jokes, and owns no dogs herself, just sent me an e-mail regarding the danger, as in deadly danger, "is there any other kind," raisins and grapes pose to your pooches. Nope, I'm not joking. according to Judy check out http://www.snopes.com.critters/crusader/raisins.asp, at least I think that I got that right.

URL is broken. Should be this (http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/raisins.asp).

[Windsor]

greybeard, I think you may have been intending to be ironic, but there are de facto dog parks all over the DC area. The Belt Road side of Fort Reno near my house, for instance. I can also count on seeing loose dogs in Little Falls Park every time I ride my bike there between Massachusetts Ave and the Capital Crescent Trail. I think there may be controversy over whether to make them legally sanctioned, but they exist, with or without legal authority.

Dog parks should defined fenced areas where the dogs can interact and run and be dog but can't chase passing cyclists, children et al. I am lucky that my area has several very nice parks

I bet you've been chased at least once!

[mapei]

Actually, I've found city dogs to be pretty cool around cyclists. In the country, though, it can get seriously scary sometimes.

[Lavabe]

Actually, I've found city dogs to be pretty cool around cyclists. In the country, though, it can get seriously scary sometimes.

Is this a city dog or a country dog?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0wcC_CP_VA

Finally, a Tour de France post.:D
Cheers,
Lavabe

[greybeard]

greybeard, I think you may have been intending to be ironic, but there are de facto dog parks all over the DC area. The Belt Road side of Fort Reno near my house, for instance. I can also count on seeing loose dogs in Little Falls Park every time I ride my bike there between Massachusetts Ave and the Capital Crescent Trail. I think there may be controversy over whether to make them legally sanctioned, but they exist, with or without legal authority.

Jezz, you guys must really think I live (at least in my head) on the moon. I've seen dog parks; just giving dog owners a little grief, because some dog owners think that they own the entire joint, including what used to be the "lone" decent public field for soccer in the entire District of Columbia. Now they own that too. With the size of those pooches of theirs, whose gonna argue with them?:cool:

[mapei]

Is this a city dog or a country dog?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0wcC_CP_VA

Finally, a Tour de France post.:D
Cheers,
Lavabe

I saw that live! The pooch, apparently, shook it off quickly.

And, WAY off topic, so did Vino today! I'm rooting for him (now that sentimental favorite Moreau is toast), but I think he may have been in too deep a hole to crawl out of. Still, tomorrow is another day that is going to shake up the standings, so qui sait?

[Lavabe]

I saw that live! The pooch, apparently, shook it off quickly.

And, WAY off topic, so did Vino today! I'm rooting for him (now that sentimental favorite Moreau is toast), but I think he may have been in too deep a hole to crawl out of. Still, tomorrow is another day that is going to shake up the standings, so qui sait?

Vino was fantastic today. So was Cadell, Rasmussen, Kloden, Contador, and ... shoot, the whole Tour was dynamite the last week. I think what makes Vino's performance today so special is seeing him fall the other day, get help from Kloden, manage to survive, struggle with his injuries, and turn it on today. If only Astana didn't wear that shade of blue!

Check out the last two climbs in tomorrow's route in the Pyrenees!
http://www.letour.fr/2007/TDF/LIVE/us/1400/etape_par_etape.html

The skill, competition, color, and coverage has me hooked again this year. With all the housecleaning in cycling, I am enjoying seeing new faces move up.

I'll add France during the Tour to my list of three places I'd like to see before I die (see dukemomLA's thread). And perhaps also Normandy Beach (see billybreen's "Oh France" post in Public Policy Board today).

Sure beats talking about Vick!
Cheers,
Lavabe

[mapei]

The skill, competition, color, and coverage has me hooked again this year. With all the housecleaning in cycling, I am enjoying seeing new faces move up.

Exactly. It's been the most enjoyable TdF for me in a decade because of that.

Put another way, with Lance & Floyd out, the announcers don't have a dog in the fight (heh - running and ducking, but getting back on topic, ya know), they actually have to talk about the race.

I like the Astana kits. Do they remind you of UNC? To me, it's a different shade altogether, more aqua. Milram is more like Carolina Blue, though I think I like theirs best of all.

[billybreen]

Put another way, with Lance & Floyd out, the announcers don't have a dog in the fight (heh - running and ducking, but getting back on topic, ya know), they actually have to talk about the race.

Dude, it's one thing to hijack a thread, but that's just callous ;)

[Windsor]

Put another way, with Lance & Floyd out, the announcers don't have a dog in the fight (heh - running and ducking, but getting back on topic, ya know), they actually have to talk about the race.


...and they have to think of new things to say. We played the cliche game in years past...count how many times they refered to Jan Ulrich as a "beast of man on a bicycle" or referenced him "turning over that massive gear" while Armstong was always "dancing on the pedals"