Vick (Dogfighting) versus Hunting... What's the difference?
What is the difference between what Vick did and what sportsmen/hunters do for weekend entertainment? Logical and objective responses are appreciated! As always let's keep it respectful please. If you have nothing constructive to say please keep it to yourself!
Answers:
Youre missing the word alleged in there.
But it depends. If the food hunted is eaten it is no issue. If it is killed for sport it is no better-killing and hurting solely for fun is sick no matter how you look at it (Ive never known a responsible hunter who didnt use or eat or sell what was killed unless it had to be killed-ie. dangerous animals or nuissance animals like racoons).
A lot of people hunt or fish for food, or at least eat whatever it is they kill. They're also wild animals and aren't bred by humans to be killed. It serves a purpose other than entertainment.
Dogfighting dogs are raised for a single purpose - to fight and entertain others. Much more unnatural than hunting or fishing.
I don't know that Vick did everything that his indictments say he did (although it certainly doesn't look good for him). I'll let the justice system make that decision.
Hunting, at least, can be viewed as a means of getting food. I have no problem with that. I do feel some uneasiness over those hunters who do it for fun.
But dog fighting involves raising an animal with no intent other than to force it to kill untill it is killed. This definitely seems more evil.
what vick did is illegal. hunting is legal with rules. easy as that.
as a rule, hunters hunt for food.
EVERY hunter i know is more respectful to the environment than the non-hunters i know. ( i probably know more hunters than non, but we seem to preach our respect to each other alot.)
A permit.
EVERY hunter I know hunts for food. I wanna see "Vick" eat those dogs he killed.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: