Skip to content

Jared Allen Vs. Mike Vick

Thanks to the Twitter feed for Jim Rome’s weekday ESPN program, we were alerted Wednesday to the fact that Vikings defensive end Jared Allen would be making an appearance.
Due to some high-level PFT business matters (the toilet was clogged, again), I wasn’t able to watch it live.  So I recorded the show, and checked it out Thursday.
Allen was his typical crazy self, and there were several things that came out of the interview that might end up being worthy of a mention here.
For now, though, we’d like to open a debate regarding Allen’s choice of headwear.  Our friends at The Sporting Blog have captured an image of the “hat.” 
It’s not Sable, and it’s not Nutria. 
It’s also not clear precisely what it is.  (At one point, Allen made reference to shooting a coyote with a blow gun, but the thing looks too small to be kin to the best customer that Acme Corporation ever had.)
Anyway, here’s the point for PFT Planet to ponder:  How is Allen’s affinity for killing animals any different than Mike Vick’s?
On the surface, the only distinction is that Vick’s victims were also the primary American house pet, making it much harder for folks who love their dogs as much or more than some of the human members of their families to understand Vick’s actions.
At a deeper level, hunting is legal.  Dogfighting and killing dogs deemed unfit to fight aren’t.
At an even deeper level, our primary beef with Vick is that his actions suggest a level of brutality and inhumanity that causes us at times to think he should never be allowed to return to the NFL.
But is wearing on your head the skin of a dead animal, its feet dangling like pigtails, any more respectful of the life that was taken for amusement purposes?
We’re still mulling this one over, and we want to hear what you have to say.
So think it over, and post a comment.
And don’t give me the whole “I’m too busy” routine.  It’s Friday; we all know you’re just going through the motions until the clock strikes five in your time zone — either because it’s actually quitting time or because your employees changed all the clocks to say so while you were dozing on the surface of your desk in a puddle of tepid drool.

Permalink 186 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Atlanta Falcons, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
186 Responses to “Jared Allen Vs. Mike Vick”
  1. Super Florio says: May 15, 2009 9:25 AM

    Typical lawyer horse bukakke.
    Comparing hunting to dogfighting?
    Why don’t we compare Ferrari’s to Kia’s?

  2. dawk20db says: May 15, 2009 9:28 AM

    Two differences:
    1) the legality issue
    2) Jared Allen used a gun and Mike Vick shocked the balls.
    Honestly there isn’t much difference, i’m not a hunter, but wearing the carcus of an animal on your head is pretty morbid unless you’re stranded in the Yukon and need to stay warm.
    Cue the rednecks…….

  3. renaissancemanrt says: May 15, 2009 9:28 AM

    Inhumane? Disgusting? Sick? Absolutely…
    Socially acceptable? Unfortunately…
    Therefore, it must not be an issue.

  4. Mamba says: May 15, 2009 9:29 AM

    There’s no comparison. The method of killing makes a HUGE difference. Secondly, the act of gambling over two dogs slaughtering each other also separates Vick’s past actions. I hope Vick has learned his lesson, and I for one, will not hold his past against him now that he’s paid his price.
    But there really isn’t a comparison. If you’re going to fault Jared Allen for wearing that hat, you might as well throw in every person who mounts a deer head on their wall as well (but maybe that’s what you’re going for).

  5. Joe 6-pack says: May 15, 2009 9:29 AM

    Florio, you sound like you’re going to join PETA here pretty soon.
    Hunting, which is legal and helps keep down populations of wild animals so they don’t destroy the ecosystem, is very much different from dog fighting, in which you pretty much torment an animal until it is willing to attack another one of its species just for the fun of it. One helps keep Nature in check, the other lines your pockets with illegal cash and dog carcasses.
    And I know you weren’t bitching about the hat, it was kind of borderline but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can see somebody doing it, and I’ll readily argue that I’d rather he makes a hat out of the coyote carcass than just leave it where it died, like some hunters do.
    Honestly, this shouldn’t even be an issue. Hunters vs Dog Fighters. The difference is night and day, Florio. You should know that. If anybody really thinks that there’s no difference between the two, then I hope you’re a vegan, or that you at least bawl your eyes out every time you see/eat a hamburger.

  6. Joe 6-pack says: May 15, 2009 9:30 AM

    And for some reason, when I read the title, I thought the two were going to go at it in the ring, or on the football field. Oh how mistaken I was.

  7. Chris from MD says: May 15, 2009 9:30 AM

    Besides hunting being legal, and forcibly killing dogs, you know, isn’t. The “hat” that Jared Allen is wearing/was wearing is odd to say the least. Anyway, maybe Allen doesn’t just kill the animals for “fun” or “sport”, maybe he eats them? Deer is leaner than your typical beef burger, and can taste just as good or better. Coyotes are a bit of a nuicance anyway…
    I think your post kind of sucks this time dude. I mean, whats the difference between Mike Vick killing dogs and Mike Florio eating a hamburger? Two animals were slaughtered. One was killed because it couldn’t fight, the other was killed because it was good enough to be eaten.

  8. HuckleCat says: May 15, 2009 9:31 AM

    I have to be misunderstanding something here. For a second there, it actually seemed like you were comparing wearing a fur hat to slamming a dying animal on the pavement repeatedly, hosing it down, and then electrocuting it.

  9. spanky07 says: May 15, 2009 9:32 AM

    “At times” you think?…….c’mon, you have been on Vick (for good reason) full time since he was suspected of killing dogs and gambling…so now you say “at times”…? What a farce…

  10. orangecrushd says: May 15, 2009 9:32 AM

    Take it to the Supreme Court!

  11. GregO says: May 15, 2009 9:33 AM

    Just tell him to stay out of the local Kenny Rogers Roasters.

  12. dzot says: May 15, 2009 9:33 AM

    Because, presumably, Jared Allen didn’t kill that creature by connecting a car battery to it’s testicles.
    It is not the killing of an animal that is the problem, as anyone who eats a burger now and then — and has at least a minimal ability to draw distinctions — can tell you.
    Michael Vick’s intent was to cause pain and suffering to an animal that was trained to trust him.

  13. ClevelandSucks aka Philly Sewer Rat says: May 15, 2009 9:34 AM

    Keep drinking Jared

  14. carpkillah says: May 15, 2009 9:34 AM

    1. Hunting is legal.
    2. There is no torture involved in hunting. No one is going to call for a player’s head if they take their sick pet to the vet to be put to sleep, as opposed to drowning or choking or whatever else this guy did.
    Is that clear enough?

  15. Festivus says: May 15, 2009 9:34 AM

    Seriously? Wow. Seriously? Wow.
    What a horrible comparison. Tell you what, if Allen starts killing deer by strapping a car battery to their balls or drowning bears in a bucket of water, or slamming Elk up against a wall then maybe we can talk about similarities.
    I may not agree with hunting, but as far as i can tell Allen isnt torturing animals.

  16. nerdmann says: May 15, 2009 9:34 AM

    Hunting doesn’t generally involve interstate gambling.

  17. RedGoneWILD says: May 15, 2009 9:34 AM

    that hat is AMAZING…where can I get one?

  18. MLMike25 says: May 15, 2009 9:35 AM

    Hunting is legal, and while some may not like it, it is an acceptable part of our society… not to mention the fact that many major products (food, clothing, etc) come from animals that are farmed or hunted.
    That, in no way, compares to dog fighting/killing, which has no value other than amusement.

  19. G-man says: May 15, 2009 9:35 AM

    I’m not a hunter, but this is a MAJOR stretch.
    My question is this: If this happened during the NFL season, would it even get a blip on this website?

  20. Pumpkinhead47 says: May 15, 2009 9:35 AM

    Uh.. Ferraris and Kias are both cars. So, yeah. The question is whether or not you’re looking at things from a legal standpoint or a moral standpoint. If you look at it from a legal standpoint, Vick is guilty, and Allen isn’t–but once Vick has served his sentence he shouldn’t be barred from playing from playing anymore than Allen. Again, from a legal standpoint. But, morally, I don’t see all that much difference between killing dogs or coyotes. Dogs are cuter, so we get more worked up about it. What if Allen were wearing a pug’s skin on his head? People would be furious. It would be hilarious, yes. But that’s beside the point.

  21. Vox Veritas says: May 15, 2009 9:35 AM

    Do you like to fish, Florio?

  22. straverse says: May 15, 2009 9:36 AM

    You’re kidding right? I’d bet at least half of the people reading this story are wearing something made from animals that were killed in a far less “humane” way than whatever that thing on Allen’s head was.

  23. EverybodyGotAIDS says: May 15, 2009 9:36 AM

    First of all, writing “on a deeper level, hunting is legal and killing dogs isn’t” is stupid. Legal versus illegal is the most superficial comparison possible, as it’s not open to real interpretation. It’s the most “black and white” comparison available, in most cases, and thus the least interesting. I understand that when something is on the border of being legal versus illegal, it becomes interesting, but when one act is blatantly illegal and the other is clearly legal, comparing the two is the meaning of the phrase “skimming the surface”.
    The difference, as you mentioned, is that Vick caused the animals to suffer, whereas the presumption is that Allen didn’t. That separates it in terms of the level of digust felt by people. Does that make what Allen does ok? Absolutely not. Killing an animal just because you want to is stupid. If he NEEDED it to eat, ok fine, human NEEDS supercede animal needs. I’m assuming that Jarad Allen and his, whatever it is, $40 mil or so contract doesn’t require him to hunt and eat animals to survive. Ergo, it is wrong for him to do it.
    The real distinction from the perspective of the NFL is: Will having Jared Allen in the league cause more people to be fans or less people to be fans? I think with the excitement and ability he brings to the game, weighed against the public perception of hunting, he will bring fans in. Michael Vick, as exciting as he was to watch, has done things that are revolting to pretty much everybody. The net change in the number of fans (and sponsors) by allowing Vick back in will be negative. More people will stay away, and more companies will choose to put their names on other products than the number of people or companies that will be brought “into the fold” by his return. From a business perspective, it’s a simple math equation and Vick comes out the loser (as in life).

  24. bigstretch says: May 15, 2009 9:37 AM

    hunting a fox or coyote or whatever that thing on his head was is very different than inviting friends over and taking bets on which of two dogs will survive in a fight.
    Is it worse to wear the pelt of a legal kill or to drown, electrocute, beat to death “unworthy dogs”?

  25. mixman34 says: May 15, 2009 9:37 AM

    Pitting domesticated animals against each other in a brutal fight to the death is not even close to the same hemisphere as a legal hunt.
    Is the news seriously this slow? Articles like this make me long for the day I typed in and got football news, rather than typing in and getting politically charged bs and twitter and sprint promotions. You used to have a good site Florio, shame on you.

  26. reflections69 says: May 15, 2009 9:37 AM

    What Vick did was cruelty to animals. I don’t thing any animal should be tortured. Hunting is not cruel and I believe if you hunt and kill it you should eat it. By the way, who in the hell works till 5pm?

  27. EverybodyGotAIDS says: May 15, 2009 9:37 AM

    Super Florio says:
    May 15th, 2009 at 9:25 am
    Typical lawyer horse bukakke.
    Comparing hunting to dogfighting?
    Why don’t we compare Ferrari’s to Kia’s?
    Umm…they’re both cars. Internal combustion engines, headlights, get people from point A to point B. Very very similar. Might have gone with “Let’s compare Ferraris to apples” if you were trying to make a point.

  28. mihan says: May 15, 2009 9:38 AM

    If we’re talking about hunting coyotes then I don’t see anything wrong with it…those things are becoming a real nuisance all across the country. They are even getting used to living in urban areas like Chicago, attacking cats and little kids and such.
    What Michael Vick did was just sick though…not just breeding, raising, training dogs to fight, but the way his dogs were killed was pure brutality. You don’t shoot, electrocute, strangle or drown something unless you get pleasure out of being able to kill something and get away with it.

  29. EazyE1006 says: May 15, 2009 9:39 AM

    He ate a pot pie…….an entire pot pie…………………he ate an entire family size chicken pot pie…..

  30. ewitkows says: May 15, 2009 9:39 AM

    whats the similarity between hunting and killing an animal as quickly as possible, versus training a domesticated animal to become a killing machine and inhumanely destroying the losers? cmon florio, stick to football, its what youre good at…
    P.S. Ferarri’s to Kia’s – LOL

  31. ThirdCoast says: May 15, 2009 9:40 AM

    Hunting is legal – that pretty much settles it. Then again, I can stand Jared Allen – maybe someone should skin him and let an animal wear him. He’d go great as a sweater for a daschund.

  32. goat says: May 15, 2009 9:40 AM

    Why do I think it’s funny that you think some of your readers are in a postion to have employees?

  33. Malblack says: May 15, 2009 9:41 AM

    The whole reason PETA got mileage out of the Vick situation was because they were able to exploit the public’s fondness of dogs; if he were fighting bears there would not be the same public uproar. So Allen gets away with such displays because even if PETA were to get up in arms, there’s no fondness of whatever animal that was on his head (unless it was dog hide).
    The “respect of life,” or lack thereof, is the same in both instances. However, Vick broke laws when he fought dogs and promoted illegal gambling. Allen is just an idiot with animal hide on his head.

  34. Tram man says: May 15, 2009 9:41 AM

    Looks like a J. Peterman hat.

  35. JDUBBS1280 says: May 15, 2009 9:41 AM

    Among many differences between the two is the fact that Jared Allen doesn’t torture or mistreat the animals he hunts before he kills them.

  36. brutalis says: May 15, 2009 9:43 AM

    You’re scrapping the bottom of the barrel on this one Flori-a-hole.
    Don’t you have anything better to do?

  37. rmns828 says: May 15, 2009 9:44 AM

    Come on…what about Davy Crockett?! If he can wear a coon skin cap and not be criticized, why can’t Jared Allen?
    Oh yeah…I teach high school. I bide my time till 2:30. Everyone else, enjoy your extra 2 1/2 hours…and your summer.

  38. brianforster says: May 15, 2009 9:44 AM

    I’ve been holding this unpopular opinion ever since the dog fighting thing came out. This double standard angers me. Some animals we can go to jail for killing, but others we can hunt for sport? Even others we can slaughter by the thousands for food. Or in Egypts case, as a precautionary measure against swine flu.
    Some animals we can wear around our necks, turn in to leather, oh yes we can also eat baby cow.
    Yet when someone does something to an animal we as humans arbitrarily chose to domesticate, it deserves jail time? Give me a break.
    The only difference between dogs, the livestock we eat, and the animals we hunt for sport, are the fact that we as a species decided years and years ago that they would make great pets.
    This does not justify the MANNER in which the animals were killed, but you can’t tell me that shooting a deer and chasing its blood trail through the woods is any more humane than bashing a dogs head in, drowning it, or electrocuting it. In fact, bashing the dogs head in might even be a quicker and more humane death than running through the woods bleeding to death.

  39. jethrie says: May 15, 2009 9:45 AM

    I recently saw a video of Allen at an enclosed area hunting farm. In the video he is positioned in a tree over a feeding station for these farmed/enclosed elk. He then proceeded to throw a spear and kill the elk. That’s not hunting. That’s killing for pleasure. An animal went to eat dinner and then was speared by a lunatic in a tree.
    Link for the vid:

  40. JoeGenius says: May 15, 2009 9:45 AM

    This is plain common sense. It is absolutely wrong to kill any animal that has been domesticated for the purpose of sport or pleasure. Dogs and cats have been bred to not only trust humans but to rely on us for their lives.
    Hunting wild animals is sport whether or not you agree with it or choose to participate. Hunters serve a purpose aside from the sporting aspects by controlling populations of animals that are no longer able to be controlled by natural predators. It seems the natural predators view humans as fair game and as a species we tend to object to being food.
    These truths , however, do not address the fashion statement made by wearing the animal skin in its most un-processed form. If he thinks that the headwear was a statement he was correct. Not my choice of statement.
    Poor fashion sense is in no way comparable to cruelty. Especially a cruelty to a creature that is dedicated and dependent on people.

  41. Bucfs says: May 15, 2009 9:45 AM

    Florio is just thinking of anything to write on friday morning
    I believe if you are going to go after Allen for hunting, you might as well go after [anyone] who has stepped on a cockroach, killed a fish, or shot a rat.
    Want a real topic to discuss?
    ::Why the hell is academic steroids not banned from schools and athletic steroids are banned from sports?::

  42. darlak says: May 15, 2009 9:46 AM

    vick should have gotten a fine and a slap on the hands….
    they were only dogs….
    shit, the chickens we eat get treated 100 times worse than vicks dogs! get over yourself and enjoy your hamburger….

  43. pointNumberOne says: May 15, 2009 9:46 AM

    Let’s see… Hunting vs. electrocuting a dog to death by it’s testicles… yeah… i can see how that’s similar…
    …or not.

  44. jfdane says: May 15, 2009 9:46 AM

    Killing an animal is not wrong. Abusing/torturing/drowning/mangling etc is wrong (it makes the meat tough)
    Also one is legal and the other is illegal and immoral.
    People (cromagnon and neandertal) were killing and eating animals since they could grunt. Its all part of the food chain.

  45. CFioren317 says: May 15, 2009 9:46 AM

    Here is my thought…
    Humans First…EVERYTHING else tied for second.

  46. Daws84 says: May 15, 2009 9:47 AM

    And what about the freaks who wear leather jackets…..and eat bacon….sweet jesus

  47. polevault1543 says: May 15, 2009 9:48 AM

    THANK YOU FLORIO finally someone else said it, whats the difference between killing a bird/wolf/bear/deer/cute rabbit!/turkey and a dog??? you know how they hunt deer? they finish him with a swift slicing of the throat and then rip all guts/intestines out, how different than killing a damn pitbull that has just as much of a brain and just as much of a right to live on this planet. just because YOU have a dog doesnt make Mike’s crime worse than someone killing any other animal. I would rather see an argument over the fact that he had an interstate gambling setup and therefore should be banned.

  48. Gallagher says: May 15, 2009 9:48 AM

    Come on Florio, this is rediculous. When you put it in this light, how is wearing leather shoes, or a belt, or aligator boots any different? How is it any different than eating a hamburger, or veal shanks, or venison? Mike Vick knowingly took part in an illegal dogfighting ring. It is illegal for various reasons, but one of the main ones is due to the severe brutality of it all. The mistreatment of these animals is awful, and the fact that he electrocuted, beat, and drowned these animals is what is so horrific. If dogfighting were legal, it would be no different than what Jared Allen did, perhaps, but it would have to be more like if he HUNTED them. If Allen caught the “coyote” then caged it for months, pitted it against other coyotes, and then when it lost, beat it, electrocuted it, broke its neck, and drowned it, then you may have a decent story to compare the two. Until then, going out on limbs like this puts you in the category of some of these rediculous media types, just reaching for a story, regardless of who takes the hit.
    Dont go down this road, otherwise, tell your wife to quit shaving her pitts, dont introduce Florio Jr to deodorant, and go buy the family sets of doc martins and flannel shirts, and go live in a hippie commune with all the other poor excuses for human beings known as PETA.

  49. jfdane says: May 15, 2009 9:48 AM

    Killing an animal is not wrong, torturing/maiming/abusing/drowning/fighting an animal is wrong (it makes the meat tough)
    People (cromagnon and neandertal) were killing animals and eating them since the time they could grunt. Its not wrong, its part of the food chain

  50. Eaglescout says: May 15, 2009 9:48 AM

    Mike you are better off letting your IT guy to fix the toilet and hiring a plumber for your computers.

  51. Eaglescout says: May 15, 2009 9:48 AM

    Mike you are better off letting your IT guy to fix the toilet and hiring a plumber for your computers.

  52. DAN MARINO says: May 15, 2009 9:48 AM

    He was killing pets and having his pets kill other pets then elctrocuting them. At least just put a bullet in its head. Thats way less cruel and sadistic. What ever Jared Allen was talking about and wearing was legal. Assuming he shot it in season because hunting is ok as long as you do it on the days the government says that you can. I am not sure what season it is I know it is either rabbit season or duck season depending on who you find more credible. The rabbit seems a little sketchy to me but then again that duck is a moron

  53. chuckystamos02 says: May 15, 2009 9:48 AM

    Michael Vick should have never gone to jail. If it wasnt dogs, it wouldnt have been a big deal. What is worse: Jared Allen killing an animal in its natural habititat without warning or Michael Vick letting an animal fight to the death. I would rather have a chance to fight to the death against someone of equal size and strength then be killed while I was walking to my car.
    Leonard Little Killed a human being and the public’s reaction was minimal.

  54. TiceWasBetter says: May 15, 2009 9:48 AM

    Jared Allen’s hunting and outgoing personality are completely different then the cruel act that the useless P.O.S. Vick participated in.
    In the south, where Jared is from, millions of people shoot and kill coyotes from attacking either their livestock or household animals.
    And in regards to his headwear? He looks like Davy Crockett, are you trying to say that Davy Crockett would train innocent animals to fight and kill eachother or otherwise be killed by drowning, electrocution, bullet between the eyes or beat to death with a blunt object??
    Mike Vick is horrible waste of money, his personal activities should never be compared to a man that rocks the mullet and goes all out on every play.
    Rope the cattle in ’09 #69!

  55. jfdane says: May 15, 2009 9:48 AM

    And yes, that is a coyote. THey only get to about 20lbs down here in mississippi

  56. titans_fan says: May 15, 2009 9:49 AM

    Looks like he dyed the mullet

  57. pfii63 says: May 15, 2009 9:49 AM

    Stay classy, Mike.

  58. packerssuck says: May 15, 2009 9:50 AM

    Did Allen cage up the animals, force them to fight to the death and then kill the one that lost, skin it and wear it on his head? I didn’t think so. Must be a slow day if you are serious about this. Obviously it will get you the debate and responses you crave for your grab-your-ankles sellout to Sprint.

  59. icase81 says: May 15, 2009 9:50 AM

    Why is Jared Allen hunting though? He’s right in that the main differentiations are that its legal and its not a cute cuddly animal, other than that, its still killing animals. Its not like Allen needs to do it to eat or to clothe himself (although he does clothe himself in it). Its for PURE SPORT.
    Lets compare:
    Mike Vick – Killed animals for fun and sport
    Jared Allen – Killed animals for fun and sport
    I’m not saying I necessarily agree with the conclusion made by Florio, just that it is a valid comparison on more than a few levels.

  60. apeck says: May 15, 2009 9:50 AM

    Jared Allen may have shot a coyote and made a wierd hat, but he didn’t keep stables of dogs that he abused and starved in order to make them “game” for a fight.
    I am assuming Jared Allen didn’t pro-long the suffering of an animal he shot. Michael Vick was said to have participated in slamming an injured dog on the cement in order end it’s life.
    Any well trained and respectful hunter would immediately put an animal out of its misery if it is still alive after they have shot it. Many dogs that survive dog fights are euthanized in crude ways that extend their pain and suffering. Or they are permanently debilitated from injuries they incurred from fighting.
    It is not just the brutality of dog fighting, there is a level of depravity that it akes to watch two animals try to kill each other for nothing more than entertainment.
    Supreme court Justice Rehnquist once said “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” There is a difference here, maybe someone can define it better than I can.

  61. jburk2115 says: May 15, 2009 9:51 AM

    Florio you already the main two points of difference between them. Hunting is legal and the inhumanity of killing dogs for no reason is more of a sign of a serial killer not a NFL quarterback. So I guess i am just commenting because I do whatever you tell me to.

  62. Ralph GreNader says: May 15, 2009 9:51 AM

    Nobody was huddled around the Jared and a Coyote throwing $20’s into the dirt. But more importantly nobody had the jumper cables ready to attach to Jared’s nipples if by chance the coyote won.
    Theres your difference.
    If Vick hadnt been dabbling in Illegal gaming he would be sipping Mai Thais by his swimming pool right now. The gov’t was/is pissed off that they couldnt get their hands on Vick’s money for tax purposes.
    As for hunting…If he took that pelt legally then I couldnt give a damn less. Poachers, however, can go to hell.

  63. HannibalViking says: May 15, 2009 9:51 AM

    I think you fail to realize a very important point. Jared Allen hunts animals in their natural environment, animals that have been raised in the wild, and lived a relatively natural life.
    Mike Vick killed dogs that had been bred and raised for one purpose, to fight other dogs. There was nothing “natural” in their entire existance. They had been abused thoughout their lives, and then killed in a manner that was far more cruel than a hunter who shoots or spears a wild animal. Mike Vick used these animals as a means to an end for his entertainment (an nothing more), and killed those that weren’t up to snuff. The very killing of the animal was done as punishment for simply not being good enough at fighting. While people hunt for entertainment, hunters dont simply kill the animal, dig a hole and bury it.
    I would ask you which is more natural and respectful to an animal, killing a wild animal in its natural environment and using its parts for a wide varity of things (such as a silly hat in this case) or purchasing meat made from animals who are raised in pens, force fed, and killed in large quantities so that plummer joe can have his bacon neatly packed and seasoned.
    I am not a hunter and have really no desire to hunt, but the hunting of a wild animal is far less cruel then the systematic killing of large quantities of farm rasied animals that have been denied a basic and natural existance, and not even in the same league as what Vick did.

  64. delintz says: May 15, 2009 9:52 AM

    Truly hunting an animal then wearing its hide is much more cruel than slaughtering those that have been raised on farms for the sole purpose of being de-furred. I gotta say this is stooopid : see davey crocket

  65. realitypolice says: May 15, 2009 9:52 AM

    Please tell me your kidding.
    Comparison #1: shoot animal with gun, killing said animal instantly. Eat animal. Conversely, grab animal by tail, swing said animal into the air, smash animal into concrete pad. Rinse (concrete pad) repeat. Bury animal in shallow pit behind house.
    Comparison #2: Kill coyote with blow gun, killing animal fairly quickly, and mostly painlessly. Conversely, take small, untrained family pet, thow said pet into ring with trained pit bulls, and watch said pit bulls tear family pet apart. Get amusement from this.
    Your right, Florio. Just about the exact same thing.

  66. Skoal Brother says: May 15, 2009 9:52 AM

    Why not compare
    Driving to the grocery store vs racing at Le Mans
    Visiting your local hospital vs visiting Hostel I or II
    Anyone making the comparison between hunting and dog fighting is a Tofu eating clown with an agenda.

  67. giantsr1 says: May 15, 2009 9:52 AM

    somebody watched the office last nite

  68. DCViking says: May 15, 2009 9:52 AM

    Hunting is a legally regulated sport (and the in the way back, it was how people got food). The hunters I know have a great respect for the environment and for animals they hunt. In addition, the fees paid by hunters go to preserving wildlife, and in some cases, hunting even regulates animal populations (i.e. too many deer in an area).
    For all those people who bash hunting for sport as cruel, remember the whole “cruelty” thing next time you eat burger or barbecue sandwich from animals raised on a “factory farm”, or slip on leather shoes or use any other of the numerous products made from animal remains.

  69. Ralph GreNader says: May 15, 2009 9:54 AM

    @ polevault1543
    I hate to call names just because someone has an opinion I dont like but…..Youre An Idiot!
    And so are you.
    It blows my mind that these cretins walk the earth amongst us.

  70. jigga_man says: May 15, 2009 9:54 AM

    How about this…?? Why don’t we compare Vick killing dogs to Danny Heatly racing, and being responsible for his teammates death, or lets talk about Leonard Little killing a pedestrian, and how they are both still playing in their respective sport today, and there was never a protest to punish either player by the public. Point and case is, its obvious that most people out here value dogs more then a human life… I am not justifying anything Vick did, cuz that was shameful, but if the two athletes above can continue on with their careers after killing humans, I don’t see why Vick can’t have an opportunity back in the league… And if you really think about it, its possibly only because of how big of a household name he is, and the amount of money, and endorsements, etc…. that its going this far about whether to reinstate him. People wanted him to do time, yall said he needs to watch the soap, and how he might get bent over….well he has done his time, and in essence payed his dues back to society. Now you people talk about how he has to show genuine remorse. A person can only show but so much. actions speak louder, so only time will tell. At the same token, he doesn’t need to accept these belittling request from PETA…. Like I said before he has done his time. Get off his Jock, and let him be.

  71. RedGoneWILD says: May 15, 2009 9:55 AM

    Before everybody posts how horrible of a football player Mike Vick was…I’d just like to point out that his career record was 39-27-1 (was never below .500 in any of his 6 seasons), and 2-2 in the playoffs including the first ever victory at Lambeau in the postseason by a visiting QB and a trip to the NFC championship game in 2004.
    Now continue on with how Mike Vick should rot in hell

  72. Tarken10 says: May 15, 2009 9:56 AM

    Well, you said it: Dog fighting is illegal and hunting is not.
    You also conveniently leave out the fact that Vick the prick and his cronies tortured the dogs they felt “unfit to fight.”
    While I am sure that it is not pleasant for any animal to be shot with a bullet, arrow, or blow gun, it certainly is much less pleasant for the animal to be starved, drowned, beaten until dead, electrocuted, and hung, among other barbaric methods of death these animal victims suffered under the hand of that scumbag Vick and his low-life friends.

  73. Tuck You says: May 15, 2009 9:56 AM

    This is the best Vick article you guys have made yet. Good work. And the answer is No, there is no difference.
    Again, dog fighting is a cultural thing. Would I go to one? No. I simply wouldn’t enjoy it. But do I think Vick is the worst human being on Earth for partaking? No. But I know, I am the worst human being on Earth for having an opinion that doesn’t want to throw him away for life. I know, I’m such a scumbag.

  74. junior says: May 15, 2009 9:59 AM

    Simple. Coyotes and other game animals are managed by the wildlife agencies to control their population numbers. Left unchecked, the animals would either, starve, become sick or continue to have conflicts with humans. The latter resulting in a lethal dose of lead from wildlife managers. Hunting is a legal method designed to help control animal populations. Hunting also generates the revenue needed to fund these state and federal agencies. Hunting also generates the revenue needed for search and rescue missions.

  75. Knuts77 says: May 15, 2009 9:59 AM

    Its just not an issue, hunting is a legal operation which there are rules to follow and so far I haven’t heard of Allen of ever breaking any hunting rules. Also then where does this leave fishing, isn’t that the same thing, its such a non-story. Mike Vick committed illegal acts, for which he is being punished, Jared Allen is not when he is hunting.

  76. beg4greg says: May 15, 2009 10:01 AM

    Quick backstory – I’m a city boy who married a country girl. I did not hunt growing up, but my wife’s family sure did and still does. I’m no PETA freak (I hate them in fact), and I have joined them on a few occasions. The biggest thing I learned through that is that hunting is HARD! Sure, we have rifles that can shoot an animal dead from 100 yards. But hitting that deer (even a big buck) at 100 yards, while trying to stay as still as possible, and hoping the wind doesn’t change direction so they can catch your scent, and trying your damnedest to stop shaking so damn much so you can get a 1/2 way decent shot off… it ain’t easy. Its not shooting fish in a barrel. In fact, I rate as an expert marksman at the range, but haven’t hit a single buck in many days of trying.
    The second issue here is what happens with the animal after you’ve killed it. My in-laws have killed many deer and the only waste has been an occasional skin, and the bones. Every possible chunk of meat was eaten, dried into jerky, or frozen for later. In fact, my brother-in-law sustained himself for several years as a poor college student in the UP of Michigan eating only deer meat he hunted and white rice. Cost ~$50/semester including ammo. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. As an omnivore, it would be disingenuous or extremely naive of me to think otherwise.
    With that said, I have no issues with killing an animal if its done respectfully, and the animal is used to its fullest. So, I think both of these guys are a-holes, one (JA) just less than the other (MV). Jared Allen’s “crime” is just one ego – disrespecting his kill and being kind of a jackass – I can live with that. Michael Vick brutally killed these dogs for no good reason, with his bare hands on occasion, on a consistent basis, for many years. I could care less that they were “Man’s best friend”, that’s irrelevant. He didn’t hunt these animals. He went out back and killed them as they stood in the structures he built and housed them in. I have no pity for him and hope he pays for his mistakes for the rest of his life.

  77. Cdn_Mike says: May 15, 2009 10:02 AM

    There is no doubt that there is no definitely line and that there is a grey area between killing animals while hunting and killing dogs.
    First, I am a hunter. I hunt grouse, deer and moose up here in Canada. I eat EVERYTHING I kill. I do not hunt for pelts although I don’t chastize people for doing so. There are many natives up here that make some really nice moccasins and gloves out of rabbit.
    The thing is, when you hunt and kill something there should be a purpose to it. All animals killed should be used.
    The distinctive factor between hunting and what Vick did was the way he mistreated the animals and then tourtured them to death. When I kill an animal it has lived free it’s entire life and when I kill the animal it is usually quick. I felt terrible about the one shot I missed in my life and wounded the deer.
    There is a huge difference between an animal that is mistreated it’s entire life and then tourtured to death and an animal that lives free it’s entire life and then is shot.
    I’m getting tired of saying this…… the issue is not about the death of an animal. The issue is about the mistreatment and the method of killing the animal.
    Florio, you and your readers must be able to understand this. From your article above it appears that you are having difficulty understanding the difference.

  78. buells says: May 15, 2009 10:02 AM

    how about mike vick going to jail for killing defenseless animals (which is warranted imo). but jared allen only losing out on a couple checks for twice putting humans at risk by driving drunk. kinda shows how flawed the legal system is. kinda like how drug dealers get longer prison terms that rapists and murderers.

  79. tiseth says: May 15, 2009 10:03 AM

    Florio, since you don’t seem to know a thing about sports you decide to enter a field you also know nothing about. This is no big deal and it is not about sports.

  80. Em-Cee says: May 15, 2009 10:03 AM

    Thank you for someone seeing the other side of the each his own…if Vick was fighting squirrles would we all really care this much or is it that as a culture we LOVE our dogs wayyyy too much (dressing them up and such)…they are animals…they are called PITBULLS (where could that name possibly come from…get a life folks…he has time served let the man just live…

  81. hungryzombie says: May 15, 2009 10:04 AM

    Wow…you’ve got to be kidding…right?
    To compare breeding dogs to viciously fight each other to the death for nothing more than the entertainment of man versus a practice that has been going on since the dawn of mankind to supply food, skins, etc… is asinine.
    So I guess those who also run slaughterhouses and provide you with your prepackaged meat should be jailed also? When you eat meat do you think about where it came from? Flesh doesn’t grow in the garden.
    I hunt, my father hunts, his father hunts and so it goes all the way back generation after generation. While the practice and ritual of the entire process can be considered entertaining to those who do it, it is a form of getting back to nature and our primal selves that cannot be found elsewhere.

  82. rgs103 says: May 15, 2009 10:06 AM

    (the toilet was clogged, again)
    Sounds like Albert Haynesworth must have paid a visit…

  83. brownstownfaithful99 says: May 15, 2009 10:07 AM

    1. Hunting is legal
    2. That hat is available at any Walmart in Minnesota, Wisconsin or the Dakota’s.
    3.Jared Allen is a great player and I would take him on the Browns in a second.
    4. Mike Vick has served the time for his crime, and most likely will be allowed back in sooner or later.
    5.As metioned some many times before on PFT, it only takes one team to say yes, even if 31 say no.

  84. dremmel says: May 15, 2009 10:11 AM

    Webster’s dictionary definition of hunting:
    – to chase or search for (game or other wild animals) for the purpose of catching or killing.
    To imply that Michael Vick’s animal welfare abuses have any correlation to hunting is what is known as a spurious relationship.
    Webster’s dictionary definition of spurious relationship:
    – relationship in which two occurrences have no causal connection, yet it may be inferred that they do, due to a certain third, unseen factor (referred to as a “confounding factor” or “lurking variable”). The spurious relationship gives an impression of a worthy link between two groups that is invalid when objectively examined.
    This is a typical, biased tactic taken by politicians, lawyers or anyone who belives that Disney’s Bambi was a documentary. I suspect that Mr. Florio may fall into two of those categories.

  85. tonyinmd says: May 15, 2009 10:12 AM

    LOL at someone posting that hunting “keeps animal population in check” and “balances nature”.
    I don’t have anything against hunting or hunters, but please…if anything, Hunting is depleting nature.

  86. chuckystamos02 says: May 15, 2009 10:12 AM

    The market should determine if Vick gets back into the NFL. For all the people saying that ‘if I went to jail, I wouldnt have a job waiting for me’, the comparasions dont even come close. If you went to jail and were released, you still would be able to apply for jobs, and if someone really wanted you, they would hire you. Well, if somebody wants Vick, he should get a job. Captialism folks, Vick possess a valuable skill that if someone is willing to pay him for, let them.
    Additionally, was it better for animal rights that Vick went to jail for 2 years, spent millions of dollars on his defense, and wasted tax player money on his incarceration or would it have been better for him to pay a huge fine (money going to animal shelters and whathave you) and garnishing his salary for a period of time with a portion of it going to animal rights.
    All animals are the same. Hunting = white people killing animals for fun Dog Fighting = Mainly Afro-Americans killing animals for fun.

  87. monger says: May 15, 2009 10:13 AM

    The principal difference between Allen’s actions and Vick’s actions is that in our society there are fates worse than death. Our culture accepts the fact that death occurs and can be justifiable, whereas inflicting undo pain and suffering on a person or animal is unjustified. For this reason, we execute murderers, but we don’t torture them.
    When Allen killed whatever critter he is wearing on his head, the implicit assumption is that he killed it in a manner that was as quick and painless as possible to the critter. The same is true of the critters that end up in a grocery store or clothing store. We expect that their death was as quick and humane as possible.
    Dog fighting inflicts pain and suffering that is not justified in our society. It is a demonstration of a level of savagery and brutality that our society currently rejects. It isn’t the fact that the dogs died that offends our social conscience, it’s what happened to them before they died.

  88. bdiddy1 says: May 15, 2009 10:14 AM

    Vick’s actions make him look cruel. Allen’s actions just make him look stupid. Unfortunately, stupidity alone is not grounds for criminal charges in this country.

  89. MNFANINAZ says: May 15, 2009 10:14 AM

    I’m not sure what’s more absurd, comparing hunting to a gambling and fight to the death dog fighting ring or Brett Favre becoming a Viking.
    I wish neither were a topic of discussion.

  90. PurpleNGold says: May 15, 2009 10:15 AM

    Cats are kept stacked in cages in oriental markets for sale as a delicasy. In order to keep the meat “flavorful”, the cook boils the poor animal alive to saturate the flesh with adrenaline. Hello Kitty!
    As a society, we condone killing people that we have placed in cages, sometimes in a brutal manner using electrocution.
    We see our loving pet in pain when we think about Vick, but how different are we from him?
    Veal, anybody?

  91. Cdn_Mike says: May 15, 2009 10:15 AM

    @ polevault,
    Don’t comment on hunting if you have never been hunting before. From your comments you obviously have never been hunting. This is how I kill a deer:
    – I shot it with my 30-06 just behind the front quarter. I wait until I have this shot.
    – The deer runs for, maybe, 50 yards and drops down dead.
    The heart, lungs and liver are all behind the front quarter; therefore, a well placed shot will kill a deer in about 45 seconds.
    I shot a bull moose last fall that only ran about 20 yards and died in about 30 seconds. I witnessed the entire death from about 25 yards and it was the most humane death I had ever seen. The moose trotted for about 20 yards, stood there for about 15 seconds, laid down and died. There was no groaning or anything. The thing just laid down and went to sleep.
    And let me tell you, cheese and onion pepperettes made out of moose meat are about the best thing on earth and you cannot buy these things. You have to shot the moose and have them made.

  92. alfie says: May 15, 2009 10:16 AM

    Ah yes, the ol’ domesticated vs. hunting debate.
    If the majority of America had pet deer, hunting deer would be illegal. If the majority of America had pet coyotes, hunting coyotes would be illegal.
    I mean, did Jared Allen setup coyote rape rooms?

  93. BF004 says: May 15, 2009 10:17 AM

    I know you hit on this before about Brett as well.
    If you have ever lived a day of your life in Wisconsin, you’ll know you can’t travel over 60 m.p.h because you’ll likely see at least 5 deer in an hour long trip, and also a very high chance of seeing one running across the road. Since we eliminated all the natural predators for deer, hunting is one of the only methods of herd control we have. There are thousands of accidents a year and usually a few deaths as well each year for hitting deer with cars. This is an acceptable form of hunting.
    I agree, parading around with a cap on your head is disgusting to me and completely unnecessary.

  94. Stoogie says: May 15, 2009 10:18 AM

    In their natural state, animals have not evolved to engage in fights to the death. They do fight for dominance within their own hierarchy, and during those fights death may occur. But by and large, animals do not engage in manners that can/will affect that particular animal’s population.
    Vick and his cohorts actively bred dogs to kill another dog. They bred those dogs to do something that should not come naturally to canines and that is to engage in a fight to the death of the opposing canine.
    Allen, presumably, hunts for his game. He buys a license, adheres to the hunting laws in the area that he is in and, I hope, engages in an ethical manner when the opportunity for a kill is presented. These animals that are hunted are managed by governmental agencies to ensure they’re not over-hunted and sustain a population that is acceptable for the survival of that species.
    The bottom line is that Vick engaged in activities that affected an animal’s natural behavior, which is why it is illegal. Hunters do not engage in those same type of activities.

  95. SpartaChris says: May 15, 2009 10:19 AM

    Festivus says:
    May 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
    Seriously? Wow. Seriously? Wow.
    What a horrible comparison. Tell you what, if Allen starts killing deer by strapping a car battery to their balls or drowning bears in a bucket of water, or slamming Elk up against a wall then maybe we can talk about similarities.

    If Allen can drown a bear in a bucket of water, I definitely want him on my team!

  96. kingkenley says: May 15, 2009 10:21 AM

    WHO CARES!!!!?
    i could care less if if he killed any kind of animal.

  97. Vox Veritas says: May 15, 2009 10:23 AM

    “Again, dog fighting is a cultural thing.”
    So is smoking crack and beating women.
    Vick killed animals that were conditioned to humans. He could have walked right up to any one of those dogs and either patted it on the head or beat it to death with a baseball bat. And you can bet that they were invariably chained up or in a cage so that they couldn’t get away.
    Wild coyotes are natural predators and scared of humans. If they see you or catch your scent, they’re gone. They have a chance to survive and as a kid that used to make money in the summer by helping to control the coyote population, I can tell you that they usually do. Every Bad Newz dog that Mike Vick ever wanted to kill is dead.

  98. Dude17 says: May 15, 2009 10:23 AM

    Pitting any animals against each other, whether it be dog fighting, cock fighting, bear baiting, etc, is a disgusting practice that is rightly illegal (at least in the US).
    Hunting is done for a variety of reasons. The animal’s lives aren’t breed and trained to “make them perform better on the hunt.” And the hunter’s I’ve talked to, are very respectful of nature and the animals they hunt. Are there a-holes? Of course.
    So, basically, don’t give me this crap that hunting and dog fighting are somehow equivalent. That’s like saying, “drinking at home is equivalent to drinking and driving.”

  99. savocabol1 says: May 15, 2009 10:24 AM

    What is a Mike Vick?

  100. SpartaChris says: May 15, 2009 10:24 AM

    At an even deeper level, our primary beef with Vick is that his actions suggest a level of brutality and inhumanity that causes us at times to think he should never be allowed to return to the NFL

    That’s what it is for me. Not that I agree with dog fighting, but I’d have a little less disgust for Vick if he had simply put a bullet in their heads rather than doing what he did.

  101. purpleguy says: May 15, 2009 10:26 AM

    Stupid article, but you got your wish with numerous posts. This may be one thing all fans on the NFC North teams can agree on — hunting is legal — dog fighting/drowning/choking/elctroshock isn’t.

  102. jpanderson70 says: May 15, 2009 10:26 AM

    wow Florio. You look to piss on the vikings any way possible. How about a newsworthy item about Allen….for instance, how he went to Iraq with Larry Fitzgerald and toured several bases and hung out with our troops?

  103. Der says: May 15, 2009 10:28 AM

    Don’t be a puss Florio.

  104. TCLARK says: May 15, 2009 10:30 AM

    If Allen slamed the coyote repetedly to the ground until it was dead (or repetedly went at the coyotes knees until it was dead.) they you have a point. But if he shot it like a normal guy then there is a huge difference.

  105. eatyourguitar says: May 15, 2009 10:33 AM

    Go veg!

  106. I C light pounder says: May 15, 2009 10:33 AM

    god its just a dog, get over it…how many of you asshole have put a pet down? so get off his nutz already. in the end there is not humane way to put down a animal.

  107. yash says: May 15, 2009 10:35 AM

    Did he eat an entire family sized Chicken Pot Pie??????

  108. DeathSpiral says: May 15, 2009 10:35 AM

    Mike does bring up the interesting question of where do you draw the lines on acceptable vs. nonacceptable animal related killing. These lines shift over time and generations…
    This is after I surpressed my natural reaction that this was the LAMEST post by Florio since the Bradshaw incident. (This is a close second to the PRAVDA twitter agent postings, which I find to be a waste of keystrokes even to page past. I get enough sales pitches on TV, radio, phone, and driving down the street. I don’t want to even read a summary line referring to overpaid, whiny agents pimping their overpaid, whiny players.)
    We’ve been hunting and eating animals for thousands of years, I’m not inclined to stop now. If other folks choose not to, OK. But DON”T TREAD ON ME because I like to hunt, wear, and eat animals. I like it. We need to have some damn non-politically correct outlets for man’s natural testosterone driven, destructive tendencies. WTF.
    With that said, I don’t believe animals should be tortured or made to suffer for extended periods of time. Or hunted to extinction. (Bugs and single cell organisms, tough luck.) I have no problem with Animal testing for drugs, which I consider worthwhile, but don’t like it for cosmetics, which I consider worthless.
    This sort of non-binary opinion, naturally opens it up for debate.
    DeathSpiral Out.
    PS. Can I just say that overall Mike Vick is a complete imbecile. Why would you do anything to jeopardize a limited-time multimillion dollar cash flow from playing a game?

  109. dragynj says: May 15, 2009 10:36 AM

    Why not make a comparison to abortion and Vick while your at it. If you ask me, that’s more relevant. Vick got far worse punishment killing a dog(s) than I have EVER heard of for a woman commiting pre-meditated murder on another human being. As with all forms of death, the punishment is based on the humane”ness” of the act, not the act itself. Doesn’t matter WHAT is dying, just HOW it is dying.
    Having said all that, I’m a hunter and always will be. I am glad Vick got the punishment he got, I’m just a little concerned it wasn’t equal justice and he was singled out. I’d like this case to be the benchmark by which we treat all future acts of cruelty to life (animal AND human). . .

  110. iimprov2 says: May 15, 2009 10:40 AM

    “We’re still mulling this one over, and we want to hear what you have to say.”
    When you talk about Allen, you should be “mulleting” in over….
    it’s NOT a hat, it’s a mullet cozy.

  111. dlmcc0505 says: May 15, 2009 10:42 AM

    Hanging and electrocuting an animal after you pit it in a bloody fight to the death is alot different than shooting it. Take out the legal aspect for a second and think how terrible you have to be to torment an animal as it cries out in pain because you WILLINGLY want it to suffer.

  112. Courtney_76 says: May 15, 2009 10:42 AM

    Vick = sociopath behavior……..not quite serial killer territory, but getting close.
    Allen = took part in and enjoys a socially accepted (for the most part) tradition man has engaged since (and perhaps before) we left the cave. We can’t condemn hunting because our evolution as a species is owed to the practice.
    I’m no behavior psychologist, but in my amature opinion, the fundamental difference between hunting and the torture of dogs is malice (i.e., wickedness of heart).

  113. theultimate says: May 15, 2009 10:42 AM

    I wonder what Favre would think of this?

  114. polevault1543 says: May 15, 2009 10:44 AM

    Sooo besides the point, what does dogfighting have to do directly with football? there are a few convicted felons like before mentioned Leonard Little that killed a couple people in a DUI accident, still playing in the NFL and getting no crap or no attention from the media. The NFL is a business and players view it as their job. Convicted and prisoned felons are greatly encouraged to get back into their jobs and lives upon their release, who are you to tell Vick that he can no longer pursue what he was previously doing? Just a discussion people no need to call each other any names.

  115. bshazzar says: May 15, 2009 10:48 AM

    RedGoneWILD says:
    May 15th, 2009 at 9:55 am
    Before everybody posts how horrible of a football player Mike Vick was…I’d just like to point out that his career record was 39-27-1 (was never below .500 in any of his 6 seasons), and 2-2 in the playoffs including the first ever victory at Lambeau in the postseason by a visiting QB and a trip to the NFC championship game in 2004.
    Now continue on with how Mike Vick should rot in hell
    That W-L record belongs to the Atlanta Falcons organization, The win in Lambeau had little to do with Vick either, so please anyone and everyone, stop bringing this up. That was a terrible Packers team and Atlanta had a top notch running game and a top defense. Remember how everyone said Vick needed better receivers? Look at those terrible receivers and what they did with Chris Redman?!?! and with a rookie QB last year. Yeah, just horrible.

  116. Floriosucks says: May 15, 2009 10:52 AM

    And another example of Florio’s completely unfounded hatred of all things Jared Allen. Hey Mikey, did Jared bang your sister or something? I mean, your constant b.s. belief that he is a cheap shot artist because of one very legal hit on a QB and now this? How terribly transparent.

  117. CanadianVikingFan says: May 15, 2009 10:52 AM

    lol i love jared allen

  118. JoeBuckSucks says: May 15, 2009 10:53 AM

    Let’s see. Hunters hunt animals in the name of fair sport, where the animal can run away; they eat the animals they harvest. It’s productive, it serves a purpose. Hunting, whether some people like it or not, is a very American tradition. Dogfighting? You drown a pitbull on a leash just to get your jollies with a couple of your sick perverted friends and take bets on whether or not Fido or Spike is going to die first. Good comparison Florio, it’s not faulty at all…
    I long for the days that coming to this site actually meant getting football news and rumor, with a side of a sense of humor. Now it’s just charged political drivel. Great job Florio, you have successfully ruined a good thing.

  119. LeatherHelmut says: May 15, 2009 10:54 AM

    Remove your Hippie shades and scrub off your shooting star tattoos.
    Jared Allen went hunting legally for wild game.
    Vick took advantage of, abused, and killed trusting, domesticated pets.
    When did you start your vegan diet?
    Did you overcook your soy burgers and burn your tongue on the lentil soup last night and decide to take it out on a huntin’ man?
    I hope I don’t see you streaking down the sidelines of the Metrodome this season, splashing red paint on Jared Allen’s helmet.
    If anything, you should be giving Jared props for using the whole animal the way any good Viking or Native American would have done.
    At least he wasn’t one of the guys hunting those does on the Love Boat.
    I wouldn’t have minded seeing that skin and those feet “dangling!”
    P.S. I bet your flower-carrying, peace sign-throwing newfound hippiedom doesn’t have a problem with Jared’s Jersey.
    It’s a love thing man…. 69, yea!

  120. XeroEdge says: May 15, 2009 10:54 AM

    It is ludicrous to even discuss this. Torturing a domesticated animal versus hunting wild animals? Are you serious?
    A domesticated animal is bred for intelligence and trust. We teach them to behave well and trust humans. Therefore, you cannot torture them to death.
    Hunting wild animals has been a part of our culture since the inception of this country. It’s benefits are endless in both terms of ecosystem managment and protection of personal property.
    Not to mention they do not posess the same level of intellect that a domesticated K9 possesses.
    Thats not even getting into the humane issues regarding methodology or the legal ramifications.

  121. topcide says: May 15, 2009 10:54 AM

    tonyinmd says:
    May 15th, 2009 at 10:12 am
    LOL at someone posting that hunting “keeps animal population in check” and “balances nature”.
    I don’t have anything against hunting or hunters, but please…if anything, Hunting is depleting nature.
    no, actually since we have bulldozed forests to build suburbs, destroyed wetlands, and gerneally elimated natural haitats of animals it does balance nature. I have whitetails that eat the grass on my front lawn, i dont have black bears that come and excerize there position on the food chain by eating the deer on my front lawn. The is why certian amounts of permits to shoot doe are given out every year in most states, because the widlife population is being managed.
    As kid that grew up hunting i learned the VALUE of life by taking an animal, and watching it die. I can gurantee you that i have a greater appreciation every time I eat meat than any non hunter does.
    And I know for a fact the deer that I shoot and butcher has never been forced fed and injected with god knows what, or processed in a disgusting plant

  122. TCLARK says: May 15, 2009 10:57 AM

    I don’t hunt, but can respect it .The guys that bow hunt are at the top of my respect list. At least they work for the kill. But the hunting camps. You know the type that rich people go to like where Chenney shot that guy, those( to me) are run by the Mike Vicks of the world. To stock a section of land with wild game, feed them, teach them to not fear man, just so some rich jackoff can be garunteed a kill, well thats not hunting at all. That would be the only thing close to what Vick did.

  123. ZN0rseman says: May 15, 2009 10:59 AM

    Yeah, you’re right Florio… Davey Crockett was an un-American, brutal killer of cute fuzzy raccoons. Instead of being a member of congress, he should have been jailed by the authorities for his cruel torture of animals, made apparent by his coon-skin hat.
    Seriously though, this is officially the dumbest comparison you’ve ever made Florio. Absolutely retarded really. Jared Allen is a great guy and an upstanding member of the NFL community while Michael Vick has been and always will be, nothing but a glorified thug.
    Oh, and killing coyotes is something that famers from the Midwest do. They kill your pets and harass your livestock…. so that’s just what you have to do. Now I realize that might be hard for the tiny brain of a big city lawyer puke like yourself to comprehend, but I suggest you start trying a little before passing judgment on the overwhelming majority of the country.

  124. brianjoneslives says: May 15, 2009 11:00 AM

    There is very little difference between the two, both involve killing animals for their own individual purposes which humans have been doing forever. What amazes me about this topic is how the entire nation was swept up in a furor over Michael Vick and yet we still as a nation allow abortions. Many of the same people who called Michael Vick a monster for killing dogs, bizarrely think its ok for us to kill our own children. I think that is the truly sick hypocrisy here.

  125. tiktokdok says: May 15, 2009 11:01 AM

    Come on Florio, you’re smarter than that!!

  126. SpartaChris says: May 15, 2009 11:03 AM

    Tuck You says:
    May 15th, 2009 at 9:56 am
    This is the best Vick article you guys have made yet. Good work. And the answer is No, there is no difference.
    Again, dog fighting is a cultural thing.

    So was slavery.

  127. favrecansuckit says: May 15, 2009 11:04 AM

    intended cruelty and torture are the obvious difference. but to play devil’s advocate, if the dogs used in the fights where just shot rather than tortured/drown, would people still be crucifying him? i believe the answer is yes, which i find to be ridiculous.

  128. winsor88 says: May 15, 2009 11:05 AM

    you can not compare Allen and Vick because of what was more of a joke than anything. A living animal died to make a hat….so what. Last time I checked nobody says a word about killing millions of trees to build their house…..Are plants not a form of life? What Vick did is a crime not funny, weather you agree with him or not everyone knows deep down its wrong, even Vick did. But A fur hat a fur coat were more than likely hunted animals. Hunting is a sport that provides food for SOME people and clothes for SOME people. We should just go out and put all the contractors that build houses in jail for useing the wood made from helpless trees that couldn’t defend themselves. They’re just like Allen right?

  129. KBall7326 says: May 15, 2009 11:05 AM

    If groups of people are hunting to survive or if licensed hunters are hunting in the wild for population control, then hunting is ok. That is completely natural.
    If a bunch of rich assholes like Jared Allen and Michael Vick are sitting around killing defenseless animals for fun, that is clearly wrong.

  130. TCLARK says: May 15, 2009 11:07 AM

    Ralph GreNader says:
    May 15th, 2009 at 9:54 am
    @ polevault1543
    I hate to call names just because someone has an opinion I dont like but…..Youre An Idiot!
    And so are you.
    It blows my mind that these cretins walk the earth amongst us.
    It’s because the genuis George Carlin was correct. Stupid people breed at a much higher rate than the smart people. Smart people breed within their means. Dumb people don’t think ahead about being a parent or how to provide for their offspring. We are all doomed.

  131. cantgetenough says: May 15, 2009 11:09 AM

    Florio, hard to imagine you having that viewpoint and living in WV. Hunting is an American pastime, and done correctly is very humane. In fact it is a part of the ecological process and helps keep animal population healthy by preventing overpopulation.
    But this is an obvious ploy to drive people to make comments. Good work!

  132. Kidekk says: May 15, 2009 11:12 AM

    What Vick did was very bad, but, I have seen a goat slaughtered from start to finish. The farmer stabbed the goat in the head, and let it bleed to death, and the goat was still moving and making goat sounds. I’m sure that if it was discovered that Vick stabbed dogs in the head and put them on a rack horizontally so that their blood could drain in a bucket, then hung them on a hook and blow torched the animal (I swear I could still hear the thing making goat sounds, but it was proabbly the other goats in the background), then took a knife and gutted the animal, then used an electric knife to sever its limbs, and then ate the resulting meat, everyone would say it adds to his madness, when, in fact, that is how animals are slaughtered every day.
    On another note, do PETA people own pets? I mean, if they were for the ethical treatment of animals, would they not want dogs and cats to roam free because that is the nature of those animals? Or am I giving them too much credit?

  133. fidelito says: May 15, 2009 11:16 AM

    A West Virginian who doesn’t like hunting varmints? I think you’ve been spending too much time in the big city Florio, you’re going to lose all of your hillbilly cred.

  134. svnrdr says: May 15, 2009 11:17 AM

    Do you eat fishsticks?
    Do you like to put fishsticks in your mouth?

  135. MNPawn says: May 15, 2009 11:20 AM

    Jared better not wear that hat around Florio, he might get “accidentally” shot because Florio thught it was a wild animal coming after him.
    There is a lot of negative Jared Allen material on this site.
    I can already see the future post: Jared Allen – did he intentionally shoot that coyote in the knee?

  136. bigcobra2000 says: May 15, 2009 11:21 AM

    Everyone here is missing the point. Although killing dogs is brutal, Vick’s biggest problem was engaging in unauthorized interstate commerce. He was ahead of a gambling ring that had members from a number of states, which is a highly illegal activity. Not even to mention the tax implications. The dogkilling is awful, but the that not what ultimately made the sentence so harsh. Further, anyone trying to compare hunting to killing dogs by using such heinous methods is a douche.

  137. racerrat666 says: May 15, 2009 11:23 AM

    Killing animals while hunting is ok because you eat the animal. So if someone would be willing to eat the dogs that Vick killed it would ok then? I dont see anything wrong with hunting or dog fighting there just animals get over it. Look along the roadside at all the dead animals rotting away and none cares. So whats so terrible about killing a dog.

  138. madmax says: May 15, 2009 11:24 AM

    mike, you used to be cool: Now you are just a lawyer. With major issues!

  139. eja642 says: May 15, 2009 11:24 AM

    Why do you hate Jared Allen so much?
    You act like he’s the only hunter in the NFL.
    What about Brett Favre, putting a dead wild turkey in a teammate’s locker? You have no problem with that?
    There’s obviously a huge difference in what the two did/do. And questioning that is just further publicizing your irrational hate for a great player.

  140. mad555 says: May 15, 2009 11:26 AM

    cause he likes chicken tetrazzini !!!

  141. Topher says: May 15, 2009 11:29 AM

    I’m not sure that killing of the dogfighting compares at all with hunting. But from a certain point of view I believe it compares with ranching.
    When a rancher or farmer has an animal that does not perform he or she kills that animal. Sometimes by blunt force, sometimes by drowning, sometimes by bullet. There are many different ways to put down a farm animal.
    From Vick’s perspective his dogs were working dogs. Yes the business was illegal and I am not supporting dogfighting. What I am trying to say is that Vick killing the animals does not necessarily mean he’s a guy from whom we need to keep our children away (the double birds dictates that is a good idea, but not necessarily the dogfighting.)

  142. yamydude says: May 15, 2009 11:30 AM

    Im all for PETA right with jarod allen people eating tasty animals
    p e t a

  143. jmikeh says: May 15, 2009 11:34 AM

    Florio, you’re from West Virginia. This shouldn’t bother you in the least.

  144. Topher says: May 15, 2009 11:36 AM

    Once again we disagree. The issue for you is the mistreatment of animals and the manner of death. That isn’t the issue for me. The issue for me is the illegality of it.
    I don’t have any more problem with the morality of what Mike Vick did than I do a pig farmer that raises his pigs in pens that are too small for the pig to turn around in.
    And as for the mode of death.. shrug… death is death.
    In five minutes both animals are equally dead.
    I have greater problem with the morality of PETA demonstrations than I do with the morality of dogfighting.

  145. Kidekk says: May 15, 2009 11:42 AM

    This whole respectfully killing of an animal because you use almost every bit of it is quite ridiculous. I’ll preface this again by saying what Vick did is ridiculous, but reading some of the comments in here shows how society can deem things okay.
    Commenters have said:
    1) It’s okay to control the population of wild animals because they would be a nuisance and danger to our every day lives. I’m assuming that animals view us as a nuisance and danger to their every day lives as well.
    2) It’s the matter in how Vick killed the dogs which makes it wrong, which I agree is true, because dogs are spaed, neutered, and euthanised every day in order to control their population because we don’t want to be inconvenienced with too many dogs roaming the streets and falling back into their natural mindset which would be to hunt for food would could result in us human’s being viewed as food.
    3) Hunting is okay because the animal immediately dies. Now, unless you are with the animal after it is shot and can monitor its heartrate or are Dr. DoLittle, please don’t tell me that you know the animal is dead right away. Humans get shot every day, even in the head, and some of those people are still around to tell the story. So for however long it takes you to get to the deer/buck/whatever and make that final kill shot, please don’t act like you know it is dead.
    4) Animals are killed respectfully when hunting. This is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. So would Wild Bill killing those girls in Silence of the Lambs because he was using their skin to make a “human suit” have been more okay than him just killing those girls, or is this another proverbial apples vs. oranges thing because he still KILLED the girls. The logic that hunters kill respectfully is the same logic that makes people believe in martyrdom. I don’t think that any one on this board would take solace in knowing that they were going to be murdered “respectfully” as opposed to just being murdered.

  146. favrewillplay4ever says: May 15, 2009 11:43 AM

    when jared allen touches himself at night under the covers, he thinks about the neighbor’s cattle

  147. Paulitik says: May 15, 2009 11:46 AM

    Jared Allen should be banned just for bringing back the mullet. He’s like an inbred Brian Bosworth.

  148. TeaChef says: May 15, 2009 11:48 AM

    What’s a football made of exactly? Come to think of it I’ll bet there are 5 dead cows at every baseball game. Using a dead animal skin to play a game that you can gamble on? Wow, I guess the fact that you ‘re making a living at the expense of all those dead animals makes YOU just like Michael Vick.

  149. bandit says: May 15, 2009 11:49 AM

    Pass the hummus to Florio. Then let’s get animals the right to vote.

  150. jimicos says: May 15, 2009 12:00 PM

    Does your heart actually bleed, Mike? Because this is just retarded.
    And I’d like to apologize to all the retarded people out there who were offended by being associated with this.

  151. vikesfan99 says: May 15, 2009 12:14 PM

    “it’s Friday”
    i hope that’s your excuse for this dumbass post, Florio. are you serious?

  152. GregO says: May 15, 2009 12:17 PM

    In a related story Jared Allen and his hat have been banned from the local Kenny Rogers Roasters.

  153. frox says: May 15, 2009 12:17 PM

    Florio – They just revoked your West Virginia residency.

  154. I Heart Matt Birk says: May 15, 2009 12:27 PM

    How do you know that thing didn’t just spawn out of his mullet??

  155. cheeseweasel says: May 15, 2009 12:30 PM

    Real stretch Florio. no time to go into it other than “its waay different” and echo mixman, shame on you.

  156. celtic3332 says: May 15, 2009 12:38 PM

    Some of you need to get on the internet and look at how animals are killed by predators in the wild. I have seen deer hamstrung by wolves and then be eaten alive over several hours. Lions regularly suffocate their victims. Other big cats are known to play with injured prey as well. The vast majority of hunters go to great lengths to kill their targets quickly and with as little pain as possible. No other group has done as much to protect habitat and endangered species as hunters. Millions of dollars annually are contributed to organizations like Ducks Unlimited and The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to protect the outdoors for future generations. I wish all of the mostly urban people who criticize hunting could spend a weekend in deer camp and truly see what hunting is all about. Its easy to criticize something you have never experienced first hand.

  157. Bjorno says: May 15, 2009 12:56 PM

    I gotta say, this is kinda silly Florio.
    First off, hunting is legal and has been forever, dog fighting is not.
    Second, Vick not only killed and tortured multiple dogs for no purpose other than to entertain his friends and gamble his NFL salary, but when the dogs did die he just buried them and forgot about them. At least Jared Allen is getting some use out of the animal he killed.
    Third, you can argue that there is a parallel as far as animal cruelty goes all you want. The bottom line is that Vicks dogs spent their entire life being beaten and starved to make them more aggressive for a fight, and Jared Allen’s hat lived a normal animal life up until it was killed nearly instantaneously by a bullet.
    I would rather die quickly and be a Mullet Warmer for Jared Allen, than be attacked by a wolf and eaten alive.

  158. gregins22 says: May 15, 2009 12:57 PM

    I hope this was just some joke to fill up space. It was a bad joke, but at least it would mean you weren’t seriously contemplating this….Come on….

  159. olchap22 says: May 15, 2009 1:02 PM

    Really Mike? Damb whats next?
    An article on Ocho Cinco wearing leather shoes, and the death of a sacred cow? Or maybe the horror of Chris Cooley making a ham sandwhich on the NFL network, and the sad death of a cute little pig. Hey I have an idea, next time you can’t think of anything to write or want to get up on your ridiculous soap box, maybe you can find an undrafted rookie you is sick enough to use a fly swatter. That sounds like a news worthy topic.

  160. Favre2012 says: May 15, 2009 1:08 PM

    Do you seriously not understand the difference between domesticated pets and wild game? I remember the days when you wouldn’t have thought this, much less posted it.

  161. jsolisranger2010 says: May 15, 2009 1:09 PM

    People have been hunting since the beginning of time and it is a necessity to survive and it is older than the Olympic games and now it is viewed as a sport and Jarred Allen is only just expressing what he loves and what makes him the “69’er” Plus coyotes kill cattle and he is most likely doing the state of Minnesota a favor. And another thing hunting is the main reason Allen wanted to go to Minnesota to play football is to hunt and hes an outdoors man. And Lastly ill bet anyone 1.000$ that Jarred Allen ate that coyote after the kill.

  162. Elaw6 says: May 15, 2009 1:26 PM

    you ever seen a horse get whipped?
    we throw hot coffee all over the horses ass then start whipping it once it starts kicking at u

  163. woody26 says: May 15, 2009 1:32 PM

    Big surprise. Another disparaging Allen post. I’m surprised you didn’t managed to fit his “dive into Matt Schaub’s knee” in here somehow.

  164. cptmick says: May 15, 2009 1:35 PM

    I hope you didn’t pull anything with that reach Mike. Really?

  165. SpartaChris says: May 15, 2009 1:42 PM

    chuckystamos02 says:
    May 15th, 2009 at 10:12 am
    The market should determine if Vick gets back into the NFL. For all the people saying that ‘if I went to jail, I wouldnt have a job waiting for me’, the comparasions dont even come close. If you went to jail and were released, you still would be able to apply for jobs, and if someone really wanted you, they would hire you. Well, if somebody wants Vick, he should get a job. Captialism folks, Vick possess a valuable skill that if someone is willing to pay him for, let them.

    The market did find him a job. He has a construction job lined up for when he gets out.

  166. JoeyCezaleo says: May 15, 2009 1:56 PM

    I cant stand the “legality” distinction. Just because something is illegal or legal doesn’t make it right. Like someone said, its just socially acceptable. Thats where the law comes from in the first place, social acceptability. Thats the ONLY difference.

  167. Cdn_Mike says: May 15, 2009 2:01 PM

    F’n rights we disagree. I could care less that he was gambling.
    And I don’t believe that you don’t see the difference between a quick kill with a bullet and taking pleasure in electricuting a dog through it’s testicles.
    I think you’re just trying to get a response because nobody is that stupid.

  168. Cdn_Mike says: May 15, 2009 2:06 PM

    @ celtic:
    2 things:
    – Animals killed in the wild live free until their death, they aren’t beaten and forced to fight.
    – Animals that are killed in the wild ARE KILLED FOR FOOD!!! They aren’t killed to amuse a multi-million dollar athelete.
    I’m seriously getting sick of the dumbasses that can’t see the difference between what Vick did and other forms of animal death.

  169. vinny cerrato says: May 15, 2009 2:14 PM

    hunting an animal and shooting it with a gun is much less torturous than drowning it or electrocuting it like vick did.
    it’s jared allen though.. he probably grabbed the wolf and snapped it’s neck

  170. bshazzar says: May 15, 2009 2:19 PM

    SpartaChris says:
    May 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
    chuckystamos02 says:
    May 15th, 2009 at 10:12 am
    The market should determine if Vick gets back into the NFL. For all the people saying that ‘if I went to jail, I wouldnt have a job waiting for me’, the comparasions dont even come close. If you went to jail and were released, you still would be able to apply for jobs, and if someone really wanted you, they would hire you. Well, if somebody wants Vick, he should get a job. Captialism folks, Vick possess a valuable skill that if someone is willing to pay him for, let them.
    The market did find him a job. He has a construction job lined up for when he gets out.
    And if there wasn’t an impending PR hit for any team that signs him, ther would be at least 20 teams lined up for his rights once he’s free. chuckystamos is right on this one. Atlanta shouldn’t hire him back, but any other team should feel free to do so.

  171. jeremyb91 says: May 15, 2009 2:32 PM

    If it wasn’t for the NFL, Jared Allen would be living in a TPT mobile home (nothing wrong with mobile homes, but there is a difference of trailer trash in some mobile homes compared to others) in the backwoods, with 7 DUI’s (I believe he has had 2 in one year), 5 kids, a trashy wife, and a mullet.
    In fact, he’d look a lot like some of those boys out in West Virginia.

  172. ZN0rseman says: May 15, 2009 2:33 PM

    Proof that Florio is two things…
    1: An ignorant left-wing lawyer.
    2: A Packers fan who hates Jared Allen, the Williams Wall, and most especially, the thought of Brett Favre with horns on his helmet.

  173. Montana Tom says: May 15, 2009 2:52 PM

    Mike, my first reaction was to tell you to go hug a tree, pet a PETA person, and eat some tofu.
    I am a hunter. My wife wears fur (sometimes nothing else…but you can leave your hat on!). We have friends who are trappers. We live in a place loaded with deer, elk, moose, black bears, grizzly bears, wolves, mountain lions (actually more of them here than the overly populated wolf packs), coyotes and so much more. I live in one of the few states (or even parts of states) where lynx and wolverine are native and can still be trapped. It hasn’t put a dent in any of their populations. I live in a state where the residents voted to amend the state constitution to guarantee residents the right to hunt and fish.
    I think we understand Teddie Roosevelt conservationism, I think we understand hunting ethics and sportsmanship and fair chase.
    I think the distinction between Michael Vick and Jared Allen is as broad as the Grand Canyon. If you can’t understand something as simple as that, how can we trust your judgement on other issues and legal, ethical and moral commentary, Mike?
    However, you open your mind to comments and responses. I think it’s safe to say that most thinking people understand and agree that whether or not you are a hunter, that even bringing these two individual’s names up in any context of comparison is inappropriate at best.

  174. Patscantcheatkharmabitches says: May 15, 2009 3:16 PM

    The hat is a lot cooler than that Mullet combover he’s throwing down. If you eat a burger or fish or any other live thing, you should have nothing to say against hunting.

  175. Norseman.1 says: May 15, 2009 4:07 PM

    I believe it is a beaver hat…

  176. kahit1227 says: May 15, 2009 4:10 PM

    I signed up to this site just so I could say this – Jared Allen is the biggest jagoff douchebag in professional sports. Even more so than Curt Schilling.
    That being said, this is a bad comparison. Hunting is a ridiculous past-time (notice I didn’t say sport), but it isn’t the same as torturing and killing dogs. Still stupid, just not AS stupid.

  177. BlueEyeDevils says: May 15, 2009 4:18 PM

    Can anyone tell me what happens to the coyote’s flesh after it is murdered? Is it killed for the fur or does coyote meat fills a need that you can’t get from the local super market?
    “BlueEyeDevils” are funny.

  178. Topher says: May 15, 2009 4:38 PM

    I don’t make the same assumption in Vick’s pleasure as you do. I think Vick ought to be banned from the NFL because he engaged in a lifestyle of illegal activity that was widespread in its scope and funded by money earned from the NFL. Furthermore I’ve seen nothing public to make me think that he wouldn’t continue to use the money he earned in the NFL illegally. His current financial predicament encourages his penchant for illegal money-making schemes.
    The facts that dogs were killed I think is a bad deal, and why dogfighting is illegal. But killing the dogs isn’t my motivator.
    As to the thought that electrocuting a dog to death is worse than shooting the dog to death, I honestly don’t have a preference. Neither do I have a preference on the electric chair or a firing squad. Different techniques to the same end.

  179. falcon07 says: May 15, 2009 4:41 PM

    re: everybodygotaids
    your philosophy is out of wack. j. allen should be able to mount a cheetah on his head if he wants to. we live in america and it’s his right to hunt for sport. at least he’s using some of the carcus and not just leaving it dead in the woods.
    it’s vick’s right to practice his trade. if companies shy away from him and the nfl becasue of his past actions, that is their choice. vick’s not working to return this year to get dog lover sympathy and he not coming back to craddle to the stay at home wife nfl fan. he’s coming back to redeem himself, he deserves that chance, he’s paid a heavy price already, much heavier then other notable nfl players have received for crimes against fellow man. and the fact is, it’s just an animal, who really cares
    let me ask you a question. where else would you rather be if you could go to a dogfight with pac-man jones and michael vick.

  180. beanman1980 says: May 15, 2009 10:29 PM

    Legality is dependant on who makes the laws and what is socially acceptable. At this time what vick did was illegal and what allen did was not so people will accept what society has told them what is right and what is wrong. It’s easier to come back to the NFL when you shoot/kill a person or are the reason someone else gets shot than it is to kill a dog! i.e ray lewis. think about that!!!

  181. apwoodr says: May 16, 2009 12:30 AM

    Jared Allen prefers to kill animals with the front grill of his pick-up and wear the carcass on his head. Road Kill Hat Company.

  182. mmeyers says: May 16, 2009 8:59 AM

    I can’t help but think of this clip :)

  183. ViKing says: May 17, 2009 9:37 AM

    We all know your anti-Viking and purely pro-Packer but, you’ve reached a milestone in defamation and an apology to Allen should be warranted.
    Almost weekly you try and find something lame to write about the Vikings Org to a pathetic extreme, might I suggest you shut the hell up and go about your bis. as a professional, instead of a flamer?
    You know, you have really come on lately as one lame duck and your awe inspired Packer fan friends are even starting to show a lack of interest in your rantings, but by all means keep embarressing yourself its getting funny to watch.

  184. BOB-R says: May 18, 2009 11:23 AM

    I think this Florio guy should be banned for being a troll. He obviously just posted this to get a rise out of everyone.
    Must have been a slow day.

  185. Shuda says: Jun 2, 2009 3:25 PM

    Would the outcome have been any different for M. Vick if he had taken the losing dogs, put them all in a fenced area, placed food at the base of a tree and then perched up in that tree and dropped spears on them as they ate ? From what i hear that is the “humane” way to kill an animal. Only takes about a min for them to bleed to death (if your a good shot) but im sure that does not hurt much.
    A bullet to the head would be the fastest and create the least amount of suffering. Unfortunately this would destroy the “trophy” from the kill. Trust me, a bear skin rug just does not look that good with a mangled face :) Bottom line, there is nothing “humane” about killing anything, It’s just something that has to be done so you/i can have our pre packaged ground beef/steak or the occasional big mac.
    The only reason M. Vick went to jail was because of the gambling. If the feds could license, regulate and tax all proceeds from dog fighting Im sure it too would be as legal as the fenced killing farm that jared allen like to drops spears on unsuspecting animals from tree’s in. M. Vick has paid his debt to society, he deserves a second chance. I hope he does a commercial with the humane society. F U PETA.
    P et
    E nthusiasts
    T errorism
    A ssociation

  186. jimicos says: Jun 17, 2009 12:00 PM

    Kilroy was here.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!