Is Hunting on the same moral level as Dogfighting?
Enough people are going off on Vick already, but I saw today one of his laywer's arguments. Basically, he said that Vick's crime was that he was cruel to dogs, but that shooting and fighting dogs is like hunting, and that the difference between Vick and a hunter is the species of animal they hurt.
Please comment on this.
Answers:
Why did I know that sooner or later this question would come up here on Answers?
First of all, what Vick did was totally morally and ethically WRONG! For anyone not to understand that simple fact, needs their head examined.
When you brutally victimize a helpless "dumb animal" such as a dog, be it horse, dog, cat, ferret, g-pig, whatever, you are in a sense raping that creatures natural rights of survival.
The very fact that he and his cohorts bought these poor animals, then decided they weren't up to snuff - ie: Vick's and their standards: they decide to take judgment on these innocents and electrocute them, drown them, shoot them or simply beat them to death!
As for the SPORT of hunting. My husband and son are hunters. They abide by the ethical and humane laws of hunting. In other words, they adhere to the Godly divine laws of how to hunt only for what's needed for food. As for these idiots out there in hunter land who abuse their privileges of hunting by spot-lighting and whatever other means they see fit to "take a kill" just to feed their sick egos, then they should in fact lose their licenses, have their guns and trucks sometimes their homes confiscated! They do not abide by the proper laws of sport hunting. There's a way to track a deer, moose, bear, so that the odds are even, not one-sided.
The very fact that Vick and his compadre's did what they did, gambling, murdered innocents, dog-fighting, etc. indicates to me and I'm sure many law-enforcement officials that these little twerps are not man enough to even the playing field like a true gentleman would and hunt the proper way as a true Sportsman!
Did that answer your question!?
If it didn't, then ask any Game Warden. I'm sure they'll be glad to sign off on what I just stated as the truth.
Oh and BTW, my two gentleman hunters DO NOT trophy their kills in the house.
Maybe if hunters repeatedly inflicted non fatal shots on the prey.
Last I heard, Vick wasn't eating the dogs he killed.
Well, I like vick and still do, but he needs to go to jail for this one. It's not the same because hunters give their prey a sporting chance. They don't drown them, electrocute them and make them fight for thier lives and gamble on it.
What he did was sick. I wish him the best of luck and hope he returns, but he needs to pay for what he did.
Most of the hunters I know do not bet on what they will bag when they go out, also most of them use the meat to feed their families, this can not be said about Vick or his co-Hort's in crime or anyone else that fights dogs. He knew that what he was doing was a crime and did it anyway, I wish him the best when he gets out.
Its on the same moral level as trophy hunting, but that won't be baned because the NRA is just as if not more powerful than PITA.
Not even close.a hunters goal is to kill the animal instantly, this is for two reasons, not to be cruel, and to avoid having to track the wounded animal for hours..now if the hunter were to spend a few hours ripping hunks of flesh from the animal with pliers, then break its legs, torment it into complete exhaustion, then hang it by its neck until almost dead, then finish it by holding its head under water....then, and only then.can you compare them
The supposed purpose for hunting is gathering meat. It would be on the same level as buying beef from the store. Dog fighting is a blood sport. Dogs are treated poorly in order to make them mean. Under-performing dogs are rarely disposed of humanely (as with Vicks he supposedly hung and drowned many of them). As for the purpose of trophy hunting, well I guess the difference would be that you kill an animal as quickly as possible instead of tormenting it and torturing it in order to get it as mean as possible. (I still don't understand why you would want flesh hanging on your wall though).
Hunters hunt for food. It is killed quickly.
In dog fighting the dog is killed for fun with usually a painful death for entertainment.
It is not the same.
Hunting has traditionally been a means of feeding the hunter and his/her family, whereas dogfighting is a sport and a cruel sport at that.
His lawyer is grasping at straws. Hunting is not breeding animals and training them to rip one another to shreds. Hunters generally eat the meat they kill and it helps to cull populations of wildlife that would die of starvation.
That's like comparing Olympic boxing to the Roman Forum and Gladiators.
this is plain and simply a bad argument. how is shooting and fighting dogs anything like hunting? deer are in the wild and are not domesticated...
if they really want to save vicks reputation then why dont they push that "we should thank michael vick for bringing dogfighting to national attention." this is much more realistic.
Well morally, killing another creature for the sake of entertainment is wrong. On the other hand, if you were hunting another creature for the purpose of survival (eating), then that would be justified. Hunting for sport may be on the same level as dogfighting, except in our society it is generally accepted to hunt deer, wild game, etc. than it is to subject domesticated dogs to violence.
