OT: Michael Vick

[k9fanatic]

So it's come out that Michael Vick is once again a dog owner. I know there are a lot of dog lovers on this board, so I was curious as to what people think.

Do you think he has legitimately changed and this is his chance to prove that he can be a loving and responsible pet owner, or do you think zebras can't change their stripes and he should never be allowed to have a dog again? Just curious.

 

[alexrgct]

We all have urges to do bad things. Some of us have even acted on those urges. Vick has paid a far steeper price for having done so than most.

What makes us human is our ability to resist those urges. As urges go, the urge to engage in competitive dogfighting is easier to resist than most.

 

[CONNFAN23]

I think that he is a disgusting monster and anybosy who even had a thought to do what he did to those poor animals should have been punished alot meore than he was and never ever have the right to own an animal again.

 

[alexrgct]

I think that he is a disgusting monster and anybosy who even had a thought to do what he did to those poor animals should have been punished alot meore than he was and never ever have the right to own an animal again.

Two years of his life and a hundred million dollars is a more than just punishment. People get way too emotional about this topic. Not everyone, and not every subculture in this country, feels the way about dogs as you do.

 

[UCONNfan1]

I agree wtih Connfan. I hate Vick and love to see him struggle in the NFL. Frankly, he could have gone to prison for 20 years and I wouldn't have lost any sleep over it.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike players, and fans "hate" them for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's as benign as just hating the team they play for. But what Vick did was way above and beyond. He did it over a long period of time as well. It's not like it was a one time "mistake". I totally get that people may not care about animals, and therefore fell he got a raw deal. But for those of us who do, it makes me feel sorry for the animal he now owns.

I also get that this is an incredibly divisive issue. I'd suggest that if people want to post, just list their opinions and leave it at that.

 

[CONNFAN23]

Two years of his life and a hundred million dollars is a more than just punishment. People get way too emotional about this topic. Not everyone, and not every subculture in this country, feels the way about dogs as you do.

Listen I gave my opinion and you gave yours. Lets agree to disagree because you will never win this one.

 

[VAUConnFan]

It's nobody's business unless there was some clause in his sentence forbidding him from ever owning a dog or any other animal. He has done his time; More time than most anyone else under similar circumstances. He can do whatever the heck he so desires whether we agree or disagree. I, personally, could not care less.

Now, if you want to start a petition to ban pit bulls and to ban pit bull ownership, I will support it 100%.

 

[Icebear]

I wish his sentencing would have included never having a dog in his presence ever again. I suspect no one thought that far forward. Owning a pet is not a right and abusing animals as he did should preclude any possibility of owning a dog again. That said if his sentence didn't include that I see no option unless he puts some other animal in jeopardy in the future.

 

[MilfordHusky]

With some reservations, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. Part of his sentencing resulted in him being a spokesperson for animal rights organizations. I think he has been sensitized and may get it right this time.

I agree with Alex about losing 2 years of his life, but he lost the $100M or so and then got much of it back in his latest contract. I hope he realizes how truly fortunate he is.

 

[alexrgct]

IHe earned it back by (remarkably given the circumstances) playing at a very high level and prompting the Eagles to award him a lucrative contract.

But to lose two years of your life, especially when you're in a field where you aren't promised anything but the next play and you don't have very long to earn money, is a severe penalty. He had his contract voided, and the Falcons went after him for more money.

I'm sorry that my rationality pisses off some people who want to hyperbolize about how awful he is, but he was punished to the full extent of the law. It's not like he got off easy because he was famous; he got pretty much the most punitive sentence associated with the laws in question. There is no 20 year sentence for the crimes in question. Get over it.

And again, not everyone is a dog lover. Some people find them annoying, loud, slobbering flea bags who crap everywhere and destroy stuff. Culturally, some folks grow up in communities where dogs have had a more sinister significance, and that's definitely true in Black communities in the South. Would be be a monster if he had managed a bug fighting ring? In some Asian cultures, people watch bug fighting and place bets. What about cock fighting? Would the elicit the same response? Hell, what if he was commissioner of the NFL and he oversaw a league that left human beings battered, broken, and used up for our entertainment? There is a lot more relativity here than dog lovers seem to understand. He was found guilty of a crime and punished to the fullest extent of the law, a punishment that was especially punitive given his profession. Why is that not enough?

Finally, I'm happy to live in a country in which punishment isn't simply about revenge, but also about rehabilitation. The man served his time, has gone above and beyond to speak on behalf of the ASPCA, and has kept his nose clean. If he wants to have a dog, I'm happy to live in a country that doesn't feel the need to regulate the life of someone who's not in jail or on parole/probation.

 

[Icebear]

Most Philly fans think the contract have thought the contract and retaining Vick was a terrible mistake because of his play and not his history.

 

[Icebear]

IHe earned it back by (remarkably given the circumstances) playing at a very high level and prompting the Eagles to award him a lucrative contract.

But to lose two years of your life, especially when you're in a field where you aren't promised anything but the next play and you don't have very long to earn money, is a severe penalty. He had his contract voided, and the Falcons went after him for more money.

I'm sorry that my rationality pisses off some people who want to hyperbolize about how awful he is, but he was punished to the full extent of the law. It's not like he got off easy because he was famous; he got pretty much the most punitive sentence associated with the laws in question. There is no 20 year sentence for the crimes in question. Get over it.

And again, not everyone is a dog lover. Some people find them annoying, loud, slobbering flea bags who crap everywhere and destroy stuff. Culturally, some folks grow up in communities where dogs have had a more sinister significance, and that's definitely true in Black communities in the South. Would be be a monster if he had managed a bug fighting ring? In some Asian cultures, people watch bug fighting and place bets. What about rooster fighting? Would the elicit the same response? Hell, what if he was commissioner of the NFL and he oversaw a league that left human beings battered, broken, and used up for our entertainment? There is a lot more relativity here than dog lovers seem to understand. He was found guilty of a crime and punished to the fullest extent of the law, a punishment that was especially punitive given his profession. Why is that not enough?

Finally, I'm happy to live in a country in which punishment isn't simply about revenge, but also about rehabilitation. The man served his time, has gone above and beyond to speak on behalf of the ASPCA, and has kept his nose clean. If he wants to have a dog, I'm happy to live in a country that doesn't feel the need to regulate the life of someone who's not in jail or on parole/probation.

I follow and appreciate your argument, Alex, however, it is equally possible to be just as rational and reach opposite conclusions. For me it is about the defenselessness of a pet. We go to great measure to attempt to protect children from abuse of all types, physical and sexual. The rational for that is the vulnerability, emotionally, psychologically, and physically of the potential victims. I feel the same way about our responsibility towards domesticated pets and the potential for abuse. Why should we trust the "rehab" of animal abusers anymore than we trust those who would abuse our children. We have protections for society in place even when supporting opportunity for those who have paid their "debt" and must be received back into community. It is very rational to protect the vulnerable. However, we are a nation of laws and since no such limit was placed by the courts on Vick, so be it. May he be a peace to himself and all who cross his path, humanity and pet.

 

[rbny1]

He served his punishment and is free to move on with his life. I believe in forgiveness once someone has paid the price. I'm a pet owner and have no problem with his owning a dog, assuming he treats it well. If he doesn't, that's another story.

 

[ursusminor]

I agree with icebear. The dependence of our domestic pets on our willingness to care for them, their inability to comprehend why someone would hurt them, and lack of resources for defending themselves are all similar in my mind to the capacity of a small child. Those who hold that opinion see this entire subject in a very different light than those who don't.
Regarding the commissioner of the NFL comment, the people who participate in that are adults who are fully capable of understanding the risks and choose to participate. I think that's a different thing entirely.

 

[EricLA]

Count me among the people who think he's a monster. Regardless of whether he "paid his debt to society", I will never wish anything good for him in this lifetime. As for owning a dog, there's nothing in his sentencing that said he could never own an animal again (there should have been). Having said that, we will never have any idea if he abuses his dog now or is a responsible pet owner. But anyone who puts on dog fights, enjoys watching them kill each other, and on top of that, kills them if they don't perform well enough, is a very sick man.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Count me among the people who think he's a monster. Regardless of whether he "paid his debt to society", I will never wish anything good for him in this lifetime. As for owning a dog, there's nothing in his sentencing that said he could never own an animal again (there should have been). Having said that, we will never have any idea if he abuses his dog now or is a responsible pet owner. But anyone who puts on dog fights, enjoys watching them kill each other, and on top of that, kills them if they don't perform well enough, is a very sick man.

I actually don't have a problem with him having a dog BUT I hope it is a pet dog. What he had (owned before) were not pets in the real meaning of the word, but dogs he owned so he could fight them and win money (presumably). But Eric is right in saying that the dog fighting thing is just sick.

While I get the analogy to child abuse, I agree with what was said earlier in the thread, that resisting the urge to engage in dog fighting shouldn't be the most difficult temptation in the world to resist. While a psychologist could tell me I'm wrong, I suspect it is far different from the type of things that go on in the mind of a child abuser.

 

[OneTrickPony]

I can tell you that Michael Vick couldn't adopt a dog at an Atlanta shelter today...

 

[Icebear]

I suspect it is far different from the type of things that go on in the mind of a child abuser.

Only if you mean sexual abuse, the parallels for emotional and physical abuse would likely have a high correlation. There is a reason most serial killers start off abusing animals. And no, I do not mean that everyone that abuses animals is likely to become a serial killer the correlation doesn't work in both directions.

 

[k9fanatic]

It's nobody's business unless there was some clause in his sentence forbidding him from ever owning a dog or any other animal. He has done his time; More time than most anyone else under similar circumstances. He can do whatever the heck he so desires whether we agree or disagree. I, personally, could not care less.

Now, if you want to start a petition to ban pit bulls and to ban pit bull ownership, I will support it 100%.

How about we start a petition to ban the low-life, scumbag dirtballs that engage in torturing these poor animals because they find amusement in dog fights.

Pit bulls were around long before they caught the attention of these depraved individuals who took the breed's best traits, loyalty and unwavering desire to please its master, and used them against the animals. And then just kept on breeding for more and more aggression.

The silver lining is that pitties have become a cause among the dog rescue community and I think through education, awareness and a steady migration into suburbia, these wonderful, loving dogs will soon lose their stigma and will once again be accepted as just another family dog. At least, that's my hope.

 

[diggerfoot]

I think there is a lot of irony in this thread. My perspective coming into this is I have a "soft heart" but would not really consider myself focused on animal rights. I'll readily eat a venison steak, for example. Having said that, historically the worst thing humans have done to other species is eliminate, pollute or alter their habitats. Granted, we are talking about a "conceptual detachment" more than an emotional one regarding the greatest harm we've done animals. Someone is not a "monster" emotionally simply because they own ten acres of lawn instead of one. Yet along the same vein I see it as a much easier task to point out and correct in individuals the problem of brutal animal crimes than to correct the greater problem of eliminating habitat.

 

[OneTrickPony]

I think there is a lot of irony in this thread. My perspective coming into this is I have a "soft heart" but would not really consider myself focused on animal rights. I'll readily eat a venison steak, for example. Having said that, historically the worst thing humans have done to other species is eliminate, pollute or alter their habitats. Granted, we are talking about a "conceptual detachment" more than an emotional one regarding the greatest harm we've done animals. Someone is not a "monster" emotionally simply because they own ten acres of lawn instead of one. Yet along the same vein I see it as a much easier task to point out and correct in individuals the problem of brutal animal crimes than to correct the greater problem of eliminating habitat.

We'll bear that in mind when you want to be ransomed from the eco-terrorists...

 

[diggerfoot]

We'll bear that in mind when you want to be ransomed from the eco-terrorists...

Admittedly, the connection or joke you are making with eco-terrorism went over my head, but I have a feeling its a stretch and asking you to explain it would be material for another board.

 

[arty155]

... not everyone is a dog lover... annoying, loud, slobbering ... sinister...

Psssst! Alex! Alex! Buddy! Ah, … you’re still logged onto your Husky website, man.

 

[willtalk]

When I first saw this thread I thought that Vick had commited to Ucon. Then I assumed the interest was because you are after all Huskys.

I did have a highly negative opinion on Vick mainly because his treatment of Mans best friend was much more than cruelty to an animal. It was a betrayal of trust. He would not have been able to slam that Dog if it were not his dog. I would challenge him or anyone to go up to a strange pit and slam him to the ground. It was only the dogs loyal nature that kept it from defending itself. Dogs are loyal to their owners and when that loyalty is used to abuse them it is a betrayal of the highest order. It was also totally unneccessary in that he did not have to kill them for economic reasons. He only killed them because they would not fight. When they no longer served his purpose.

But as to now I don't know if I would forbid him to have a dog in his home. Do we deny his children the opportunity for the lessons and companionship that a dog provides? I don't know how much his additude has really changed but I doubt if it would manifest itself in any negative manner at this time.

 

[Husk-E]

I think that he is a disgusting monster and anybosy who even had a thought to do what he did to those poor animals should have been punished alot meore than he was and never ever have the right to own an animal again.

Seriously, you think people can't change. I think time (lots of it) money (lots of it) and disrespect by your old fans (yes, lots of that too), is a very large price to pay, and it can really change your life for the better. Trust me, I'm sure this dog will have a very happy life with it's new owner.