well said Jack, lets hope vick gets even longer the coward

Posted by: John Carmody | November 30, 2007 02:37 PM

I am disturbed that they are serving such a short sentence. I just read recently that a man is sentenced to 102 years for dogfighting. Why aren't these a-holes serving a longer sentence and what about Michael Vick? Maybe the legal team should check out this case and use it as a guideline. I would hate to see MV get off so easy for his cruilty and torture of helpless dogs.
Is there anything at this point the public can do to put pressure on the courts for a harsher sentencing? For those of you interested here is the link for the other case:

www.itchmo.com/ man-receives-102-year-prison-sentence-for-dog-fighting-related-charges-

Posted by: tvgrl | November 30, 2007 02:44 PM

I'm glad to hear that they were sentenced to do some time. I hope they both are forced to give talks to our youth and to help fight the battle of dog fighting in this county. I do not think they should be able to own another animal ever! But work for the rights and protection of animals. God can change anyone.

Posted by: Mari | November 30, 2007 02:51 PM

This is a rare instance where the animal related judgement makes more sense than the human related law.

What I mean is that you can't ban a child abuser or even child murderer from having more children (at least, not to my knowledge). And I hope that we would all agree that child abuse is a much more serious crime than dog abuse.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | November 30, 2007 03:10 PM

GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: ma moore | November 30, 2007 03:21 PM

Let's hope, that on Dec. 10th
Michael Vick is sentenced to
the full extent that the law
will allow. He was the ring-
leader, and he should never be
allowed to own any animal ever
again. I hope the judge see's
it that way; and sentences him
to years, in prison. What a great Christmas "gift" that
would be for us all. Most
importantly, some degree of
justice for all the helpless
beautiful dogs that were killed, tortured, and suffered
greatly, at his hand. His
so-called remorse is way-to-
little, way-to-late! The damage is done; THROW THE BOOK
AT MICHAEL VICK!

Posted by: Pamela L. | November 30, 2007 03:25 PM

I'm sorry but 3 years probation is just not enough! When a crime of this magnitude is committed against animals, it should most definatly be a life time ban! When is the justice system going to wake up and get with the times. People who abuse animals will always be a threat to us as well! I guess we will wait and see if Mike Vick gets the life time ban, we won't hold our breath.

Posted by: Carla | November 30, 2007 03:28 PM

Just a few days ago, I saw a story on the local news here(Miami, FL) about a baby pitbull that had been found dying on the side of the road. Apparently she must have had a good temperment because the dog fighters decided to use her as "bait" instead of for fighting. Her ears had been "docked" completely off. She was covered with bites, her skin had been torn and she had a deep cut from side to side on the back of her neck. Apparently it must not have gotten an artery because they were able to save her but she was in critical condition.
Just months ago, this story wouldn't have aired. But thanks to Peta, this issue has become a hot topic. I hear more and more about it on tv. Thanks Peta for bringing attention to such an important issue. You guys are my hereos!

Posted by: Janet | November 30, 2007 04:13 PM

Christopher Cochran: the abuse of every living being is horrible in the same way and animal abuse is leading directly to child abuse! the woman torturer of Abu Graib Prison was working in a chicken slaughterhouse before she started to torture people in prisons! Instead of hunting and fishing you should indulge in reading the oeuvres of Einstein, Goethe, Schiller, Schopenhauer, Freud, Nietsche, G.B.Shaw, Shelley, Dante, Tolstoi, Milton, Dostojewski, Zola, Hugo, Thoreau, Rosa Luxemburg, Byron, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Voltaire, Rolland, Canetti, Rilke, Collette, George Sand, Eichendorff, Lindgren, Hedin, Meyrink, Teilhard de Chardin, Dunant and so on. They were more important than you and they were all able to make the bridge - the R A I N B O W - between the human being and the animal! Every living being has a free will - plants, animals, people but the human being was breeding himself in a genetically insane direction and developed a dominant aggression which is crushing all other forms of life! We have not the right to take any life because humans who take animal lifes are also ready to take human lifes and in reading the oeuvres of mentioned giants you shall learn and understand that all life has to be respected and that we have not the right to distroy something which we cannot create!

Posted by: Zanoni | November 30, 2007 04:50 PM

Christopher, you always come up with something that is way off.

?

Posted by: Jaclyn | November 30, 2007 04:50 PM

Dr. Cochran,
Abuse is abuse, be it towards an animal, child, or elderly. They are all equally heinous. I don't see one as worse than any other.

Posted by: farah | November 30, 2007 05:20 PM

Child abuse more serious than dog abuse? Abusing animals is the precursor to child abuse, spousal abuse and even serial killings. There's usually a connection between all of these and so, to me, they're all very serious crimes. People who harden their hearts to the suffering of animals don't have to stretch too far to harden their hearts to the suffering of people, either. As for the dogfighters - anyone found guilty of that should be banned from living with animals for life. The current laws reflect current thinking, i.e., that an animal life is not a big deal. More stringent laws can be passed if more people insist on passing them. Just as people get all upset when a fatal child abuse happens (and then look the other way once the headlines die down), people get all upset when a notorious dogfighting case is brought to light...and then they go on about their business like it never happened. Write to everyone who represents YOU -senators, congressmen, your mayor, your city council, and demand laws that protect the lives and well being of all animals (AND children!)backed up by penalties that have some clout to them! If a person had to spend five years or more in prison for animal cruelty he or she might think a bit before that happened.

Posted by: Susannah S | November 30, 2007 05:36 PM

Christopher,

They are both serious crimes and, as you well know, animal abuse can lead to, and is a strong predictor of, abuse to humans. To the pathologically criminal mind, they are just two different species.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 30, 2007 06:33 PM

hey PEACE,,, i, too, saw the documentary "dealing dogs" and it was absolutely horrific to see dogs treated so inhumanely. if you closely watched the documentary, you would know that the undercover investigation was conducted by the animal rights organization "last chance for animals". the following link is for your information in regards to your question as to what happened to c.c. baird and the martin creek kennel (where the atrocities took place). check it out and educate yourself on the outcome of the investigation.
http://www.lcanimal.org/invest/baird.htm
this example shows that at least one horrible avenue for animal cruelty in the u.s. has been stopped!
PETA has done more than their fair share to do the same in many other instances. so, PEACE, get a clue and stop putting the blame on PETA.
- lisa
p.s. and if you WERE so "horrified" by what you saw on "dealing dogs" tell me, just what have you done in your state to try to pass legislation banning class b animal dealers? anything? besides bitch at PETA? hmmm? nothing? i didn't think so. you hypocrit.

Posted by: lisa | November 30, 2007 08:43 PM

Carla

Oh thats funny.

Posted by: Caboose | November 30, 2007 10:25 PM

Boy, you guys took the bait in spades. Since I do not abuse my children, by the logic of peta, I must not be an animal abuser. Glad to know. With people like you around, I am proud to be a specieist.

Zanoni,
I do more for animal welfare in one week than most of you do in your lifetime. I don't rescue stray cats, but I do a lot more. Don't pretend to know that I am not well read. I do not respond well to goofy laundry lists of writers you learned about in college.

The abuse of an animal is bad, but the abuse of a child is much worse. If you do not agree, you must not have children, because if you do, you are stuck in some sort of Solomon like quandary over your dogs versus your kids, and you have evolved into a very dangerous and unsustainable sense of being. Evolution will put you on the shelf with the Shakers.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 1, 2007 09:23 AM

Christopher,

It has nothing to do with logic (from PETA or otherwise), or your attempted twisting thereof. The fact remains that animal abusers are highly likely to "graduate" to humans. Law enforcement agencies are well aware of this. Thus animal abuse should be taken very seriously.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 1, 2007 03:10 PM

They sure enough did not get enough time!! HOpefully Mike Vick will be made more of an example of. I am sure if the co-def's only got up to like 2 years, Vick will surely get at least 5 minimum. That is wonderful in my eyes. Any peosecution that is done with any of these people is a victory!! Think of things that way. I know it may not be enough... just keep on doing what you are doing to speak for the animals!!

Posted by: Kris Shulfer | December 1, 2007 03:48 PM

christopher cochran: your cocky impertinent answer doesn't impress me at all: first of all i never went to college and i educated myself alone without any better knowing teacher and from your stupid reaction i can know that you are NOT well read - you are nothing at all! put your goofy laundry lists into your ass - you sicko! and if you do so much for the animals it would be time to tell us something - not just always that you want to kill them! what kind of a species are you? you are a hunter and hunting is legal! we here are animal rights activists! what do you want on this blog? you have your opinion and we know it so it's time for you to quit or get the private e-mail address of maya and correspond with her! here you are just boring for me and the others and the blog owner is amusing himself because you are a very uncommon passtime - indeed!