I dont think it matters that hunting is like dog-fighting. Plenty of other laws are very similar to things that are legal. I mean drinking is legal, but drugs arent legal. Dog-fighting is illegal that is all that matters.
In my opinion...i think vick coulda used better judgement in the situation, but I feel this is getting blown way outta proportion due to his celebrity status. I think people do alot worse and get off way easier. People are not only out to eat the food that they kill when they hunt. Hunting is still considered a "sport", and many do it for the trophy pieces. How is it right that deer hunters get to shoot, kill, and then hang their prize in the livingroom above the fire place, but Vick is getting castrated for organizing dog fights? I don't agree with his methods of killing them, but would it have been more acceptable if he shot them, like hunters do their prey? Again, this has been going on for quite sometime, Vick is just going to be used to make an example of.
There's a big difference between shooting an animal to eat it later, and torturing one over a prolonged period just for sport. The fact that hunters also consider what they do a sport isn't relevant - it's no more immoral to hunt and do the dirty work yourself than to expect a farmer to slaughter a cow for you so you can buy it's meat at a supermarket.
Avid hunters don't torcher animals by fighting them to the death.Hunting is a great sport and as long as it is done according to the guide lines by the federal wildlife authority it helps keep things in balance.We have already moved into the animals world and took over. Now its time to help keep them from extinction from disease and over populating the smaller areas they have.
So far you have two good answers. I happen to agree with both of them.
Most hunters that I know practice on non-living things in order to be as sure as they can be that when they shoot something it will die. It will not be suffering for hours on end.
Dog fights entail much suffering on the part of the dogs. Dog bites hurt and to bite an animal to the point of death must cause an extreme amount of pain. To my way of thinking it must be closer to when a terrorist saws off someones head.
The hunters that I have talked with also do not hunt for fun. They do this to provide meat for their families. Also, most of them say that if they do not find any game that the walking in the great outdoors early in the morning is like talking with God. Totally serene and peaceful.
I don't think there is anything serene and peaceful in watching dogs bite each other to death. That is where the torture and maiming come in, I guess.
Vick's lawyer is trying to earn his exorbitant fee. Did he succeed in convincing you or anyone else?
I'm going to have to disagree with that.
Now, I am no expert on hunting or animal husbandry, but I draw a definite difference between hunting an animal (either for food, for population control, or even if it's done humanely for sport, i.e., the animal does not suffer).
Dogfighting, which is solely for the purpose of promoting violence and profiting from it. It has no positive effect on the dog population, it's not done for any food or health of humans OR dogs, it is horribly violent for the animals (before, during, and after the fight, as well as when breeding and impregnating -- ick), and it's made even more of a crime when they bet on it.
I see no comparison, other than both involve animals. Sorry.
If you believe in God then this might help. This is a quote from Catholic Morality by. Fr. John Laux.
"The killing of animals is not murder as some fanatics claim. Animals have no rights because they are not intelligent and free. If they had rights they would have duties; but no one will say that they have duties. But to deny that animals have rights is certainly not saying that we may treat them according as our fancy moves us. God made them and has rights in them, so we have a duty to Gad not to misuse them"
Hope this helps!
Hardly the same thing. Poor, poor argument aimed at the hearts of true PETA loving liberals.
The dogs are trained to fight and cause pain to the point of submission or death. Only to do it again later, if the dog survives. Almost like torture in a way. Even boxing does not go that far.
Hunting, if done correctly, is quick, painless, and has finality... or a finite end. The animal is NOT intended to suffer in any way. I don't go out with the intention of fighting my prey to see who wins this time. Wounding or maiming is not an option, only a clean kill is acceptable. After which proper thanks should be given.
only if he ate his dogs and there was not 10's of thousands of dollars changing hands. this is not just animal cruelty, it is racketeering and the likes. it is apples and illegal gambling. no coparison.
There is no moral comparison. There is no legal comparison.
And if Vick's attorney actually tried to make that comparison I'd be worried for Vick when it comes time for sentencing.
Absolutely not. Most hunters eat what they catch, and don't gamble in which deer will kill the other. Dogfighting is downright cruel; Vick didn't use the dogs for anything other than gambling. Killing an animal because it is not aggressive enough is not the same as killing an animal for food. Plus, last I checked, hunters have special licenses and can only shoot certain animals. Oh, and most animals that are hunted (wolves, deer, etc) need to be as a form of population control or else they will starve because there is not enough food for every animal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the dog population is not big enough where killing them is necessary to keep them from starving.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: