michel vick versus cheney?
2007-08-24 07:29:43 · 17 answers · asked by lillian r 1 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
First off, what Michael Vick did was ILLEGAL. Hunting is not.
Second, most people make a distinction between the way we treat companion animals like dogs and cats, and the way we treat animals raised for human consumption or which are wild and are hunted for human consumption. Put bluntly, as a society we do not think that it is okay to raise dogs or cats for slaughter. Dogs and cats are animals we have raised to a higher level, closer to us, than other animals we regularly deal with.
Third, in hunting, we at least pay lip service to preserving some level of fairness in the hunt that allows the prey animal a chance to escape or evade the hunt. At least in theory, the deer or pheasant or whatever it is that we're hunting has a fair chance to get away-- the hunter has to use a lot of skill and patience to be able to make a kill. In dog fighting, the dogs never have a chance to avoid the fight. The dogs that are killed because they don't "make the grade" are never afforded even a chance to get away. Killing a helpless companion animal that has no chance to get away is sick-making to most decent people.
Fourth, the animals involved in dog fighting are forced to suffer for the pleasure/financial remuneration of the people who participate. Both dogs in the fight suffer injuries, sometimes to the point where both animals end up having to be put down. Further, because of the illegality of the activity, the participants don't seek out vet care for animals that are injured, because of the fear of the vet shopping them to authorities. So the dogs are only afforded home treatment which can be very inadequate and which increases the suffering.
The whole idea of hunting is for the hunter to use his skill and training to stalk and kill an animal that is brought down in a clean kill without suffering. The ideal is that unless the hunter has a chance to make a clean kill, he isn't supposed to shoot; and that if he shoots and doesn't make a clean kill, he's supposed to immediately pursue the animal to assure that it is killed with the minimum of suffering.
Dogfighting, instead, is all about humans putting animals into a pit for the purpose of inflicting suffering for the entertainment of people who watch. It's disgusting.
2007-08-24 07:48:50 · answer #1 · answered by Karin C 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's hard to believe this is getting any traction. The differences are so vast it's dumbfounding that anybody could ask. I don't think you really want a book, which would be easy and still incomplete, but the main difference begins with dogs being bred and trained for fighting. Hunting is about hunting, and the kill should be a quick, humane end, only the denoument, not the purpose, of the hunt.
2007-08-24 10:54:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Guns and bullets, plus Vick didn't eat his dogs. Cheney on the other hand drinks the blood of his victims by biting them in the neck and has been know to turn into a bat at night.
2007-08-24 07:34:42 · answer #3 · answered by blogbaba 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Can you prove Michael Vick eats the dogs killed in the fights he set up? If not then you should be able to see the difference.
2007-08-24 15:53:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you making excuses for Vick or just attacking hunters? Your political lean is obvious here especially after you yourself said the difference was legal.
Try coming up with something we can actually chew on. This is a baby food argument. Don't need any teeth for this one.
2007-08-25 04:13:03 · answer #5 · answered by Ret. Sgt. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because most hunters eat the animals, you dont eat dog in America. Some animals are overpopulated, so you hunt them to lower their numbers so they dont starve because of lack of food. dogs arent overpopulated. Some animals are nuisances and cause problems like dead livestock, and house pets usually dont cause problems and arent nuisances, they do complety opposite. this theory just doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain.
2007-08-26 04:10:29 · answer #6 · answered by Aaron 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact that dogs are domesticated and are the most popular pets whereas the other animals aren't. People are much more familiar with dogs than wild animals. Not saying that it is right, but that is the difference.
2007-08-24 07:36:45 · answer #7 · answered by Carnac 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How many more times does this question have to be asked? There is no comparison at all between "illegal dog fighting" and "legal hunting"!!!
2007-08-24 10:25:20 · answer #8 · answered by Donnie C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How many dogs have your eaten? Stop trying to justify what Vick did and just get on with your life.
2007-08-24 07:39:58 · answer #9 · answered by lestermount 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was under the impression that dogs only fight when in fear, hunger, or to protect young. and not to the death for sure.
Hunting on the other hand helps keep the population under control.
2007-08-24 07:42:17 · answer #10 · answered by L 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