budlitebrad Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I'm gonna change the topic for a second, since I heard something on Sirius yesterday that brought up a good question. Why did Rick Tocchet only get probation after pleading guilty to gambling charges? I didn't follow that case very closely, so I'm curious, especially since there were millions of dollars going through that gambling ring, opposed to thousands with dogfighting. I'm assuming that the brutality of the sport itself and the fact that Vick is a bigger name than Tocchet and Gretzky overshadowed the gambling aspect, but I was just looking for other opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Two things... 1) This sort of accident is not exclusive to pits. And while I don't know EXACTLY how your father-in-law raised his dog that behavior is not breed-specific... all types of dogs can and will bite humans if that dog's needs are not being met (consistent and persistent exercise, discipline and leadership). 2) You say he/she "was raised to be a nice dog" by your father-in-law. Again, I don't want to make any judgments about him but many people think they're raising their dog to be a "nice dog." Dogs don't understand how to be "nice." Dogs need exercise and discipline. Some dogs may need more exercise or more discipline. Either way the outcome is the same... a balanced, well socialized, submissive dog. Well they raise horses for a living just fine and have a good business selling what they raise...quite sure they can raise a dog. It killed me to shoot the dog....it was a sweet dog. It got spooked or something....had NOTHING to do with its raising....had to do with its NATURE. Terriers are hyper by NATURE and agressive by NATURE. Now that can be muted by training for sure....but again....it is not a PERFECT science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Wow, I wasn't insulted, but now I'm starting to get the feeling I should be pissed at Billay. me 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 My father in law had a pit since its birth.....it was raised to be a nice dog...and it snapped at my daughter because she got in its face....little 4 year old. I took the dog and threw the damn thing against the wall and took it out back and shot it.......should I go to jail with Mike Vick.....that is what the HUMANE society would have done. Peep...I agree...as with humans environment is part of the equation...but it is not the whole equation...dogs can be retarded like humans and do things against their nature. The NATURE of TERRIERS are that they are hyper and aggressive....that is not in dispute. So while they can be trained otherwise....when in a situation where they have not been trained or have forgotten their training....they resort to their NATURE....if this makes sense you are one up on me!!!! LOL It makes plain sense to me just fine. You said it yourself. You train it to be how you want it to be. If you stop training it, then that is your fault. If it "forgets", that too is your fault for not continuing its education. If you take a child out of 5th grade, do you think they will go on to be a successful citizen? No. People, just like any animal, needs constant training in order for it to be either a well behaved/trained dog, or a person who doesnt resort to violence just to get by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Well they raise horses for a living just fine and have a good business selling what they raise...quite sure they can raise a dog. It killed me to shoot the dog....it was a sweet dog. It got spooked or something....had NOTHING to do with its raising....had to do with its NATURE. Terriers are hyper by NATURE and agressive by NATURE. Now that can be muted by training for sure....but again....it is not a PERFECT science. Im with Kingfish... I too dont have any idea about your father and his ability to raise dogs, but dont confuse dogs with horses. Just because I can train a dog doesnt mean I can train a horse, just like he can raise a horse doesnt mean he can raise a dog. They are 2 different animals. I have a golden ret. and a boxer. Neither one will bite anyone, unless someone is attacking me. Not threatening me, but attacking me. And to be honest, I dont know if they would even do it then because I have raised them as PETS, and not guard dogs. If you raise any dog as a "guard dog", and by that I mean to bark at doorbells or knocks, or to bark at a neighbor, or whever, then of course it has aggressive tendencies and has the potential to bite anyone. Nothing is a perfect science. There will always be exceptions to everything, but I promise you that if the majority of pit owners raised them as pets and not guard dogs, you wouldnt hear about people getting mauled by them all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 (edited) Well they raise horses for a living just fine and have a good business selling what they raise...quite sure they can raise a dog. It killed me to shoot the dog....it was a sweet dog. It got spooked or something....had NOTHING to do with its raising....had to do with its NATURE. Terriers are hyper by NATURE and agressive by NATURE. Now that can be muted by training for sure....but again....it is not a PERFECT science. All due respect to your father-in-law but it's impossible, even for you, to know how he really treated the dog. If he took him for walks or just let him roam the property. If he physically hit his dog etc. Again, dogs that bite or are aggressive aren't exclusive to pits or owners that don't give a damn or are inherently cruel. There are MANY well-meaning dog owners out there that don't have a clue as to how to really raise a balanced, calm, submissive dog. You can train a dog to do back-flips but if you don't meet the dog's needs, I'll show you a dog with issues. I'm talking about relating to a dog on a primal level, not a training level. Hyper is primal... not getting enough controlled exercise. Aggressive is primal... inconsistent, excited, and/or weak leadership and discipline. Look... all I'm trying to say is that no matter the breed, dogs are dogs first and foremost. If their owners do not work on the issues of the dog species THEN the breed THEN the individual dog, in that order, that dog will have issues... no matter the size, breed, color, sex, shape. Edited August 22, 2007 by kingfish247 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Misfit Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 The sad thing about all this is ... you two have so much in common. billay, levitate the "a" out of your name, BB, give the Bronco back to OJ ... and, viola! you're the same anonymous innernets poster. You shouldn't be fighting. You should be loving each other, regaling each other wth stories of football and beer, wommin loved and lost, politics disillusioned. It's truly sad to see you guys slam each other like this. I blame Michael Vick. His crime against the dog kingdom has belittled us all. He has hurt the dog kingdom, he has hurt the football kingdom, and of all the kingdoms I know about, those are my two favorites. Michael Vick is da debil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 The sad thing about all this is ... you two have so much in common. billay, levitate the "a" out of your name, BB, give the Bronco back to OJ ... and, viola! you're the same anonymous innernets poster. You shouldn't be fighting. You should be loving each other, regaling each other wth stories of football and beer, wommin loved and lost, politics disillusioned. It's truly sad to see you guys slam each other like this. I blame Michael Vick. His crime against the dog kingdom has belittled us all. He has hurt the dog kingdom, he has hurt the football kingdom, and of all the kingdoms I know about, those are my two favorites. Michael Vick is da debil. I can hear your heart breaking from here Misfit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 You know BB, you have to ease up on the vocabulary a bit from time to time. I mean we here are trying to focus on FF this time of year and honestly my brain then has to switch gears quite a bit to keep up with your posts. Hell I finally figure out what you're trying to say in one part of a post and then you gotta go ahead and throw me another curveball of a word in another part. Billay probably doesn't even know how you honestly feel at this point. Aren't you a teacher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted August 22, 2007 Author Share Posted August 22, 2007 At the end of the day, dogs are still animals, so no matter how well they are trained, you still have to be careful around them, and that is the responsibility of the dog owner. The almost exclusive reason that there are "bad dogs" is that there are bad dog owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 The sad thing about all this is ... you two have so much in common. billay, levitate the "a" out of your name, BB, give the Bronco back to OJ ... and, viola! you're the same anonymous innernets poster. You shouldn't be fighting. You should be loving each other, regaling each other wth stories of football and beer, wommin loved and lost, politics disillusioned. It's truly sad to see you guys slam each other like this. I've got no problems with billay other than feeling the need to bust his balls in this thread a bit. If I saw him in a bar tonight, I'd buy him a beer & BS with him for the rest of the night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Im with Kingfish... I too dont have any idea about your father and his ability to raise dogs, but dont confuse dogs with horses. Just because I can train a dog doesnt mean I can train a horse, just like he can raise a horse doesnt mean he can raise a dog. They are 2 different animals. I have a golden ret. and a boxer. Neither one will bite anyone, unless someone is attacking me. Not threatening me, but attacking me. And to be honest, I dont know if they would even do it then because I have raised them as PETS, and not guard dogs. If you raise any dog as a "guard dog", and by that I mean to bark at doorbells or knocks, or to bark at a neighbor, or whever, then of course it has aggressive tendencies and has the potential to bite anyone. Nothing is a perfect science. There will always be exceptions to everything, but I promise you that if the majority of pit owners raised them as pets and not guard dogs, you wouldnt hear about people getting mauled by them all the time. Had a beagle...had no training...wouldn't bite anyone....it was not in the dogs nature to do so. He was also well nurtured...but I can attest he did not get what I would consider enough exercise. Dogs don't have the ability to reason...so therefore they only have training and nature...that is it. And you cannot tell me with all seriousness that you think a human with training tactics can overwhelm nature 100% of the time...that is called a GOD COMPLEX. I could simply use the two dumba$$es in vegas who did shows with the Tiger. The Tiger bit the trainer......not because the trainer didn't train him well enough....NATURE took over. Again....while you guys attempt to see my point and then poopoo it by saying if you can raise horses..yada yada yada....you cannot control NATURE 100% of the time...it is illogical to think you could do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted August 22, 2007 Author Share Posted August 22, 2007 If I saw him in a bar tonight, I'd buy him a beer give him a reach around for the rest of the night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 He'd have to be pretty cute for something like that on a 1st date... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 (edited) IN a related story, this is part of whats wrong with this country today http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2986382 NFL should let Vick play after sentence, NAACP says Associated Press ATLANTA -- An NAACP leader said Michael Vick should be allowed to return to the NFL, preferably the Atlanta Falcons, after serving his sentence for his role in a dogfighting operation. "As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football," said R.L. White, president of the NAACP's Atlanta chapter. "We further ask the NFL, Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country." White said the Falcons quarterback is a human being who has made a mistake and should be allowed to prove that he has learned from that mistake. On Monday, Vick said through a lawyer that he will plead guilty to a federal charge of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiracy to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture. Three Vick associates have pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and say Vick provided nearly all the gambling and operating funds for the "Bad Newz Kennels" dogfighting enterprise. Two of them also said Vick participated in executing at least eight underperforming dogs, raising the possibility of the animal cruelty charges. As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football. Atlanta NAACP Chapter President R.L. White Last month, state and local leaders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People urged the public not to rush to judgment in the Vick case. The civil rights organization said animal rights groups, talk radio and the news media were vilifying the embattled athlete, and that his team and corporate sponsors were prematurely punishing Vick. White said the Atlanta chapter supports Vick's decision to accept a plea bargain if it's in his best interest, but he questioned the credibility of Vick's co-defendants, saying an admission of guilt might be more about cutting losses than the truth. "At this point, you're not looking at guilt or innocence," White said, referring to the possible harsher sentence Vick could have received had he taken his case to trial and been found guilty. "You're thinking, 'What I better do is cut my losses and take a plea.' But if he saw this as the best thing to do at this point for his future, then I think he made the correct choice." White said he regretted that the plea deal will mean all the facts of the case might never be known. "Some have said things to save their own necks," White said. "Michael Vick has received more negative press than if he had killed a human being." White said he does not support dogfighting and that he considers it as bad as hunting. "His crime is, it was a dog," White said My comments on this Lets get this straight the NAACP went after Imus the way Peta went after Vick, but you certainly dont see them saying lets rehabilitate Imus. The NAACP went after those boys at Duke, were dead ass wrong, and disappreared after the fact. Yet they spew this BS, that Vick may not be guilty and they wish all the facts could come out. hmm... Why is that, so they can run and hide when Vick is guilty of brutalizing those dogs. Im not a hunter, but anyone who cant understand the difference between hunting wild animals, vs electocuting or drowning dogs, after they lose a dog fighting match is an idiot. First of all, its illegal to bet on dog fighting, but why do you think they do it, for entertainment without gambling, get real. Second, they torture these animals to make them violate and that is somehow the same as instantly killing a deer with a rifle. What a joke. Edited August 22, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 At the end of the day, dogs are still animals, so no matter how well they are trained, you still have to be careful around them, and that is the responsibility of the dog owner. The almost exclusive reason that there are "bad dogs" is that there are bad dog owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraftykraft Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I wonder how many other athletes might be involved in dog fighting. First, you have had some pretty insensitive/stupid comments not only from guys like Stephon Marbury, but also notably Clinton Portis. Then, you have a lot of athletes who like to own "figthing" breeds like pitbulls and whatever. Then you have the whole "big dog" psyche thing, where some athletes equate their status to or admire the "leader of the pack". All this is really circumstantial, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Michael Vick is not alone in his involvement in dog fighting, and that other athletes bet on or attend dog fights and maybe the only difference between them and Vick is that Vick got caught and actually tried to set up a good-sized dog fighting operation and venue as opposed to owning a few dogs and just betting or attending fights every now and then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Wow, I wasn't insulted, but now I'm starting to get the feeling I should be pissed at Billay. Me 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 torturing these animals to make them violent is somehow the same as instantly killing a deer with a rifle. [/b] Having read this entire thread, Is this honestly what you think I'm saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I just got on a 3,500 acre lease in Abilene. I'm going to kill me a slew of deer, dove, quail, turkey, and maybe even a hog or two. Of course I'll eat what I kill. By killing these animals I'm saving them from a lingering death from starvation due to over population. I would never kill a dog, because I can't imagine eating one, plus it is against the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I'm gonna change the topic for a second, since I heard something on Sirius yesterday that brought up a good question. Why did Rick Tocchet only get probation after pleading guilty to gambling charges? I didn't follow that case very closely, so I'm curious, especially since there were millions of dollars going through that gambling ring, opposed to thousands with dogfighting. I'm assuming that the brutality of the sport itself and the fact that Vick is a bigger name than Tocchet and Gretzky overshadowed the gambling aspect, but I was just looking for other opinions. It was a state court, and he pled guilty to third and fourth degree crimes. First time offenders almost never get jail time for those low level crimes. Plus, Tocchet is white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 He'd have to be pretty cute for something like that on a 1st date... I'm outta your league chucko. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Two things... 1) This sort of accident is not exclusive to pits. And while I don't know EXACTLY how your father-in-law raised his dog that behavior is not breed-specific... all types of dogs can and will bite humans if that dog's needs are not being met (consistent and persistent exercise, discipline and leadership). 2) You say he/she "was raised to be a nice dog" by your father-in-law. Again, I don't want to make any judgments about him but many people think they're raising their dog to be a "nice dog." Dogs don't understand how to be "nice." Dogs need exercise and discipline. Some dogs may need more exercise or more discipline. Either way the outcome is the same... a balanced, well socialized, submissive dog. You can train a dog until you're blue in the face and until the dog will pour you a bowl of cereal in the morning on command... if that dog's basic and primal needs (exercise and consistent discipline from a calm, consistent leader) are not being met, the dog, any dog, will have issues. Ahh...the narrowminded B.F. Skinner approach. Listen, dude -- it's obvious you take your dog-raising seriously. So why are you ignoring what qualifies as simple common sense? People have been selectively breeding pit bulls for 200 YEARS, based on strengh, agility, and aggressiveness. If you could magically force every dog owner in the world to train their dogs PERFECTLY (including the daily 1+-hour walks ), which breed would attack more humans every year? Pit bulls. It's in their nature. Is behavior 100% dependent on something's "nature"? Of course not. But if you think "nurture" can completely suppress that "nature," you're a little behind on the behavioral science front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Having read this entire thread, Is this honestly what you think I'm saying? I didnt mention you, I was referring to the idiot in the Atlanta NAACP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 (edited) Ahh...the narrowminded B.F. Skinner approach. Listen, dude -- it's obvious you take your dog-raising seriously. So why are you ignoring what qualifies as simple common sense? People have been selectively breeding pit bulls for 200 YEARS, based on strengh, agility, and aggressiveness. If you could magically force every dog owner in the world to train their dogs PERFECTLY (including the daily 1+-hour walks ), which breed would attack more humans every year? Pit bulls. It's in their nature. Is behavior 100% dependent on something's "nature"? Of course not. But if you think "nurture" can completely suppress that "nature," you're a little behind on the behavioral science front. Ummm, what does BF Skinner have to do with any of this? Taking care of dogs doesn't require a PHD in psychology. Cesar Milan might have something to do with this but I don't think he even made it to college. Dogs have been bred and living with humans for over 10,000 years. No dog is born wanting to kill or bite other dogs, animals, or humans. That is simple common sense. Any dog is prone to hyperactivity and/or aggressive behavior. That is simple common sense. Roundup and kill all the pitbulls on the planet... people and kids will still be getting bit by dogs. That is simple common sense. Edited August 22, 2007 by kingfish247 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.