Michael Vick, what's the difference?

Question

I just want to know from all of you, what's the difference in the dog fighting circuit than with people who hunt animals and have them stuffed to show off in their homes.

Not saying that it's right all around but what's the difference? People hunt and kill animals all the time, if they want that to be wrong then they might want to make a law that says just that. Give me you opinion on that.

Ok, that is good some of you have gave me some honest answers and that's what I wanted to hear. But there are a few of you who wanted to talk about how things are in the "wild". There are regualtions out there also. Example with the elephant tusk.

Like I said before I am not condoning the things that Michael Vick has allowed to happen and/or did but you have to ask yourself, When your killing and animal, are you not killing an animal. Becuase regardless if you eat them and put them on your wall or kill them because they didn't perform, they are being killed.

Answer 1

If you eat meat, fine. But would you relish in the killing, torture, and abuse of the animal you're eating? Would you place bets on how long the slaughter would take. Would you chain it to a wall and beat the animal with a chain before you slaughtered it? Would you use the animal as "bait" to entice the others to learn to shred it as entertainingly as possible? Would you place it in a tiny pen from birth and beat it daily to make it mean? Make it a fighter? Would you brag to your friends how "bad" your dog is? Would you rip his intestines out with a knife and let him die slowly so that the other dogs get the "taste" of blood?

If so, you may enjoy the "art" of dog fighting.

I am not a hunter, but I have never known one that enjoyed the slow and painful death that dog fighters love. Most, by the way, eat the animals they kill.

But if you can equate the two, you're right. There is no difference. But I think there is.

Answer 2

Hunters in prehistoric times (hunter/gatherer) would kill an animal, remove its skin to make clothing or bags, they would take its flesh and eat it or smoke it to eat it later, they would make tools and various things with the bones and they would perch the skull of the animal on a tree or something as a sign of respect to the animal, and so other hunters would not hunt for the same animal in the same area (to prevent overhunting).

Basically they would use all parts of the animal and waste nothing. All this was done to give the animal respect.

Modern hunters (hopefully) have some similar reverence for the animals they kill. That is why hunters use hunting rifles and not RPGs, airstrikes and M16s. That's why people don't go fishing with dynamite or cyanide. The animal has a chance to escape, and it's much more fair.

What Michael Vick is doing is just cruel though. He's getting dogs to fight each other so he can place bets. If a dog isn't up to his standards, he hung them or drowned them. Now where is the respect and fairness in that?

Answer 3

Have you ever seen a dog? They are totally dependent on people, for food and companionship. Have you ever seen a wild animal (like a deer)? They are conditioned to be preyed upon. There is a big difference. If you do what Vick did to dogs, it is cruelty and torture. If you hunt, you are simulating natural predation (and in some ways I would think being hit by a high powered rifle bullet from 500 yards is less cruel than a being chased and eaten by a pack of wolves or a mountain lion in the case of a deer).

Answer 4

I think most people that hunt actually harvest or eat what they kill. Not that agree or disagree with it but that's the difference.
I don't think there is any benefit to forcing any animal to fight another just for betting purposes.
I do however see a benefit in killing a "legal" animal and processing the meat for meals.
If someone mounts the head after the meat is harvested then that's their own prerogative.

Answer 5

gee, wild animals live free their whole lives and basically suffer a few minutes tops when they are killed. That and the animal is generally eaten by most huneters. This is actually more morally honest than going to your grocer for already cut up meat, to be truthful, and the animals suffer a lot less.

Fighting dogs live a horrible life of misery and agony for their whole existence. I doubt that anyone eats the animals after they are dead either.

Answer 6

Whoa! ok, there is truly a considerable volume of distinction. i do no longer trust the "canines are pets" factor: they are all animals, they are all sentient beings with a great to stay. yet... canines struggling with is the epitome of merciless. 2 the two matched canines (or perchance one is enhanced) flow head to head and combat for their lives. they are the two heavily injured, and it truly is a sluggish, nasty adventure of discomfort and terror for the two canines. canines knowledgeable to be advise additionally are advise to people, and supply their species a nasty call. the folk who watch the canines are in it for the money. They manage the canines badly and choose them to get harm. If a canines loses it truly is flogged. Deer looking is while somebody is going out into the wilds, into the international of the deer, with a gun. He respects nature and is time-honored with the way it works. He must be taught on the subject of the deer and be taught monitoring qualifications. it is the looking this is the relaxing section. The dying is speedy, controlled and carried out by using a stable shot - no longer a canines this is scared and struggling with for its life so only needs out. The deer is eaten and all factors of it are used. it truly is respected. The ineffective canines is given no appreciate. in my view i do unlike the two, yet canines struggling with isn't even close to to ethical. Deer struggling with, a minimum of, i will partially comprehend. yet comparing them is like comparing a petty thief with a serial rapist. canines struggling with is terrible. it is not any longer something to do with ethnic minorities. the certainty they draw close the deer's head on the wall would not remember to the deer. it truly is an indication of appreciate to such an enthralling, stylish creature. the clarification they do no longer do the comparable with the canines's head is via the fact it is crushed to a bloody mush and ripped aside - it is annoying to tell one component of the canines from the different, and no factors are tremendously sufficient afterwards to entice close up.

Answer 7

Hmm, let's see. On the one hand, you're training domesticated animals to maul, main and kill each other. On the other hand, you're hunting and killing wild game for the most part very quickly.

See you at the kitten fights.

Answer 8

The other responders have said it all. And there is the saying, quoted on Star Trek TNG: "Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you". Hunting can be fairer than dog fights.

Answer 9

Hunters eat the deer.

Answer 10

Difference? I don't see the similarity. The basic premise of your question doesn't make sense.