Vick: A new dog could help my rehabilitation

[Patler]

There are a lot of people lower than dogs in my opinion and Vick is one of them. I don't care how far he throws a football. Deviant behavior is deviant behavior. Why don't one of you research this type of behavior. I posted some references from the FBI that i guess have been ignored. Let's just say that his actions get him in the company with the likes of Dahmer. Torturing animals is what it is and there isn't a way around it nor should there be. It means you are psychologically fucked up and that's not an opinion.

I'm not sure what Vick did is the same thing at all. The deviant behavior seen in serial killers is torturing and killing animals for the thrill of doing it to them. Animal fighting is different, whether it be dogs, bulls, chickens or whatever. You can say what you want, but dog fighting is not that far removed from bull fighting; which had an honored status not long ago. Some will tell you that boxing and ultimate fighting satisfy the same primal urges in humans, previously satiated by gladiators.

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Vick's methods for culling his pack certainly bother a lot of people, but tolerated culling practices in animal husbandry often are not very pretty. For example, in some states hanging is an acceptable way to kill unwanted pigs, or at least it was not too long ago. Live chickens are thrown into macerators and chopped up. Acceptable butchering practices are often not much better, sometimes with conscious animals being bled to death. Then there is the end experienced by many lobsters!

People are repulsed by the way some of Vick's dogs were housed, but veal calves, chickens and many other animals are treated no better.

To Vick, his fighting dogs were not pets in the way we think of dogs, they were his product just like a farmer's animals. The treatment of all such animals is often quite rough to an outsider, but not at all barbaric to the farmer. It is simply what has to be done.

I think very few of us can understand the dog fighting culture, yet we are willing to condemn someone for it without understanding it, while similar treatment of other animals (bull fighting) is even revered by some.

It's a sticky distinction we make.

[Fritz]

I'm not sure what Vick did is the same thing at all. The deviant behavior seen in serial killers is torturing and killing animals for the thrill of doing it to them. Animal fighting is different, whether it be dogs, bulls, chickens or whatever. You can say what you want, but dog fighting is not that far removed from bull fighting; which had an honored status not long ago. Some will tell you that boxing and ultimate fighting satisfy the same primal urges in humans, previously satiated by gladiators.

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Vick's methods for culling his pack certainly bother a lot of people, but tolerated culling practices in animal husbandry often are not very pretty. For example, in some states hanging is an acceptable way to kill unwanted pigs, or at least it was not too long ago. Live chickens are thrown into macerators and chopped up. Acceptable butchering practices are often not much better, sometimes with conscious animals being bled to death. Then there is the end experienced by many lobsters!

People are repulsed by the way some of Vick's dogs were housed, but veal calves, chickens and many other animals are treated no better.

To Vick, his fighting dogs were not pets in the way we think of dogs, they were his product just like a farmer's animals. The treatment of all such animals is often quite rough to an outsider, but not at all barbaric to the farmer. It is simply what has to be done.

I think very few of us can understand the dog fighting culture, yet we are willing to condemn someone for it without understanding it, while similar treatment of other animals (bull fighting) is even revered by some.

It's a sticky distinction we make.

You are a good example of this status. You wear glasses and clothing, and you post on Packerrats.

[Patler]

You are a good example of this status. You wear glasses and clothing, and you post on Packerrats.

ARF! Arf!

[mraynrand]

I'm not sure what Vick did is the same thing at all. The deviant behavior seen in serial killers is torturing and killing animals for the thrill of doing it to them. Animal fighting is different, whether it be dogs, bulls, chickens or whatever. You can say what you want, but dog fighting is not that far removed from bull fighting; which had an honored status not long ago. Some will tell you that boxing and ultimate fighting satisfy the same primal urges in humans, previously satiated by gladiators.

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Vick's methods for culling his pack certainly bother a lot of people, but tolerated culling practices in animal husbandry often are not very pretty. For example, in some states hanging is an acceptable way to kill unwanted pigs, or at least it was not too long ago. Live chickens are thrown into macerators and chopped up. Acceptable butchering practices are often not much better, sometimes with conscious animals being bled to death. Then there is the end experienced by many lobsters!

People are repulsed by the way some of Vick's dogs were housed, but veal calves, chickens and many other animals are treated no better.

To Vick, his fighting dogs were not pets in the way we think of dogs, they were his product just like a farmer's animals. The treatment of all such animals is often quite rough to an outsider, but not at all barbaric to the farmer. It is simply what has to be done.

I think very few of us can understand the dog fighting culture, yet we are willing to condemn someone for it without understanding it, while similar treatment of other animals (bull fighting) is even revered by some.

It's a sticky distinction we make.

You may have forgotten that after his fighting dogs were no longer 'suitable' for the 'ring,' Vick and his cronies lustily engaged in electrocutions, hangings, and drawn out strangling of these 'leftover' dogs. I know a lot of farmers from my days in Iowa - can't say I knew any that treated their animals thusly.

[MJZiggy]

You may have forgotten that after his fighting dogs were no longer 'suitable' for the 'ring,' Vick and his cronies lustily engaged in electrocutions, hangings, and drawn out strangling of these 'leftover' dogs. I know a lot of farmers from my days in Iowa - can't say I knew any that treated their animals thusly.

So then working on your previous statement about post-incarceration behavior of convicted felons, and the ideas of repeating learned behavior, what happens when he gets his girls a dog and the thing keeps pooping on the good rug?

[mraynrand]

What's your point? Maybe Vick electrocutes his dog - or his girls. God knows. I think I would hit Vick on the nose with a rolled newspaper if I had an opposable thumb.

[bobblehead]

You were completely comparing the crimes. You asked if any of us would be comfortable with a child in the presence of a child molester to test whether recovery had happened. the crimes (and the person who commits them) are not similar enough to allow that comparison.

No, I was using the child molester comparison because it gets peoples attention. I was also using it to make you actually think about what you (he) were saying. The man was barbaric towards dogs. I am not comparing it to child molestation, I am comparing it to being barbaric to dogs, but to break through his preconceived idea that its no biggie I was pointing out that its a crime and has consequences like other crimes.

You say the crimes are not similar enough to make the comparison, I would say you are wrong. Actually, brutality escalates in most cases, not fades. It is "no biggie" for a guy who brutalized dogs to not be allowed to own one again. The consequences I am comparing are as equally "not similar" enough as the crime. My point is that when you commit crimes you suffer the consequences. I used child molester to provoke thought. No one would want a convicted child molester to adopt a child. NO ONE (except nambla). But on the other hand letting a dog fighter have a dog is "no biggie". You say the recidivism is "not likely" as high as child molesters. Back that up?? And its irrelevant, the law and his deal stated no dogs. It didn't say no dogs if recidivism is unlikely. A man kills his cheating wife is barred from ever owning a handgun again. The likely hood he kills again is very low. I would bet its less likely than dog fighting recidivism (I won't back that up either cuz I'm lazy).

Again, if I were TRULY comparing the crimes I would be advocating taking his kids away. I never even remotely suggested that. I would also say he should have served a tad more time. I didn't say that either. I said he shouldn't own a dog, a legitimate consequence for his crime.

PS...I specifically followed the post where I sarcastically address the "test his resolve" rubbish by stating redemption for crimes comes with CERTAIN restrictions....embezzlers working in finance and such.

[bobblehead]

I'm not sure what Vick did is the same thing at all. The deviant behavior seen in serial killers is torturing and killing animals for the thrill of doing it to them. Animal fighting is different, whether it be dogs, bulls, chickens or whatever. You can say what you want, but dog fighting is not that far removed from bull fighting; which had an honored status not long ago. Some will tell you that boxing and ultimate fighting satisfy the same primal urges in humans, previously satiated by gladiators.

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Vick's methods for culling his pack certainly bother a lot of people, but tolerated culling practices in animal husbandry often are not very pretty. For example, in some states hanging is an acceptable way to kill unwanted pigs, or at least it was not too long ago. Live chickens are thrown into macerators and chopped up. Acceptable butchering practices are often not much better, sometimes with conscious animals being bled to death. Then there is the end experienced by many lobsters!

People are repulsed by the way some of Vick's dogs were housed, but veal calves, chickens and many other animals are treated no better.

To Vick, his fighting dogs were not pets in the way we think of dogs, they were his product just like a farmer's animals. The treatment of all such animals is often quite rough to an outsider, but not at all barbaric to the farmer. It is simply what has to be done.

I think very few of us can understand the dog fighting culture, yet we are willing to condemn someone for it without understanding it, while similar treatment of other animals (bull fighting) is even revered by some.

It's a sticky distinction we make.

This is great in debating wether the law is just or not, but it IS the law. If you wish to lobby congress to change it, this is a very good start. If you wish to make the point that vick didn't break the law on the books and doesn't deserve to accept said punishment its a non factor.

[MJZiggy]

What's your point? Maybe Vick electrocutes his dog - or his girls. God knows. I think I would hit Vick on the nose with a rolled newspaper if I had an opposable thumb.

My point was that the best prediction of future behavior is past behavior. The behaviors and reactions that Vick has learned through his previous exposure to dogs are more likely to be repeated if the dog does something trying as all dogs do from time to time. I would duct tape the newspaper to your paw to give you the opportunity, but I'd rather you just bit his nose off for thinking of such a stupid idea as to publicly suggest something like this. He was a step beyond abusive toward the animals he had and I don't care if they're "just animals," they're conscious creatures who shouldn't have to be beaten, starved or electrocuted and part of his punishment for his behavior toward them is that he not be near them again. Think of it as a restraining order for our furry friends.

[Patler]

You may have forgotten that after his fighting dogs were no longer 'suitable' for the 'ring,' Vick and his cronies lustily engaged in electrocutions, hangings, and drawn out strangling of these 'leftover' dogs. I know a lot of farmers from my days in Iowa - can't say I knew any that treated their animals thusly.

Nope, I had not forgotten it at all, which is why I brought up accepted culling practices for various animals.
- Hanging was and I believe is still an acceptable practice for killing large disabled or ill pigs in Iowa, sanctioned by the state.
- Hanging a large pig can result in death taking 4-5 minutes from strangulation, although some vets argue unconsciousness occurs in less than 1 minute. This is one of PETA's big fights at the present.
- Electrocutions are not uncommon in culling and slaughtering practices.
- Electrocutions were accepted forms of human executions.
- Not long ago drowning was used extensively for culling small newborn animals of many types. May still be, I don't know.
- Roosters hatched in large egg raising operations are thrown into shredders, while live.

I was born and raised on a farm and have relatives and friends still farming animals. When an animal is not suitable for its intended purpose, it is dispatched, usually as inexpensively as possible. Fifty years ago, when there was no market for selling bull calves born on a dairy farm (cows were bred every year to renew their lactation cycles), after a few days letting it nurse from the cow until the cow's milk was clear for sale, an accepted practice was to knock the calf in the head with a hammer and cut its neck. Efficient and inexpensive, even if a bit messy. How unconscious it was at the time depended on the diligence of the farmer. So long as it was submissive, some didn't care much.

Electrical stun guns are used in slaughtering animals like lambs and when the brain is desired for consumption. The animal is stunned, then bled. Who knows how unconscious it is at the time?

I read nothing about what Vick did to his dogs in keeping them and killing them that I didn't already know to be widely used for housing or culling animals of other types. Hanging, electrocution, strangulation were/are widely used. Live beheadings are used for butchering fowl, snapping necks when culling chicks.

I don't like what Vick did either. I am guilty of treating my dogs more like humans than a lot of people do. However, I understand that to some a dog is no different than a lamb, a pig, a chicken or a cow. Why is hanging, electrocuting or strangling a dog different than doing it to a pig, lamb or other animal?

Emotionally, what Vick did bothers me a lot because of my personal feelings toward dogs. However, removing emotion and comparing it to the accepted treatment of other animals puts it in a somewhat different light.

I admit to having very mixed reactions to the whole Vick saga, with the emotional side of me battling the analytical side of me.

[Brandon494]

Nope, I had not forgotten it at all, which is why I brought up accepted culling practices for various animals.
- Hanging was and I believe is still an acceptable practice for killing large disabled or ill pigs in Iowa, sanctioned by the state.
- Hanging a large pig can result in death taking 4-5 minutes from strangulation, although some vets argue unconsciousness occurs in less than 1 minute. This is one of PETA's big fights at the present.
- Electrocutions are not uncommon in culling and slaughtering practices.
- Electrocutions were accepted forms of human executions.
- Not long ago drowning was used extensively for culling small newborn animals of many types. May still be, I don't know.
- Roosters hatched in large egg raising operations are thrown into shredders, while live.

I was born and raised on a farm and have relatives and friends still farming animals. When an animal is not suitable for its intended purpose, it is dispatched, usually as inexpensively as possible. Fifty years ago, when there was no market for selling bull calves born on a dairy farm (cows were bred every year to renew their lactation cycles), after a few days letting it nurse from the cow until the cow's milk was clear for sale, an accepted practice was to knock the calf in the head with a hammer and cut its neck. Efficient and inexpensive, even if a bit messy. How unconscious it was at the time depended on the diligence of the farmer. So long as it was submissive, some didn't care much.

Electrical stun guns are used in slaughtering animals like lambs and when the brain is desired for consumption. The animal is stunned, then bled. Who knows how unconscious it is at the time?

I read nothing about what Vick did to his dogs in keeping them and killing them that I didn't already know to be widely used for housing or culling animals of other types. Hanging, electrocution, strangulation were/are widely used. Live beheadings are used for butchering fowl, snapping necks when culling chicks.

I don't like what Vick did either. I am guilty of treating my dogs more like humans than a lot of people do. However, I understand that to some a dog is no different than a lamb, a pig, a chicken or a cow. Why is hanging, electrocuting or strangling a dog different than doing it to a pig, lamb or other animal?

Emotionally, what Vick did bothers me a lot because of my personal feelings toward dogs. However, removing emotion and comparing it to the accepted treatment of other animals puts it in a somewhat different light.

I admit to having very mixed reactions to the whole Vick saga, with the emotional side of me battling the analytical side of me.

Good post, exactly how I feel.

[Patler]

This is great in debating wether the law is just or not, but it IS the law. If you wish to lobby congress to change it, this is a very good start. If you wish to make the point that vick didn't break the law on the books and doesn't deserve to accept said punishment its a non factor.

I never suggested that he didn't break the law; but this thread and my comment were not about that. The thread was started based on Vick's desire for a change in his punishment. Murderers, rapists, molesters, thieves, embezzlers and political prisoners of various types have had sentences reduced or modified, and have been granted parole based on their perceived rehabilitation. The nature of the original crime, the suitability of the original punishment, the perpetrators rehabilitation, remorse and current demeanor and actions are all considered in parole and clemency hearings.

Is what Vick is asking for really any different than a "parole" from his original punishment?

[Freak Out]

So hog farmers and Vick really aren't so different after all.

[mraynrand]

Nope, I had not forgotten it at all, which is why I brought up accepted culling practices for various animals. Why is hanging, electrocuting or strangling a dog different than doing it to a pig, lamb or other animal?

Intent. Intent. Intent. That you can't make the distinction is stunning to me.

[Guiness]

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Well said Patler.

Until resonably recently, greyhound racing was a popular sport. The way the greyhounds were treated, and disposed of when their careers were over, was deplorable.

How did they get away with it? In a lot of states (I think it's still the case in Kansas) greyhounds were classified as livestock, so animal cruelty laws generally didn't apply to them.

Want to see what is likely the most in-humane treatment of animals by people? Look into egg-laying operations.