Many blogs I've read dealing with Mike Vick become racially divisive and turn into personal attacks. Thank you for not making race the factor in your arguement and for this thoughtful commentary.

You're right... no one seems to charged up with cock fighting or the cruelty in the world of horse racing or bull fighting. But then most of us didn't grow up with chickens or horses as pets like we did with dogs and cats. Horses, chickens and cows don't sleep in our beds and run to greet us when we come home. I think we are outraged more by the torment and execution of a dog because it is an assault too close to home.

What is troubling to me is that Vick is the highest paid athlete in football. He didn't need the dog fighting ring as a source of income.. between his endorsements and contract he's a multi-millionaire.
The only reason left for him to engage in such activity is because to him, it's entertainment. That speaks volumes of his character (or lack thereof). Personally I don't see how he couldn't be found guilty with friends, players and informants ratting him out and the operation taking place in his home.

That said, I doubt that Vick will ever see the inside of a jail cell. There's too many billion dollar corporations with a vested interest in him. In the end, this will all just go away, or a fall guy will be chosen. Vick will continue on with his football career and Atlanta will continue to falter under his leadership.

Not that you are wrong but there are groups that protest greyhound and horse racing, along with groups that protest the slaughtering of cows to provide beef.

Personally, I'm against hunting for recreation and the use of guns (don't tell Bruce Paine). My ex was against drinking milk that came from cows because of how they were treated, etc....

The Vick situation is getting a lot more publicity because it's Vick, but that's how the world is today. Remember when Oprah made a big deal on her show about the treatment of cows, or something like that? People went crazy and stopped eating/buying beef.

Your post isn't wrong in any way, I'm just saying there have been cases before where other types of animal cruelty/animal deaths have been in the spotlight.

As always, very thoughtful and well written

SML,
One point worth making in defense of legal hunting is that in many areas the wildlife that states authorize for hunting would breed uncontrollably for the area in which they live if not for hunters. In these cases, don't blame the hunters, blame urban sprawl and the decline of predators in our wildlife areas (wolves, foxes, etc). These are the animals that are often killed to protect farmers' sheep, cows, etc.

Normally I am pro-nature and pro-wildlife, but humans have inserted themselves so awkwardly into the habitat of wildlife that regulated hunting has become a necessity.

Then again, in the words of Marissa Tormei, "Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water - BAM. A f^$%in' bullet rips off part of your head. Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces. Now I ask ya, would you give a f*** what kind of pants the son-of-a-bitch who shot you was wearing?"

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Jack Cobra: I am aware that there are groups that protest all the other kinds of animal cruelty, particularly those that fall under the "sports" or "entertainment" umbrella - greyhound racing, horse racing, hunting, etc. And there are groups and people that protest every sort of animal cruelty, from meat production to milking animals.

Those groups may get attention, but the hatred directed towards Vick is very unique. It's not entirely about animal cruelty, it's about "electrocuting a dog", "hanging a dog", etc. The indictment was stunningly detailed, and one wonders whether it was so because it wanted to draw attention and negative energy towards Vick. What that means is this: Maybe the prosecution has enough evidence to back up its claims. But it's hard to pin those kinds of charges on Vick, even if they have testimony from "informants" that have flipped; it would probably take physical evidence, too. And to this point I don't know if they have the dead dogs needed to sell this case.

So by creating a sh*tstorm in the media via a brutally detailed indictment, the pressure is on Vick to come down and settle and get all this story (and himself) out of the media spotlight. The NFL is going to want him to settle this case out of court, too, so that they don't have to hear anymore stories about tortured dogs. If you're Vick right now, it's in your best interest to make this case go away as quickly as possible....

Not saying the prosecution is railroading Vick, just saying that they are clearly in command now. It'll be interesting to see if they push forward and really go after a conviction, or if they are just trying to pressure Vick into a settlement.

Jordi: good point about the hunting licenses sometimes being about population control. I've never hunted, but I can't say I feel too strongly about hunting one way or the other. To me this post was about the abuse of animals for sporting or entertainment, and the double standard that goes into it - some forms of animal cruelty are okay, and legal, but others are not.

You could argue that the outrage surrounding Vick in this case is purely about him committing a crime, but I'm not buying it; people aren't as mad or disgusted as they are just because Vick may have committed a crime; this kind of hate is being fueled by the fact that dogs being abused touches a nerve for alot more people than, say, a cock fight does....

Other cases of animal cruelty haven't created near the outrage that this Vick case has. You are right in saying that there's more of an outrage when it's against dogs or cats.

Your commentary is one of few I've seen that doesn't get into the race/class thing with Vick. Kudos to you for that. None of us would even know about this case if the ringleader's name was John Smith and not Michael Vick. Regardless of the emotions and outrage this case generates, Vick is still innocent before proven guilty and deserves his day in court.

I'm not a fan of hunting, but I will say that there's a big difference between shooting a deer, killing it one shot, and electrocuting it. Or picking it up and slamming it to the ground. Or hanging it.

I think it's good that it's such a high-profile person getting into trouble for this type of behavior, because maybe others will think twice about engaging in it themselves.

And I think if anyone of any sort of celebrity were involved in this, it would get the same reaction. As for cock fighting and the like, I don't know. Is it super prevalent in our society? Maybe. And it's just as barbaric. Could be that Peyton Manning is into that sort of thing. And I bet if he is, and it comes out, people will be pissed.

WELL SAID, ERIN! You make the distinction between hunting and torturing and point out that no matter who the celebrity is, people would be pissed at this.

This is the most thoughtful and objective discussion on Michael Vick I've read.

The sad part is, if Vick truly is guilty, does anyone think that anything will become of this, or will this all just go away with a plea bargain and a fall guy that will do prison time in his stead? I just believe there's too much corporate money behind Vick for this to go anywhere.

Hey Erin: I'm not sure I totally agree that there is a distinction between shooting a deer, and electrocuting or hanging a dog. I mean, aside from the fact that the former is legal, that is.

If you consider one a form of animal abuse or torture, but not the other, them I kinda disagree, though. I think you are assuming that a clean shot kills the deer instantly, and that it doesn't suffer (not always true)... or that the hanging or electrocution of a dog doesn't kill it instantly. I don't think that it is that simple... some hunters can kill an animal humanely, and some... can't. Horse can be put down humanely, but... usually it is after they have been kept around long enough to collect sperm and stuff, even if they have been suffering at that point. Bulls aren't killed humanely in bullfighting, period. And I have no idea if these dogs were being killed quickly or if this was some sort of sick torture that they were being put through... none of really know enough about it at this point.

So I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do think it is something we can't really evaluate fairly at this point.

JJ: I think that the NFL and corporate sponsors would pressure Michael Vick into taking a plea, so that this could go away quickly. It's in their corporate interests for one of their star players/endorsers (Nike was suppose to release a Vick sneaker in three weeks; that's tabled for now) for Vick to apology, blame someone one else, and take a plea. One of the commenters over at The Starting Five, Pragmatist, had a suggested plan for Vick's PR team on how to handle this:
http://thestartingfive.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/michael-vicks-goose-might-be-cooked-or-the-goose-is-vick/#comments

Don't be surprised to see it go down like that. If so, we may never really know the truth here - if Vick was an active participant/mastermind in an ugly dog fighting ring, or if it was something that was going on without his active participation/knowledge, or if any of this is even true (i.e. the government spent too much money to not have anything to sure for it, and this indictment is meant to put pressure on Vick's corporate sponsors to make him accept a plea deal, pinning it on some associate of his, thus allowing the gov't to save face in this situation)

... or if the truth is somewhere in between those extremes...

You're right that a lot of hunters can't kill a deer (or whatever) in one shot. And I don't like hunting. But at least most of the people I know who hunt also eat what they kill. Unless I missed something in the indictment, Vick and the others weren't eating the pit bulls when they were done.

I eat meat, so it would be hypocritical for me to be against the killing of animals in any way (though I do it as much free range and organic stuff as I can, so I like to think that helps).

And I hate bullfighting. I have been known to go on rants arguing against that "sport" on many an occasion.

But I think the real point here is not the animals were killed after the fight, by hanging, electrocution, or otherwise, but that they were made to fight in the first place (kind of like in bullfighting, where the bulls are made to play the "game" with the fighter before eventually succumbing). That's the "cruelty" part, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

That should say "I do eat as much free range..." not "I do it..." because the way I wrote it sounds like a weird bestiality thing.

I've been making some of the same arguments (the comparison to bullfighting, questions about other forms of animal cruelty that we ignore, the incongruity of outrage coming from people who likely eat meat, etc.).

Basically, our society has little to no consistency or reason for our moral stances about treatment of animals. During a unit in my class when we discuss vivisection, I'll ask my students to imagine eating a hamburger made out of dog. They usually give me disgusted looks. Why? What's the moral difference between a cow, a deer, and a dog? There's sentimental differences, not logical differences, in treating them so vastly different.

The vitriol directed at Vick is unique, and seems to have something more than hatred of animal cruelty behind it (I suspect a lot of the people hating Vick right now grimace at hearing somebody say "PETA"). I think part of it is scapegoating: there are so many accepted, everyday cruelties of animals in our country that nearly everybody participates in, and so people often act with great outrage over particularly nasty animal cruelty.

What's the moral difference between killing dogs for entertainment and killing cows for food? Not much: either way, the animals are being killed for pleasure (if you eat meat, it's not for survival but because you prefer the pleasure of the taste; vegetarians aren't just dropping dead from malnutrition).

I'm trying to bring this to peoples' attention: sure, be outraged by dog fighting, but don't stop there. Look at the treatment of the billions of chickens killed for food in our country. Or the wild animals abused in circuses. Or any number of serious abuses of animals.

Some people are sincere in their concern over the animal cruelty aspect (as I suspect PETA and the Humane Society are--they don't merely protest animal cruelty when it is a celebrity charged). Others, I'm not so sure: I have a tough time being convinced that a lot of people spouting vitriolic outrage are vegetarians doing their best to resist animal cruelty in every form.

I think there is a difference in killing dogs for entertainment and killing cows for food. Whether you think it's for pleasure that we eat meat, we are still using the product. What are those participating in dog fighting using the animal for? Pleasure, I suppose, in watching the fight, but what about the actual body of the animal once it's dead?

I resist animal cruelty in every form, but I don't think that eating meat makes me a supporter of animal cruelty, particularly if I go out of my way to eat meat and/or poultry that I know was at least treated humanely before its death.

Humans have been eating meat for a long time. And I'm sure there are any number of debates regarding whether it's better or worse for humans to eat a meat diet versus a vegetarian diet. I don't know those arguments, so I can't get into them. But I don't think you have to be a vegetarian to be against animal cruelty without being a hypocrite (as Pacifict Viking implied).

It's awful that animals are treated cruelly before death (which, again, is why I eat the best stuff I can find), but I certainly don't think that the mere idea of eating meat is a form of cruelty.

After all, where is the "life" line drawn? The salad I had for dinner tonight (along with my chicken) was alive once, too, right? Someone yanked that out of the ground without concern for its feelings. What's the difference?

Thanks for the tag SML, a post like yours tagging my stuff never hurts. I just want to note that I didn't get real deep into the cruelty to animals bit because of a perspective angle I don't think many folks would understand. Yeah, he was torturing dogs to death, and not necessarily by fighting them, but in other forms. I guess I have a problem with that. My main objection to Mike Vick is that he A. stole thunder from somebody I was really a fan of and 2. he is a shady dude that is heralded by many as divine in his excellence but remains a poor role model. He is celebrated, like many athletes, without ever really accomplishing anything.

My upbringing was, what I think most would consider, rural. Not a place where luxuries were abundant and not a place where dietary options were diverse. I have slaughtered animals, not for sport and not to watch them die, but because they were dinner. I was attached to many of them, had given them names, bottle fed them in many cases, or delivered them into the world in many more cases. At no point was I ever sorry for what I did, as a youngster I was always told to be thankful for what I was doing because it kept us fed and was the purpose for having them (and that I should be thankful for everything I received). As I got older, I stopped worrying about being thankful, but still didn't mind it because hamburger comes from somewhere and I didn't have the luxury of pretending it came from somewhere else. I run a thin line based on perspective because of this, and I know it, but i never believed I was doing something wrong. I also hunted. For those who don't hunt, let me say this, hunting is a far cleaner thing for your soul than one might expect. There is a sense of personal discovery and evaluation to be found in hunting. Can you survive if you must? Can you encounter the games of nature and win? But that isn't always discovered by everyone, and therein lies the problem with many hunters who essentially hunt fish-in-a-barrel experiences (organized hunts on maintained game herds. you run into that a lot out west) and don't take game for food or survival. In the years since my youth I have stopped gun hunting deer. Where i am from there are more deer than people, and gun hunting an animal that is so populous you trip over it getting into your truck of a morning is no real test. I think slaughtering your own meat and hunting your own game for the sake of food is very different from trophy hunting or electrocuting dogs, but I concede that I may be wrong on the point. It is a telling thing here in Indiana though that there are far fewer gun tags bought in rural areas of the state now than there used to be (deer being very populous because of lost predators and more easily accessible food supplies). Many local hunters have switched to bow hunting deer or started hunting wild turkey (which are exceptionally intelligent and very difficult to hunt but more easily field dressed). I want to think that hunting is a clean thing, and that raising and killing an animal that was bred for the purpose is different from what Mike Vick was doing. He was putting animals into a simulated survival situation that was a charade organized for the purpose of gambling. Maybe I am wrong, but I think there is a difference.
Oh, and when i get my new rifle I am going to drag Cobra to the range and work on his marksmanship. Then, finally, with the teeth of liberty in his hands, he can know real freedom.

Erin, I try not to engage in direct arguments over vegetarianism on somebody else's sports blog (though you do have a few logical fallacies in your comment); I only bring it up when it seems on point (as it seems here).

I am merely saying that if you eat meat, you are OK with an animal dying for your pleasure: you have valued the taste of the meat more than the life of the animal. I think we should at least consider whether it is logical to consider one form/reason of killing animals completely without ethical problem, and another form/reason of killing animals to be reprehensible and evil. Or as SML suggests, whether one type of animal is OK to kill but another type of animal is immoral to kill.

I'm also directing this statement against some of the really hateful things that have been said against Vick during this time. SML cites some of them, and you can go to the Fanhouse comment sections for some really vicious, nasty things said about Michael Vick. Such hatred coming from people who may have their own ethical inconsistencies on animals, and who are likely complicit in a lot of cruelty to animals, is jarring.

Then I guess I'll just remain a hypocrite. Without feeling the need to explain myself, I think it's okay that I eat chicken for dinner and still think that things like dog fighting are awful, heinous practices. I didn't say hateful things about Michael Vick, but, assuming he actually did what's listed in the indictment, I don't have a problem with people going after him.

If I eat meat, I'm okay with an animal dying for my pleasure? Fine. If that's how you want to put it, then so be it, because I'm not going to spend my life eating tofu, however noble that may be in your eyes. It's called a food chain, and until the cows and chickens rise up and fight back (which would be awesome), I'll continue to maintain my place near the top.

Ah, heck, here are some of the logical fallacies you used.

"Humans have been eating meat for a long time."

The "Appeal to Antiquity" fallacy: the argument that because something has been done for a long time, it should continue to be done (or a similar argument, that because it has been done for a long time, it is moral). There are all sorts of behaviors, institutions, and methods that have been used for centuries that we now deem not useful or immoral.

"After all, where is the "life" line drawn? The salad I had for dinner tonight (along with my chicken) was alive once, too, right? Someone yanked that out of the ground without concern for its feelings. What's the difference?"

This is a version of the "Slippery Slope" fallacy: it implies that we can't set clear, reasonable lines. We already set lines between humans and animals. We even (irrationally) set lines between different types of animals. Is it so illogical to set the line between animals and plants? Indeed, it seems more logical to set the line there than to argue that some killing of animals is OK and other is not, that some animals can be killed and others should not, etc.

"It's called a food chain, and until the cows and chickens rise up and fight back (which would be awesome), I'll continue to maintain my place near the top."

This is a "might makes right" argument: you're not saying you eat meat because it is moral, but because you can.

I come with no desire to accuse you of hypocrisy. But I want to suggest that if we are repulsed (as we should be) by dog fighting, we should expand our view to examine other forms of animal cruelty, and examine inconsistencies in our treatment of animals.

Peace.

I wrote a whole argument against you, complete with furious rebuttals against the "logical fallacies" in your own posts. But it was a long post, and I decided it's not worth it. Haughty vegetarians believe one thing, and disgusting carnivores believe another.

Animal cruelty is wrong, in any form. But you will never be able to convince me that the mere act of killing an animal for its meat is cruel. And that's all there is to it.

Peace right back at you.

"But you will never be able to convince me that the mere act of killing an animal for its meat is cruel."

Why not?

Let me elaborate on the question:

1. A conscious being exists.
2. I am hungry.
3. I kill a conscious being.
4. I am sated.

So: the taking of a conscious life for one's own gustatory pleasure. How in any measure is this not cruel?

I hope you saved a copy of the deleted post. :)

OK, one more elaboration. I probably should have thought this all out first, right, and not just put up three straight comments? Probably. But anyway take an example that I think the raging carnivore and the raging vegan can agree on: a, say, Mongolian farmer who raises a goat, and then slaughters the goat to feed his family, who have no other source of protein. I think you'd find very little argument from either side of the debate about the farmer being justified in doing so; I think everyone would agree that he's in the moral right. But even if it's justified, it doesn't make his actions any less cruel, it's just that the cruelty measured in a cost/benefit analysis comes out on the losing side to the cruelty of letting human children starve to death. So please note that I'm not saying that just because it's cruel doesn't mean circumstances don't exist in which it [the cruelty] would be acceptable. But to deny that the cruelty exists at all seems... off.

Erin kicks ass.

I'm late to this string, but there's something about this logic that really gets to me.

OK, I get the whole, "We're PETA, we love all animals, any kind of meat is murder," company line. If that's your thing, then go for it. I could care less.

What I don't understand is why vegetarians, vegans, animal rights activists and/or pacifists are attacking people for being appalled by Vick's situation.

It doesn't make sense to me that they'd be attacking people who aren't as vehemently crunchy, and calling them hypocrites for giving a shit. I mean, shouldn't they be happy that more people are joining their cause, even if only on this one issue?

What's the message they're trying to send, "All you meat eaters aren't allowed to be up-in-arms, you haven't earned the right." And if that is the case, then taking the logic one step further, they don't want all the attention, or support for the issue. They'd rather keep "fighting the fight" in relative obscurity, and scoff when people look at them as wacko extremists.

I eat meat because it tastes good. I started eating meat before there was a moral outrage against it, and I will continue to eat meat. This means I don't have the right to think it's sick to electrocute and beat a dog? And I deserve to be called a hypocrite for thinking that?

That's nonsense, and if you're of that belief, I think you may need some B12 in your diet.

Word.

Mike, we are not living in Spain so there is nothing we as Americans can do about bullfighting. There are people in the world that practice cannabalism, and there is nothing we can do about that either.

We can though do something about dog fighting. To cause any creature suffering - to listen to cries of pain and not care is seriously disturbing. Your article also is seriously disturbing to me.

The dogs were beaten, electrocuted and hung - and Mike you are ok with this?
I'm also a hypocrite in your eyes because I eat meat? I see that an education does not make a person more civilized or smarter for that matter.

There is no defense for Vick and others involved in this venture - and there will be no forgiveness either.

I have something else to say.

Mike you are a phoney.

What you are doing is deliberately taking the opposition’s side to enhance your own status as a journalist.

This article Mike is all about you!

Hey Carol,
Okay, first off, my name is not Mike. If you want to call me something, SML seems to be the most popular choice.

I'm not a journalist, either.

My point is this article is not "to take the opposition's side", but to point out the hypocrisy of the media.

I don't know anything about you, but let me ask you - when you talk about "causing any creature suffering... is disturbing", do you practice what you preach? Do you eat meat? Do you think cows are humanely slaughtered, without an ounce of pain? Do you wear leather products?

If not, then I commend you on not being a hypocrite. The point of this article doesn't apply to you - it applies to those writers out there that are demonizing Vick while contributing in their own ways to lots of animal cruelty and suffering that they "look the other way" on.

Oh, hey, let's watch the pretty horses race, those guys never suffer any pain! You say you can't do anything about bullfighting because it's in Spain, but do you do anything about horse racing? While you and your ilk are out there waving banners and signs at Michael Vick, telling him to go to hell, are you spending your weekends out in front of Churchill Downs in Kentucky doing the same?

No? Then at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that you are a hypocrite. All of a sudden, out the blue, you are an animal rights gangsta... but as soon as the Vick case is done, you'll go back to laughing at PETA whenever they are on the news, right?

Carol, I don't know if you are one of those people or not... but those are the people that I am addressing in this post.

And I see nothing wrong with offering an opposing point of view when everyone else is just following the lead of others without giving any thought to why they are....

Hi,
To those of you that see nothing wrong with eating animals, you do realize don't you that the cruelty that was inflicted on those Dogs by Vick was nothing compared to the cruelty that animals raised for food endure. I think it is great that so many people have made their voices heard about Vick, but I also want to break through that wall of denial that a lot of us have/had.

If you eat meat,dairy, or eggs you are contributing to more animal cruelty than Michael Vick ever did. I am sorry if this offends some of you but it is the truth. The animals you eat are not raised by farmer Mcdonald, but by a huge corportation that is responsible for destroying small family farms and horendous animal cruelty!
Please prove me wrong, I would love to be shown that I am. Do some google searches about factory farming and read what they say don't hide from the truth.

Lastly, I think it is great that so many people are upset by what Vick did, but please use your anger to help other animals support animal abuse legislation, find out what puppy mills are (Never buy a puppy from a pet shop), volunteer at your local humane society. The abuse that these poor dogs underwent was disgusting but it wasn't unusual many animals undergo the same or worse we just finally got some news coverage! There are a lot of animals out there that need your help!

If you eat meat,dairy, or eggs you are contributing to more animal cruelty than Michael Vick ever did.

Rob, this is a false statement. Vick eats meat, so he contributes the same amount as I do PLUS the whole dog fighting thing, allegedly.

This makes it OK to point fingers at him.

Brian,
Point all the fingers you want I personally hope this ruins Vicks life!

But I also want the people out there that eat meat to face the facts, and I have not met one meat eater yet who would: If you eat animals you are responsible for the cruel and miserable lives that most animals raised for food will live. All I ask is that you face that, really face it. Find out what their lives are like.

Usually when I try and explain why I am a vegan people get offended and don't want to hear the truth.

MIKE VICK'S SHOULD BE PUNISH TO FIT THE CRIME .CUT HIS DICK OFF, GIVE HIM SHOCK TREATMENT, AND DROWN THE BASTARD , KICK THAT MOTHER F---IN OFF THE TEAM FINE HIM 30MILLION DOLLAR THAT BASTARD