Posted by: zanoni | December 1, 2007 06:38 PM

"Animals have these advantages over man: they never hear the clock strike, they die without any idea of death, they have no theologians to instruct them, their last moments are not disturbed by unwelcome and unpleasant ceremonies, their funerals cost them nothing, and no one starts lawsuits over their wills."

Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)

Guess he didn't forsee pets getting left fortunes when their owners pass on.

Posted by: rojo | December 1, 2007 07:01 PM

Cochran: i want to see you wanker letting us alone - you talk another language man - go your own ways - operating or hunting! you have your ideas and we have ours - but it is useless to repeat daily the same shit! and to the folks uphere i just can say to ignore him.

Posted by: johnny | December 1, 2007 07:43 PM

Dr. C.,
What is it, pray tell, that you do to help animals more than 'most of' the folks on this blog? Enlighten us, please.

Posted by: Amanda | December 2, 2007 09:30 AM

Unlike the self-implied "well-read"(?) Cochran, I am SO glad to be among ALL the open-minded commenters on here! Not only was verified knowledge about the animal to human animal abuse expressed - but also the awareness of reality that basically and logically, abuse is abuse no matter what species, and should not be acceptable or ignored.

ZANONI,
I gather that you are new to this blog site, and I just want to tell you (for what it's worth) that I was exceptionally impressed with your comments. And since you might not be familiar with Cochran, it's VERY typical of him to be sarcastic and immature with his comments and responses. Actually, it's expected! I'm sure you are more than wise enough to have drawn that conclusion in his response to you. He gets cornered every time and then starts ranting senselessly. I hope you continue to comment on here with your VERY worthy comments.

For the sake of the animals, much appreciation and thanks to all the other REAL a/r/a's too! Great and honest comments as always!

Posted by: Ariel | December 2, 2007 09:37 AM

CHRIS/
DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS HERE IS AN ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATION?-
YOU ARE A HUNTER
WHY ARE YOU HUNTING IN THESE GROUNDS
OR ARE YOU A POACHER?!

Posted by: HERB MILLER | December 2, 2007 10:32 AM

Those bastards don't need to apologize to people.I pray the judge makes an example of them and Vick for our CHILDREN and DOGS. this next generation needs to know this is NOT acceptable. Thank you PETA. I have written every senator,signed petitions,wore anti Vick shirts for months.

Posted by: Rebecca | December 2, 2007 11:35 AM

Dr. Cochran:

Why do people who claim to do so much for animals always force others to choose btw humans and animals? PETA is a group dedicated to helping animals, NOT humans. Doesn't mean they don't care about humans, it is just not their focus. If you are so much more concerned over child abuse than animal abuse, then I suggest you spend all that time that you now spend on animal welfare on the welfare of children instead and stop criticizing the way that others choose to spend their time.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | December 2, 2007 12:39 PM

hi Ariel,
thanks for your strong comforting words - i'm happy to find guardian angels like you here on these blogs! let's continue the good fight! i'm in animal rights movements since decades and old now - so instead of joining protest actions out there i'm on the pc and can continue my battle for the animals - such cocky things cannot overrun me quickly - before posting here i read the whole peta files! you're great and we never want to miss you!!!

Posted by: zanoni | December 3, 2007 11:59 AM

Amanda,

I have spent thousands of dollars of my own money and hundreds of hours of my free time restoring large tracts of fescue monoculture cow pasture back to native Ozark habitat. I continue to work with The Nature Conservancy and the state government to continue to improve/restore my local habitat. Yet, since I am a hunter, I am usually listed as anti-animal rights. This by the same people who hold wild animals in such high regard and will refer to them as "defenseless."

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 3, 2007 01:55 PM

Thank you zanoni and Antigone1000 for your comments. It is nice to see some new animal rights folks reading these blogs (not that there's anything wrong with the "old" ones here - LOL).

Since you have taken the time to read through the PETA site (unlike most of the people who are critical of PETA and its supporters), if you have gone through the PETA files archives you will quickly notice who the anti's are. They are the ones who spout "facts", saying that they are correct "because I said so". They are the ones who criticize PETA supporters for wanting to help animals, when they clearly have too much time on their hands - since they are aware that they are indeed commenting on an animal rights site and are just trying to stir people up, trying to take the focus away from intelligent dialogue.

You will notice how they like to throw out so-called insults, such as "hypocrite", "communist", "bigot" and "radical", thinking that we will be hurt by it. It is simply because they cannot provide any relevant facts to truly support their anti position. They will try to twist things around, or will simply repeat such myths as the one where people continue to think that animal testing has actually improved our lives, but when they cannot "get" us, they throw out the cheap shots. When we point out the video evidence of many of the atrocities, they will say that the video is old (but they won't watch the movie "Earthlings", which definitely has recent footage), or that the conditions are not that bad in the slaughterhouse they go to (really - we have actually heard that one a few times!).

Anyway, thank you again for your comments - we hope to see you here more often.

Posted by: Michele | December 3, 2007 03:54 PM

Christopher,

I would never refer to wild animals as "defenseless", but like the human animal, they have no defense against guns. In that respect, they are defenseless.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 3, 2007 03:57 PM

Caboose,

Re: previous post on Silent Hill, Japanese weaponry, etc...

No, I wasn't trying to criticize. You're cool. I also like your stance on Bush, Iraq and politicos in general, very much.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 3, 2007 05:12 PM

Mike,

In that, you are incorrect. No, they do not wear bullet proof vests (geese, being somewhat of an exception), but they have countless defenses to the human hunter, otherwise they would call it shooting. Every animal I have ever hunted has had marvelous defenses. My point was that you (peta folks) have such great regard for these beasts, yet you discount their attributes. In fact, non of you seem to know very much at all about wild animals.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 3, 2007 05:37 PM

michele, I probably would have been moved by Earthlings, if I hadn't read the screenplay first. The way the writers/director set out to manipulate the audience was clever, especially changing shots directly from Nazi death camps to pig farms etc. They certainly knew which buttons to push in the their audience.

Posted by: rojo | December 3, 2007 05:58 PM

thank you michele for your nice welcome - together unite and one day we shall be victorious!

Posted by: zanoni | December 3, 2007 07:40 PM

to christopher cochran: i think that peta folks know quite a lot about wild animals - first of all the most important thing: not to kill them!!!!

Posted by: rafael | December 4, 2007 10:33 AM

Sorry, Christopher, my point stands. Once you find the animal, it has no chance against a gun (unless, of course, you're a lousy shot).

I also have a woods near me and have studied, and read extensively about, squirrels, raccoons, ducks, geese, herring gulls, rock doves, rabbits, skunks, et cetera, and not with the intention of what they'll look like on my dinner plate.

Rojo,

But did you watch it? I don't think the comparison is Machiavellian at all. In fact, in the commentary Joacquin Phoenix even spells it out:

"The comparison here to the holocaust is both intentional and obvious: one group of living beings anguishes beneath the hands of another. Though some will argue the suffering of animals cannot possibly compare with that of former Jews or slaves, there is, in fact, a parallel. And for the prisoners and victims of this mass murder, their holocaust is far from over."

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 4, 2007 11:40 AM

I'm glad to hear that these individuals are banned from "owning" dogs for 3 years. A lifetime ban would have been best, but at least this is something.

I've been referring to the PETA Alert! page to get information on current animal cruelty cases that need our attention and letter writing.

One current story really got to me. It's about a 7-8 wk. old puppy whose ears were cut off with a pair of rusty old scissors by two men in New Mexico. And as the puppy cried and began to bleed, the men attempted to stop the bleeding with cement and water. The wound became infected and authorities rushed the puppy to a veterinarian for treatment. The puppy, now named Rusty, recovered from this horrific incident and has been adopted.

For anyone interested in e-mailing or faxing a letter to the Deputy District Attorney in this case, please go to the PETA Alert! page for more information. There's a picture of poor Rusty there too.

Posted by: Veronica S. | December 4, 2007 12:31 PM

Fair enough, Mike. I happily accept your disagreement. I hope that you will accept that I do not look at the emaciated Jews of the Nazi death camps in the same way I look at mistreated cows or dogs. I just can't look into the eyes of my daughter and the eyes of my dog and get the same feeling. I really do love my dog, but he just isn't my daughter.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 4, 2007 03:28 PM

Thank you Mike.

You know I am a half anti PETA person right? Dont let Ariel, Michele, and all of that arrogance tell you that Im some kind of attention seeking loser, animal killer/hater/abuser, etc (just shows how far ass-ump-tions go). sorry bout that.

(Go to Youtube, and search "Bush Cartoon")

Once again, thank you.

I thank you, and Al-Qaeda thanks you. Osama says hi. :D

Posted by: Caboose | December 4, 2007 04:03 PM

Mike, I watched it in pieces on you-tube so may have not seen it all. I don't know for sure.
I'm not actually commenting on the comparison between Nazi death camps and factory farming. I've commented on this before and believe them to be on two completely levels with a common link. Death. It's the intent that differs. And not least the awareness of what was happening in the camps, and what was going to happen to them. Thankfully animals are blissfully unaware of mortality.
I agree with the narrative, the comparison is intentional and obvious. That doesn't make it correct. As a member of the "some will argue" brigade, I find it a particularly distant parallel.

What I was commenting on is the way the movie was produced, no doubt intentional, to elicit maximum emotional response from the audience. Thats fine, thats the plan, I get it. My point is if you are going to extol the virtues of a "life changing" movie be aware of how you've been directed into that position. Looking at a cute little pig in a stall appears very different after an aerial view of Auschwitz or Dachau. Add a dramatic soundtrack and hey presto- instant outrage.
Cutting from pictures of animals frolicking, to meat on supermarket shelves is a nice touch too.

Posted by: rojo | December 4, 2007 05:34 PM

rojo: sorry to step in here but you are dramatically wrong when you think that animals are not aware of mortality: but they are a step further than we: they know what's coming after - for this they do not fight against us - but at the moment of a violent death they are afraid and feel pain as we do because this is the normal reaction and will for survival! and every living being has a free will - also plants and animals - but the human being is the most brutal and crushes every attempt of their own evolution!
we should not saddle the horse from his tail but from his head! ok?

Posted by: zanoni | December 4, 2007 06:37 PM

I have mentioned "Earthlings" on these blogs on several occasions because when I have previously suggested that people watch PETA's "Meet Your Meat" and other videos, I have been met with the criticism that the footage is too old and the claim that "things are not like that anymore". "Earthlings" has significant recent footage, therefore the hope was that it would be helpful for people reading these blogs who are not yet convinced about what abuses animals have to suffer at the hands of humans.

So, for those of you who do not want to watch footage with a "dramatic soundtrack", watch the many videos from PETA's website. For those of you who need to see more, watch "Earthlings". The scene with the dog being crushed alive in the garbage truck would be just as horrific without narrative or music...

Posted by: Michele | December 4, 2007 09:36 PM

Micele

The scene with the dog is so painful to watch. What a savage violent act by humans to that poor wretched dog!!! Too many excuses given not to believe the truth in vivid and (painful) color!!!!

Posted by: Ana | December 5, 2007 01:32 PM

Ana, it's good to have you back!

I can never get that scene out of my head - it brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it, and I can't even attempt to describe it to anyone verbally because I just break down. Anyone who is not at all moved by that scene must be a psychopath, devoid of ANY compassion.

Posted by: Michele | December 5, 2007 04:07 PM

Caboose,

You're most welcome—but Al-Qaeda thanks me??? (This can't be good)

Rojo,

A lot of people believe there was a defining moment in their life that inspired them to go veg. IMO, I think that it's usually a lot of little things that add up to that climactic moment. So, yes Earthlings has a mandate and an agenda (no differently than the meat and dairy industries—milk is "nature's most perfect food", yet 75% of us are lactose-intolerant), but the viewer still has to be receptive to the message.

You really have to watch the DVD for maximum impact. I think the producers did an amazing job of coherently piecing together what was essentially many diverse, clandestine videos.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 5, 2007 05:31 PM

Mike, ok I'll look out for it at my video store.

As to lactose intolerance 75% might be a world average since a large percentage of people live in Asia, and they historically didn't use milk. Something like 90% of them are lactose intolerant.
When it comes to caucasians about 10-15% are lactose intolerant.

michele, a dog being crushed would only confirm that bad things happen. My comments are in relation to food and farming and perceptions of such.

zanoni, not fighting against us would just as easily prove they have no idea of their mortality. We see what we want to see.
I certainly agree about the will to live, though it isn't necessarily anything other than an instinctive reaction that humans share too. For this reason it is best that animals be killed without them even being aware, and certainly not in pain.

Posted by: rojo | December 5, 2007 06:23 PM

Mike

With that Al-Qaeda thing, I was joking

(That goes 4 u 2 FBI FCC, and CIA)

Posted by: Caboose | December 5, 2007 06:25 PM

Caboose,

OMG, there's a million (slight exaggeration) "Bush cartoons" on YouTube.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 5, 2007 06:32 PM

Per Christopher Cochran's comment:

"Boy, you guys took the bait in spades."

There's one thing he's actually right about. Dr. Cochran posts on this board simply because he enjoys antagonizing and getting attention from others. It makes him feel important--sad as that may sound.

I've said it before, but if we just ignore him he'll go away. He'll certainly find some other way to get the attention he's so obviously lacking in "real" life.

Posted by: Susan Davis | December 5, 2007 09:58 PM

rojo:
their are many proofs that animals preview their death: besides some personal experiences i made - here is the most common: elefants travel fery far to their graveyards and they are mourning their family members and helping them if they hear them cry from far - so they know that they are in danger! and horses know exactly if their foals are still alive or not - even if they are kilometers away and so on but if you are interested in more about this, please tell me but our first endeavour should be of course to avoid every kind of pain infliction! on that i agree with you completely!

Posted by: Zanoni | December 6, 2007 12:04 PM

Michele

Thanks for your kind words!!!!

Posted by: Ana | December 6, 2007 01:51 PM

Rojo,

Yeah, it's a world average. Apparently at one point all humans were lactose intolerant (after we were finished breast-feeding, of course), but eventually some of us underwent a genetic mutation that allowed us to digest dairy.

The shots from space are reason enough to watch the actual DVD of Earthlings—they are spectacular.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 6, 2007 05:55 PM

Mike

Did u watch any?

Posted by: Caboose | December 6, 2007 07:04 PM

Lactose tolerance is one of the few human evolutionary changes that have taken place since the agricultural revolution. Lactose tolerance coincides with those cultural areas that domesticated cattle for dairy production. Lactase is an enzyme in the small bowel, the gene for which turns off we are weaned from our mothers. In lactose intolerant individuals the gene won't turn back on and the lactose, a sugar, is digested by bacteria in our gut leading to osmotic diarrhea and gas. Lactaid brand medicine is simply lactase, the missing enzyme. People of African and Asian descent are most likely to have this situation.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 6, 2007 08:11 PM

i dont see PETA tring to give deer hunter jail time. im not saying what vick did was right but also know that everyone can be giving a second chance in life. so dont make this to be a black white issue because no animal need to die by man even with a gun.

Posted by: reggie | December 7, 2007 08:42 AM

zanoni, elephants were my first thought in regards to my comment. Unfortunately elephant graveyards are elusive and I can't prove/disprove the legend.
I would like you to tell me more on the horse and foal. Telepathy over such a distance would be an incredible scientific dicovery.

Mike Q, no, the small youtube screen wouldn't do justice to the shots.

Chris, I think the maasai people buck the trend in Africa. They have a heavily animal dependant diet and don't seem to have the diseases one would expect from such a diet. I just don't think I'd enjoy warm cows blood.

Posted by: rojo | December 7, 2007 12:23 PM

reggie, nobody can give deer hunters jail time in countries that legalize hunting. Dogfighting is against the law (fortunately), deer hunting is not (unfortunately).

Posted by: Michele | December 7, 2007 12:28 PM

Caboose,

Yeah, I can recite it backwards while juggling avocados.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 7, 2007 02:52 PM

Rojo,
That is because beef that is not ultra-bred and range fed is lean, healthy and loaded with good fats. Beef only becomes unhealthy when you cram gobs of corn down cattle. Corn is undoubtedly the root of most of the health problems in the US. The growing of corn is unsustainable, even with crop rotation. Mike is correct, most corn goes to animal feed. I am fine with abolishing this. Corn is also lousy for ethanol production, as it turns out, we just had a leg up on the technology thanks to the distilling industry. We might have to settle for a healthier, leaner, smaller chicken breast, but I think we could get used to it.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 7, 2007 03:15 PM

I think that some people take animal abuse to DAMN far. Child abuse is much, much worse than animal abuse. What about the dogs that turn on their owners and kill children for no reason. I think that all pitt bulls should be killed. I have personally seen one attack an innocent child walking to the bus stop. I hit it with my car and if I would have had my gun with me I would have shot it too. And I love animals.

Posted by: Sharon | December 13, 2007 06:55 PM

Oh Sharon, you need to educate yourself.
As the owner of 2 pit bulls, and like any educated, informed owner knows, dogs just don't turn, nor do they attack for no reason. How was this dog raised? Was the owner responsible in exacerbating or encouraging bad behavior? Was this dog trained to kill? Was this dog from an irresponsible breeder or puppy mill? As a responsible dog owner, I have gone above and beyond to do the right thing for my dogs and I fight against ignorance like yours on a daily basis. As much I would like to hurl insults back and really put you to the wall on this, I will not expend negative energy. All I can say is, you need to educate yourself on dogs, and any or all animal behavior. To say you love animals made me scoff. Shame on you for not expanding your mind and exploring the real reasons that dogs may behave in such a manner that you experienced. Please enlighten and educate yourself before you make snap judgments on subject matter that you no nothing about.

Posted by: Renee | December 14, 2007 05:10 PM

I must explain the above grammatical error, "no nothing about." I was inadvertently distracted by my 2 pits unexpectedly turning on me and gnawing my fingers off as I wrote.

Posted by: Renee | December 14, 2007 06:55 PM

Michele - 'I can never get that scene out of my head - it brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it, and I can't even attempt to describe it to anyone verbally because I just break down. Anyone who is not at all moved by that scene must be a psychopath, devoid of ANY compassion.'

I screamed out loud as I watched that scene :( I'm now seriously disturbed by it and am also seeing it play through my mind regularly since watching Earthlings, of all the hideous animal cruelty vids I've seen this particular scene with the dog thrown into the trash compactor has affected me the most, I've cried shedloads of tears for that dog, there were several people in the shot, I can't believe none of them had the guts to step in and stop it, even if the dog was on it's 'last legs' that was just a brutal and heinous crime, why inflict such an excruciating exit from this cruel world on an animal who has obviously already suffered enough ? I can't comprehend it at all :( I'm wondering who filmed it as it didn't look like undercover footage ? I'm trying to shake off the images but I think it will haunt me for the rest of my days. May that poor soul and all the others who have suffered at the torturous hand of man rest in peace.

Posted by: Helen | December 22, 2007 12:39 AM

I think Vick should be in prison much longer than 23 months. I truthfuly think that if he REALLY feels so bad about hurtting poor dogs then he wouldnt of started the dog fights in the first place. Micheal Vick needs to rot in prison and should have a longer sentence. Lastly I think the judges are going easy on him because hes a football player. Well now if the world worked that way, then we super stars would get away with everything. now wouldnt they?

in other words "GUILTY!"

Posted by: Stephanie | January 17, 2008 09:13 AM

Well I think they should still keep him 23 months in prison!

Posted by: Breana | January 25, 2008 12:08 AM

You all don't make that big of a fuss when it comes to women that get beaten by their mates or about all the little kids out there who are suffering, so please stop fussing about dogs. If you were hungry and on a deserted island and they only had dogs there I bet you would not think so differently then. I bet you would kill that dog, and don't tell me that this is different.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2008 07:26 PM

HE NEEDS MORE THEN 23 MONTHS HE NEEDS YESRS IN PRISON AND HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY OTHERS DOGS IT ALL AND NOT BE AROUND THEM I HATE PEOPLE THAT FIGHT PIT BULLS THEY ARE THE MOST LOVING DOGS IF YOU TREAT THEM RIGHT I HAVE RAISED THEM AND I NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH MINE AND I BELVIE HE SHOULD GET A LONGER TIME IN PRISON HE NEEDS TO BE BEAT LIKER THAT AND DO WHAT HE DID TO THOSE DOGS HIM AND HIS FRIENDS THAT WAS WITH HIM BUT ONE THING ABOUT IT WHEN GOD COMES HE WILL TAKE CARE OF HIM .

Posted by: SUE | April 16, 2008 05:13 PM