Does Starbury have a point?

[Fillmoe_]

Newsday -
Stephon Marbury commented on the Michael Vick situation to a television station in Albany, New York.

“We don’t say anything about people shooting deers and shooting other animals," said Marbury. "You know what I mean? From what I hear, dog-fighting is a sport. It’s just behind closed doors and I think it’s tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down. I think he’s one of the superb athletes and he’s a good human being. I think he fell into a bad situation.”

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/47708/20070821/marbury_dog_fighting_is_a_sport/

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm not a fan of dogfighting at all, but how does it differ from Bull Fighting in Spain?

[monosylab1k]

he's got a point.

dogfighting is cruel & sick, and the way he killed dogs was just cold-blooded.....but somehow blowing away a deer with a rifle and hanging it's head in your living room isn't?

[v2freak]

Generally you hunt deer in order to eat it, whereas the way he killed dogs was cruel and pointless.

That being said, I intend to become a full vegetarian soon

I don't know how Starbury can confirm that Vick is a good person given what he's done

[Fillmoe_]

Maybe he knows Vick personally? And good people do shady things all the time. You don't base judgments off of one incident.

[monosylab1k]

Generally you hunt deer in order to eat it
and mounting it's head in your study is part of the eating process?

[ChumpDumper]

He obviously doesn't know about the underground deerfighting circuit.

[Marklar MM]

Is there a difference between killing a deer, bear, etc. with a gun or arrow in the vital organs to kill them quickly OR hanging, electrocuting, and drowning a dog?

[Fillmoe_]

So what you are saying is, if they just shot the dogs in the head after they were done with them, it would be okay?

[Marklar MM]

So what you are saying is, if they just shot the dogs in the head after they were done with them, it would be okay?


It would have been a hell of a lot better than torturing the things. And frankly, if they had just shot the dogs in the head, there would be less in terms of outrage.

[Fillmoe_]

True. I don't think its about the killing of the dogs. It's more of an argument of the torture the dogs go through. Not to mention they would steal house dogs for training purposes.

[thispego]

why split hairs here? what michael vick and his buddies did was wrong, hunting is not.

[Findog]

He absolutely has a point. One is legal, one is not, but really, other than that, what is the difference? Killing animals for your gratification and amusement. I fail to see the difference.

[Findog]

Rich people eat veil, where a baby calf is tied up and not allowed to move an inch until it dies. They also consume foie gras, where a goose is tied up and fed until its liver explodes. We're also allowed to hunt animals for sport, and yet we're supposed to work up some sort of special outrage over dogfighting? God forbid you get some mini T-Rex's fighting each other to death and then the refrain switches to "Lock this black man up!"

[ChumpDumper]

You don't have to be rich to eat veal.

(I don't, fwiw).

If you can point me to the underground goose and calf fights around Austin, I'll make a comparison.

[Switchman]

Anyone who can't see the difference...c'mon. Out of all the lame excuses, this is by far one of the stupidest.

I have never hunted, I'm a fisherman, but I can easily tell the difference.

[Findog]

You don't have to be rich to eat veal.

(I don't, fwiw).

If you can point me to the underground goose and calf fights around Austin, I'll make a comparison.

Yeah, we get it, one is legal, one is not, but is there a difference between hunting animals for your gratification that ends in their death or dogfighting for your gratification that ends in death?

[Dalhoop]

I think that the differance is that if these dogs were not trained to fight, they would be someones pet. Dogs do fight in the wild, but it is not for sport, it is for the porpose of determaning dominance ... once that is sorted out, the fighting is over .. rarely is the "loosing dog" killed, he becomes beta dog, not alpha dog.

In dog fighting, the dogs are tortured before the fight, put into the fight, and if they loose they do not become beta dog, they get tortured until they die as to the dog fighter, they have no worth anymore.

All this is done for money .. This is not a sport, this is a gambling oppertunity ... Dogs die because of a gambling oppertunity.

The uproar is all about the what happens to the loosing dog. In horse racing, we do not kill the loosing dog, we breed to make the next generation faster. We do not kill the dogs that loose at the dog track.

When two dogs get into a fight, one of them is going to die (Either in the fight or after). For a person to put an animal into that position just for an oppertunity to gamble is barbaric.

There is nothing similar to hunting in dogfighting. Train a deer to use a gun and bet on the outrcome and it would be closer. I doubt anyone would train a deer to shoot and then go hunting for it for money ... Its just stupid.

Veal and Foie Gras are foods, they are food products. There is no betting, there is no "Fight or Die", there is no "You loose, You Die" ... There are food, it is that simple.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, we get itNah, you don't.

[monosylab1k]

would Vick be in this much trouble if he was involved in cockfighting* and drowned and electrocuted roosters?
















*the obvious cock jokes are so obvious that nobody needs to say them.

[monosylab1k]

Veal and Foie Gras are foods, they are food products. There is no betting, there is no "Fight or Die", there is no "You loose, You Die" ... There are food, it is that simple.
so putting an animal through torture and an agonizing death is okay as long as you eat it. great.

[monosylab1k]

You don't have to be rich to eat veal.

(I don't, fwiw).

If you can point me to the underground goose and calf fights around Austin, I'll make a comparison.
i heard about a few in Des Moines but that's just hearsay.

[Findog]

Nah, you don't.

Tell me, other than legality, what is the difference between hunting and dogfighting?

[Fabbs]

Tell me, other than legality, what is the difference between hunting and dogfighting?
In hunting, before shooting the animal (say deer) you don't keep it living in cages or on a chain and have them fight with another deer until one of their eyes are gouged out, ears bitten off, etc. A proper hunter bam pow shoots the unsuspecting deer so it really doesnt suffer at all. Prior to being shot it gets a lifetime of frolicking in the woods.

[Findog]

In hunting, before shooting the animal (say deer) you don't keep it living in cages or on a chain and have them fight with another deer until one of their eyes are gouged out, ears bitten off, etc. A proper hunter bam pow shoots the unsuspecting deer so it really doesnt suffer at all. Prior to being shot it gets a lifetime of frolicking in the woods.

You're still killing an animal for your gratification. Did the deer ask if he wanted to be hunted for sport?

[Ronaldo McDonald]

I don't see why an animal that is innocent of doing any harm on humans should be shot and mounted.

Why not mount tumors? Now that I wouldn't fucking mind.

[jay014]

Tell me, other than legality, what is the difference between hunting and dogfighting?
Hunting, you go out in the woods in search of food deer,hogs,birds,and go out to the lake for fish.
Dogfighting, you bring your dog to face somebodys dog and have them fight until one dies,unless your part vietnamese then there's probably no difference between hunting and dogfighting.

[resistanze]

Michael Vick had to be some kind of idiot to be doing something as dumb as dogfighting with the money he has. That being said, I see dogfighting no different from Trophy hunting where you kill deers, bears, elephants to mount on your wall. They aren't used as food most of the time, so I'm not buying that excuse.

[Findog]

Hunting, you go out in the woods in search of food deer,hogs,birds,and go out to the lake for fish.
Dogfighting, you bring your dog to face somebodys dog and have them fight until one dies,unless your part vietnamese then there's probably no difference between hunting and dogfighting.

Fishing is one thing, since it's done for nourishment and not sport. But, I'm sorry, I don't see a difference between hunting and dogfighting. Your killing animals for your own entertainment.

[jay014]

Poaching?

[jay014]

Fishing is one thing, since it's done for nourishment and not sport. But, I'm sorry, I don't see a difference between hunting and dogfighting. Your killing animals for your own entertainment.
Fishing is also a sport. Ever seen one mounted?

[Fabbs]

You're still killing an animal for your gratification. Did the deer ask if he wanted to be hunted for sport?
Yes he did.
Hunting for food. Not hunting for ego.

[td4mvp3]

hunting for sport is pretty dumb but is not as evil as dogfighting. as someone else pointed out, the animal isn't locked away and forced to fight another animal and then killed for losing (and i would put bull fighting, cock fighting in the same evil category). at the very least, the person is involved in the hunting act and, from what i can tell, there is some reverence between hunters and their game, they take into consideration the manner in which they kill something and don't make it a spectacle. granted, both hunting and dogfighting lead to death, but hell, everything dies at some point and the whole reason torture is a war crime but shooting an enemy is not is exactly because of the manner of the death. similarly, killing an animal for sport, while repugnant, doesn't seek as its grand aim to torture and really looks for ways to mitigate the pain and suffering of the animalls. dogfighting doesn't take any of that into account. hell, part of it depends on abusing the animal since, otherwise, a lot of the dogs would not fight. so torture gets used to mold the animal into a killer. no one molds a deer or fish. and as a side idea, at least the skills learned by hunting can be useful in other ways and in life-saving situations. dogfighting gives you nothing.

the ways food are produced can be sickening but ultimately serve the purpose of food, so i let that go. just about every animal is mistreated to make enough food/meat for the world. should there be standards? yes. but does it rise the evil of a sport that provides no redeemable quality? no.

[Findog]

Fishing is also a sport. Ever seen one mounted?

About 99% of the time the fish are consumed.

[td4mvp3]

About 99% of the time the fish are consumed.
but you can't ignore the 1 percent that they are not if your contention is that hunting for sport is as bad as dog fighting.

[J.T.]

I don't get why yous guys are getting bent out of shape about hunting. The food chain. You learned that shit in third grade, that's all hunting is. Man has to eat to live just like everything else. Deer obviously aren't going extinct any time soon so what's the big fucking deal? A deer doesn't have a chance against a hunting rifle, but that's the point of hunting. You are trying to kill the shit, not have a fair fight with it. You shoot to kill. Kill it and grill it. Rinse, dry, repeat.

Comparing hunting and dogfighting is pretty fucking funny.

Think about what you said next time you're in line at the Wendy's drive thru. Those animals are slaughtered with similar lack of regard.

[Findog]

but you can't ignore the 1 percent that they are not if your contention is that hunting for sport is as bad as dog fighting.

If your only motivation is sport and trophies, then it is essentially no different from hunting. Indians who hunted buffalo and "lived off the land," so to speak, same as fishing. Most hunting is about the kill, not about procuring food.

[ChumpDumper]

Tell me, other than legality, what is the difference between hunting and dogfighting?Tell me where the deer/goose/calf fights are in Austin.

I'll go to them and give a full comparison.

I'm no fan of trophy hunting either, but at least most hunted animals have some chance.

[Findog]

I don't get why yous guys are getting bent out of shape about hunting. The food chain. You learned that shit in third grade, that's all hunting is. Man has to eat to live just like everything else. Deer obviously aren't going extinct any time soon so what's the big fucking deal? A deer doesn't have a chance against a hunting rifle, but that's the point of hunting. You are trying to kill the shit, not have a fair fight with it. You shoot to kill. Kill it and grill it. Rinse, dry, repeat.

Comparing hunting and dogfighting is pretty fucking funny.

Think about what you said next time you're in line at the Wendy's drive thru. Those animals are slaughtered with similar lack of regard.

Yeah, we're all living off the land and killing what we eat. If you're hunting to eat, fine, but that seems increasingly rare these days. Yeah, I know, as a kid I was dragged along on deer hunts, you eat the deer too, but that's not why we were out there shooting rifles. If you're hunting to mount a deer head on your wall, then what's the difference?

[Findog]

Tell me where the deer/goose/calf fights are in Austin.

I'll go to them and give a full comparison.

Hunting and dogfighting -- killing animals for your gratification. What's the difference?

Not talking about fishing or Indians hunting buffalo.

[ChumpDumper]

Hunting and dogfighting -- killing animals for your gratification. What's the difference?

Not talking about fishing or Indians hunting buffalo.Not talking about goose fights either are you?

[Findog]

Not talking about goose fights either are you?

I see your point, there are important differences, but there are also essential similarities, no?

[jay014]

Yeah, we're all living off the land and killing what we eat. If you're hunting to eat, fine, but that seems increasingly rare these days. Yeah, I know, as a kid I was dragged along on deer hunts, you eat the deer too, but that's not why we were out there shooting rifles. If you're hunting to mount a deer head on your wall, then what's the difference?
The head is mounted and the rest is eaten. What part of a dog is eaten?

[ChumpDumper]

I see your point, there are important differences, but there are also essential similarities, no?Some, but dogfighting is simply worse IMO. Hunting is even humane in some instances to curtail overpopulation. Dogfighting is pure sadism.

[jay014]

Hunting and dogfighting -- killing animals for your gratification. What's the difference?

Not talking about fishing or Indians hunting buffalo.
There's a difference in hunting and dogfighting.
There's no difference in cockfighting and dogfighting.

[Findog]

Some, but dogfighting is simply worse IMO. Hunting is even humane in some instances to curtail overpopulation. Dogfighting is pure sadism.

I can't argue with that. I guess my point is that it's very, very easy to condemn dogfighting, because it's so viscerally reprehensible, but on some levels, and in certain situations, trophy hunting involves a similar disregard for animals.

[jay014]

http://lifeonabench.blogspot.com/2007/07/vickdogsfavredeer.html

[Samr]

I don't see why an animal that is innocent of doing any harm on humans should be shot and mounted.

Why not mount tumors? Now that I wouldn't fucking mind.

If the doctors gave me my brain tumor when it was removed I actually would mount it. Seriously.

I have a deer head on my wall and the meat in the freezer. I killed it; I eat it. The deer was the culmination of 5-6 years actively hunting not that particular buck, but a big buck in general. Hunting is a sport and the deer I shot was born and constantly fed specifically to be hunted and eaten.

I agree with Marbury in that dog fighting is a sport like hunting where the animal dies in the end, but the similarities end there. See: Dalhoop's post (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1918519&postcount=18) for why and how the two are different. He doesn't make a point that isn't great.

[Medvedenko]

Interesting quagmire here.....hunting to me is deplorable as is dog fighting or any caged fighting where animals are brought in for the sole purpose of gratification and gambling. Torture on all acounts is barbaric. Some would argue that these dogs are bread to become killing machines, others would venture to say that cattle is bread for mass consumption. In the end their purpose is served, they both usually die.

[itzsoweezee]

he does have a point. and anyone who's bitching about vick yet still eats meat is also a hypocrite. that doesn't condone what he did. that doesn't mean i condone what he did.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

if u insist hunting is a sport, between man an animal, it is an extremely unfair one. and a sport is a competition, and a competition must be fair, no? Hunting is only fair when it is two men killing eachother with guns. oops that's murder.

[LakeShow]

I'm just not with them torturing the dogs. If they injected them, fine. They crossed the line with torturing them. imo

I worked for an animal shelter in my early years (court ordered!). I watched them feed kittens to the predators they caught, (hawks, Bobcats, coyotes etc...) that's some heavy shit. Do we put them in jail for that?

[td4mvp3]

If your only motivation is sport and trophies, then it is essentially no different from hunting. Indians who hunted buffalo and "lived off the land," so to speak, same as fishing. Most hunting is about the kill, not about procuring food.
i'm confused by your response. i thought you were saying that fishing doesn't count as sport hunting since you eat the fish or that 99 percent of the time you eat the fish. i was saying that there is still that 1 percent that doesn't eat the fish and thus are sport hunting and thus as bad as dog fighting. eating meat and dogfighting are not the same and not hypocritical. the manner in which meat is prepared and reared may be bad (i've read omnivore's dilemna, too) but that is simply the method of the death, not the fact that meat was being eaten. if everyone hunted for their food, why would that be evil or inhumane since every other species on the planet kills animals to eat? but dogfighting, by its nature and design, requires grisly death both in the training and extermination of the other animal. there is no redeemable quality to dogfighting and at least some plausible benefit can be gained from hunting, sporting or otherwise.

[Findog]

i'm confused by your response. i thought you were saying that fishing doesn't count as sport hunting since you eat the fish or that 99 percent of the time you eat the fish. i was saying that there is still that 1 percent that doesn't eat the fish and thus are sport hunting and thus as bad as dog fighting. eating meat and dogfighting are not the same and not hypocritical. the manner in which meat is prepared and reared may be bad (i've read omnivore's dilemna, too) but that is simply the method of the death, not the fact that meat was being eaten. if everyone hunted for their food, why would that be evil or inhumane since every other species on the planet kills animals to eat? but dogfighting, by its nature and design, requires grisly death both in the training and extermination of the other animal. there is no redeemable quality to dogfighting and at least some plausible benefit can be gained from hunting, sporting or otherwise.

I guess I should clarify, or see my last response to chump. Yes, I think dogfighting is a level beyond sport hunting in terms of how horrific it is, but hunting for sport, except in instances of overpopulation, shares with dogfighting a disregard for animal life and a desire to use animals for ones own gratification.

[Dalhoop]

This is still going on?

Dogfighting is NOT ABOUT THE DOGS OR FIGHTING. Its about gambling. The owner of the winning dog does not get a trophy, he doesn't even get money, unless he placed some bets.

Dog fighting is the result of someone wanting to gamble.

There are hunters that care about the deer, they get early to check the weather, they go jump through hoops like putting out salt blocks and corn, they put deer urine around their deer blinds ... All this to get close enough to get that one shot at a deer ... You don't get a second shot ... They run fast ... If you miss, you try again next year.

All some of you stupid enough to not see the difference or just not informed on what goes into hunting and dogfighting?

Dog fighting is completely and utterly about gambling, nobody goes to a dogfight to see the fights, they go to gamble.

[td4mvp3]

This is still going on?

Dogfighting is NOT ABOUT THE DOGS OR FIGHTING. Its about gambling. The owner of the winning dog does not get a trophy, he doesn't even get money, unless he placed some bets.

Dog fighting is the result of someone wanting to gamble.

There are hunters that care about the deer, they get early to check the weather, they go jump through hoops like putting out salt blocks and corn, they put deer urine around their deer blinds ... All this to get close enough to get that one shot at a deer ... You don't get a second shot ... They run fast ... If you miss, you try again next year.

All some of you stupid enough to not see the difference or just not informed on what goes into hunting and dogfighting?

Dog fighting is completely and utterly about gambling, nobody goes to a dogfight to see the fights, they go to gamble.

but that aspect of the activity is not what makes it worse than sport hunting. even if the goals are different, the end result is the same: the needless death of an animal (and here, i could even lump hunting for food unless the person is truly still part of a hunter-gatherer society. in an industrialized nation, such excursions are just exercise not a matter of survival. and even the problems with how animals are reared and slaughtered don't get made better by hunting, since the practices continue but don't garner the necessary attention. but that's a different topic for another day). do the hunters go through more hoops to prepare for their kill? maybe, it's debatable. while cruel and torment, the dog owners do put in time to train the animal and get it ready to fight (again, not saying it's a good thing but pointing out that such things are done by magic and can be construed as hoops to be jumped through). so the idea that more work goes into hunting compared to dogfighting doesn't really fly. plus, if you miss, it's not about waiting until next year, more like the next weekend of the hunting season or the next creature that happens by. and that doesn't even count the kind of corralled hunting vice president cheney was doing when he shot his buddy in south texas.

what's more, these dogs are themselves acting as trophies and status symbols for their owners. part of the macho appeal to this nonsense outside of making a buck watching things kill each other (which can be done through cockfighting or betting on cat fights, for that matter) is getting branded as the dude with the toughest, baddest mutt. i'm sure there's a reason dmx made so many dog references and a popular phrase is "off the chain," which i didn't realize until this nonsense broke referred to when a dog is ready for fighting and gets taken off its chain, or some such.

[td4mvp3]

I guess I should clarify, or see my last response to chump. Yes, I think dogfighting is a level beyond sport hunting in terms of how horrific it is, but hunting for sport, except in instances of overpopulation, shares with dogfighting a disregard for animal life and a desire to use animals for ones own gratification.
i give you that.

[Oh, Gee!!]

what if he ate the dogs, would that make him Vietnamese?

[Spurminator]

Dog fighting is completely and utterly about gambling, nobody goes to a dogfight to see the fights, they go to gamble.

I call bullshit. There are an infinite number of ways to gamble - legally or not - that don't involve two animals ripping each other to shreds.

[ducks]

This is still going on?

Dogfighting is NOT ABOUT THE DOGS OR FIGHTING. Its about gambling. The owner of the winning dog does not get a trophy, he doesn't even get money, unless he placed some bets.

Dog fighting is the result of someone wanting to gamble.

There are hunters that care about the deer, they get early to check the weather, they go jump through hoops like putting out salt blocks and corn, they put deer urine around their deer blinds ... All this to get close enough to get that one shot at a deer ... You don't get a second shot ... They run fast ... If you miss, you try again next year.

All some of you stupid enough to not see the difference or just not informed on what goes into hunting and dogfighting?

Dog fighting is completely and utterly about gambling, nobody goes to a dogfight to see the fights, they go to gamble.

is not dog racing not about gambling?

[IceColdBrewski]

The act of hunting is more of a "one and done" scenario. It is also used to control overpopulation. Dogfighting is a long, dragged out, painful ordeal.

95% of the time the animal that is hunted is dead within seconds of being shot. Dogfighting is cruel because it makes the combatants suffer over and over again.

Wild deer/Elk/Moose, etc aren't raised to trust humans as the source of meeting their needs, only to be made to fight, get injured, and later killed in cruel ways by the same humans they had depended on for everything.

Most hunters I know (myself included) hunt for the meat. And we eat what we kill, or at least give it away to someone who will. Circle of life kinda thing. If it's a big deer, yes, we'll mount the head or the antlers. But what else are you going to do with them? You can't eat head and antlers. I've also yet to meet a hunter who actually takes joy in killing the animal. In fact, I'd say hunters have a greater respect for animals than most people do. The gratification from hunting comes from being in the outdoors and putting together a successful hunt after all the preparation, stalking, tracking, hiking, etc. It's more about the challenge than anything. Which is why a lot of hunters like to bow hunt. It greatly increases the challenge. Man vs Wild thing.

The comparison is just ridiculous. It's apples and oranges. The day hunters start going out into the woods to capture fawns, raise them up in brutally tortuous ways, only to hang, electrocute, or drown them because they didn't grow up tender and juicy enough is the day I'll take the comparison seriously.

[Slinkyman]

if PETA could make hunting illegal they would and they'd crucify anyone caught doing it but it's not and they can't say shit. Dogfighting is something that's illegal and they have the power to force the issue and put pressure on government to enforce this law, they've made it a priority to bring dogfighting into the spotlight. Mike Vick is the vehicle to that, so he fucked up and goes to jail and PETA gets what they've wanted for a while. Vick, far from innocent, gets the scarlet letter and is now branded evil.

Also, if anyone is surprised that Vick gets jail time they should watch animal planet's "Cops" show, people get throw in jail for far less then dog fighting. Certain cities are making animal cruelty of any kind a serious crime, for example not having proper living conditions could land you in jail.

[monosylab1k]

The day hunters start going out into the woods to capture fawns, raise them up in brutally tortuous ways, only to hang, electrocute, or drown them because they didn't grow up tender and juicy enough is the day I'll take the comparison seriously.
the day somebody mounts a dead dog's head in his living room as a point of pride, so will i.

[hater]

so there is illegal gambling, drugs and organized crime in deer hunting gatherings?

[monosylab1k]

so there is illegal gambling, drugs and organized crime in deer hunting gatherings?
yes

[IceColdBrewski]

the day somebody mounts a dead dog's head in his living room as a point of pride, so will i.

You might want to go check the living rooms of your local dogfighters then. As far as they're concerned, it's open season on dog all year long.

Your beef seems to be with the trophy hunters. Go whine to them, because they're a small minority in the hunting community. Most of us do it for the meat, the experience of the outdoors, and the adventure of it.

Regardless of where your beef lies, or what your opinion of hunting is, it doesn't matter to me. I really couldn't care less. I'm going to continue hunting (and mounting the antlers of the big ones) no matter what people like you think. Don't like it? Tough shit.

[Flopper]

what if he ate the dogs, would that make him Vietnamese?

no, but it does make you a dumb shit.

[Reggie Miller]

I've seen athletes say some stupid things over this Vick mess, but this may take the cake.

In theory, you hunt a deer for food. If you are at all competent at hunting, the deer never even knows what hit it. Dog-fighting is done for the vicarious thrill of watching the combat or death of the dog. Big difference.

Tens of thousands of whitetail die in the Continental U.S. every year from starvation or chronic wasting disease. There is a whitetail overpopulation crisis, as the deer are able to live in marginal habitat that other wildlife must abandon. In contrast, these dogs are raised to kill or be killed.

Although both hunting and dog-fighting have centuries of tradition, one is a licensed and socially accepted activity that creates thousands of U.S. jobs (gun, clothing, and ammunition manufacturers to name a few). On the other hand, dog-fighting is an underground, marginalized activity precisely becuase the majority of Americans find it repugnant.

If I miss a deer and it gets away, there is little or no chance of it mauling a bus full of third graders. I can't say that about a trained pit bull.

Fun Fact: The only times I have been in Texas were to buy guns or hunt. Viva La Grande Tejas!

[T Park]

Im absolutely appalled.

Appalled, by how anyone, now a days, can not only defend, dogfighting, not just justify it, but say that someone who admits to it is, "being torn down"


Im absolutely, shocked. That anyone that can breathe and has a brain, would say "eh, dogfighting isn't much different than hunting"

All these people that say "I can't believe they put guys away for dog fighting"
Why is that so hard to believe, should it be ok to let someone out on the streets that HANGS a dog!?!?


I can't believe you think its ok to not sending someone to jail FOR doing to dogs what these EVIL people did.

They aren't just sick. They are EVIL.

[monosylab1k]

I'm appalled at all of those grammatical errors.

[Findog]

Where did anybody say Vick shouldn't be punished? My only point is that things like hunting, veal and foie gras have more in common with dogfighting than is commonly understood. And no, the solution is not to jail hunters or foodies, but to reassess where to draw certain lines.

[Slinkyman]

Hunting would be like dogfighting if all the deer wore heavy chains around their necks and were tied to trees while hunters were allowed to carry machine guns and grenades. Then instead of killing the deer the hunter would only wound it and then hook up the deer to their car battery and fry it to "call it out" for allowing the hunter to shoot it. Then maybe hunting would be like dogfighting, maybe.

[Findog]

Hunting would be like dogfighting if all the deer wore heavy chains around their necks and were tied to trees while hunters were allowed to carry machine guns and grenades. Then instead of killing the deer the hunter would only wound it and then hook up the deer to their car battery and fry it to "call it out" for allowing the hunter to shoot it. Then maybe hunting would be like dogfighting, maybe.

Dogfighting = killing animals for your gratification.

Trophy hunting = killing animals for your gratification.

Dogfighting is worse, but there's an essential similarity.

[Spurminator]

I think Marbury's comments, while misguided, make for good conversation... and I don't really get why people seem to flip out anytime anyone offers a contrary opinion on the Vick story.

I also really think you guys are painting a conveniently rosy and noble picture of hunting. I'd be interested in knowing how often "population control" comes up in conversation when you get your buddies together for a hunt. That's not to say it's anywhere close to comparable to dogfighting as a practice... but the primary source of the appeal of the two activities are definitely cousins of each other.

Fortunately, one of those activities has some positive results from its practice.

[Obstructed_View]

For better or worse, there aren't enough predators in the US to balance the population of certain animals. There are agencies set up where they determine the number of licenses sold and the limit per license for hunters, with the specific goal of keeping the population in check. If this were not done, there would be severe overpopulation and famine and disesase would be required to regain the natural balance. THAT is the point of hunting. If citizens didn't pay for the privilege, people would have to be hired to do it.

A little research goes a long way. I've said this before, but drawing parallels from one activity to the other is kind of like saying rape is okay because women like sex.

[monosylab1k]

If citizens didn't pay for the privilege
It's a privilege to kill animals?

If the sole purpose of going hunting was for "population control", I'd figure it would be a fairly unfavorable task for anybody who was forced to do it. People wouldn't want to pay for the "privilege" of controlling the animal population.

[Flopper]

Dogfighting = killing animals for your gratification.

Trophy hunting = killing animals for your gratification.

Dogfighting is worse, but there's an essential similarity.

Okay then, we get it. Trophy hunting has a basic reason as that of dogfighting, which is "killing animals for your gratification." People are not accepting the idea because of the action/methods involved in dogfighting, and they will continue to deny the simple narrow conclusion you came up with.

You can also look at it psychologically. People see dogfighting as wrong and evil because people are emotionally connected to dogs. Dogs are everywhere in a persons life, where they are pets and more. People are not emotionally attached to a deer.

[Spurminator]

Serious question... How realistic would it be, hypothetically speaking, to control the deer population through neutering and spaying? Say you replace the shells with something that would only stun the deer, or render it sterile.

Maybe not at all, but if it was possible, would people still hunt?

[monosylab1k]

Hypothetically, I think you'd have a lot of pissed off hunters, rather than people saying "Whew, glad the deer population is finally under control without me having to go hunt and kill them."

[Reggie Miller]

For better or worse, there aren't enough predators in the US to balance the population of certain animals. There are agencies set up where they determine the number of licenses sold and the limit per license for hunters, with the specific goal of keeping the population in check. If this were not done, there would be severe overpopulation and famine and disesase would be required to regain the natural balance. THAT is the point of hunting. If citizens didn't pay for the privilege, people would have to be hired to do it.

A little research goes a long way. I've said this before, but drawing parallels from one activity to the other is kind of like saying rape is okay because women like sex.


Well said.

Anyone who would compare deer hunting to dog-fighting has obviously never heard of chronic wasting disease. Wikipedia and Google...Try It!!!

There are several million more whitetail in the Continental U.S. today than there were 200 years ago. As habitat is destroyed, whitetail have adapted by eating crops, garbage, and marginally edible byproducts of human society (deer will eat sawdust if starving, for example). At the same time, the whitetail birthrate has stayed the same or increased. This leads to tens of thousands of deer starving to death every year. Additionally, the current theory is that chronic wasting disease is a result of the chronic overpopulation.

Here in Indiana, where deer hunting is not actively encouraged (no hunting with centerfire rifles, for example) the DNR has to spend most of the winter putting down whitetail or collecting their starved carcasses.

[Flopper]

Serious question... How realistic would it be, hypothetically speaking, to control the deer population through neutering and spaying? Say you replace the shells with something that would only stun the deer, or render it sterile.

Maybe not at all, but if it was possible, would people still hunt?


If deer hunting is illegal then there will be fewer cases of it; like dogfighting.

[monosylab1k]

Well said.

Anyone who would compare deer hunting to dog-fighting has obviously never heard of chronic wasting disease. Wikipedia and Google...Try It!!!

There are several million more whitetail in the Continental U.S. today than there were 200 years ago. As habitat is destroyed, whitetail have adapted by eating crops, garbage, and marginally edible byproducts of human society (deer will eat sawdust if starving, for example). At the same time, the whitetail birthrate has stayed the same or increased. This leads to tens of thousands of deer starving to death every year. Additionally, the current theory is that chronic wasting disease is a result of the chronic overpopulation.

Here in Indiana, where deer hunting is not actively encouraged (no hunting with centerfire rifles, for example) the DNR has to spend most of the winter putting down whitetail or collecting their starved carcasses.

So hunters mount deer heads on the walls of their homes to show everybody their contributions to the fight against chronic wasting disease? I find that a little hard to believe.

[jacobdrj]

There is truth to Marburry's line of reasoning.

There is also the very real fact that hunting is for food, and because there are no more natural predictors, we actually keep the species alive by hunting, because if we didn't they would overpopulate and die of disease and hunger.

Finally, if you don't think dogfighting is a big deal, you should go to your legislators and let them know. Be active in your community. If you think a law is wrong, don't break it, work to fix it.

Personally I think it is a deplorable act. But if I had my way, nobody would be allowed to have pets, because I think keeping animals in homes, period, in inhumane and cruel. Generally, animals belong outdoors, where they naturally occur. If the animals aren't for direct human benefit (Search dogs, Shepard dogs, food cattle etc) they shouldn't be handled by humans. I even have hard time with Zoos if the species kept are not endangered.

[Flopper]

Personally I think it is a deplorable act. But if I had my way, nobody would be allowed to have pets, because I think keeping animals in homes, period, in inhumane and cruel. Generally, animals belong outdoors, where they naturally occur.

Yeah I'm sure all those stray animals in the city are loving it.

[jacobdrj]

So hunters mount deer heads on the walls of their homes to show everybody their contributions to the fight against chronic wasting disease? I find that a little hard to believe.
What do the heads have to do with anything? If they hunted the animal and used it for food, the head is a 'left over' part of the animal. Nothing wrong with taking pride in your work.

Of course, there are those who just hunt for the 'sport' and for the trophy, and like others have said, there is some hypocrisies there in theory, but this doesn't count out the fact that, as has been pointed out many times before, we are now the top predator in the world, and natural ones can't keep up to do their job. Even killing them for no other reason than for fertilizer is better than letting the species self destruct and go extinct.

Again, if you feel so strongly about these things, go to your legislators and let them know how you feel.

[jacobdrj]

Yeah I'm sure all those stray animals in the city are loving it.
The animals in your home have nothing to do with the animals in your city, except it shows people didn't spade and nuder their pets, which is also a pretty scary thing.

I don't see stray cats and dogs any differently than overpopulated deer... if we need to stop them, as the top pseudo-predator, than we need to stop them, lest they overpopulate and kill themselves, or hurt humans. I know this sounds unsavory, but it is how it stands. I doubt many people would take strays in anyways. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but that is not usually how pet owners become pet owners.

[Dalhoop]

I'd be interested in knowing how often "population control" comes up in conversation when you get your buddies together for a hunt.

It is the start of any conversation about Deer and Duck hunting. As someone has pointed out, the state sets limits, the hunters cannot go over the limit.


If citizens didn't pay for the privilege, people would have to be hired to do it.

Hunting licence's are not free.


Serious question... How realistic would it be, hypothetically speaking, to control the deer population through neutering and spaying? Say you replace the shells with something that would only stun the deer, or render it sterile.

Maybe not at all, but if it was possible, would people still hunt?

On a personal level, I would still hunt .. even with a dart gun. It is not about the killing the deer, but about the hunt. As I have said, to outsmart the animal in its own world ... To do what man has been doing sense they were cave men ... It has its appeal that is hard to put into words.

Its like going home to the wife to tell her that you got a better job with a higher pay. Although the effect on the finances will not be that much .. It is a sense of accomplishment.


So hunters mount deer heads on the walls of their homes to show everybody their contributions to the fight against chronic wasting disease? I find that a little hard to believe.

Deer are not born with "mounting heads". Mounting a twelve point buck is something that I dream about. Its something that every deer hunter dreams about. I have shot many deer (Ate them all) and have yet to mount a head. Only the very best are worth it in my book.


I call bullshit. There are an infinite number of ways to gamble - legally or not - that don't involve two animals ripping each other to shreds.

If you have not been to one, then all you have to say is "I've heard that ... ". Dog fighting IS all about the gambling. There are as many yells from the crowd to get in on a bet as there are for the dogs.


is not dog racing not about gambling?

It is. And, the animals that loose live to run another day. Although many of the greyhounds are adopted after their racing careers are over, the needs of a "running dog" are different then those of a lap dog. It is still a black eye on the sport that some of the dogs are unable to find suitable homes.



Most hunters I know (myself included) hunt for the meat. And we eat what we kill, or at least give it away to someone who will. Circle of life kinda thing. If it's a big deer, yes, we'll mount the head or the antlers. But what else are you going to do with them? You can't eat head and antlers. I've also yet to meet a hunter who actually takes joy in killing the animal. In fact, I'd say hunters have a greater respect for animals than most people do. The gratification from hunting comes from being in the outdoors and putting together a successful hunt after all the preparation, stalking, tracking, hiking, etc. It's more about the challenge than anything. Which is why a lot of hunters like to bow hunt. It greatly increases the challenge. Man vs Wild thing.

VERY well said. Deer meat does not go to waste in my part of the country (East Texas)

[diego]

i dont agree with the hunting / dog fighting analogy, as dog fighting is evidently crueler to the animal and serves a questionable purpose (yes, they both involve killing for the gratification of humans, but the hunter is gratified by conquering nature yadda yadda yadda, while the dog fighter is gratified by the suffering of the dogs/ profit of the gamble).

however, Im amazed at the press this vick thing is getting. I dont live in the US but everytime i get near the internet there is some op ed blasting this guy. while agree hes stupid, i dont remember worse crimes getting near as much public scrutiny (for ex, the numerous church child abuse cases in cali in the late 80s, and boston in the early 90s). in the same line of the dog fighting, even that SF woman that got killed by her neighbors fight dogs a few years ago didnt get this much press. it just goes to show how obsessed with celebrities the US has become. the outcry isnt so much about the dogs, but about a millionaire fucking up.

---

on a side note, if you want to hear about retarded laws, here in chile you can get 15 years jailtime for stealing livestock (chicken, cattle- this is a law from colonial times), but the max sentence for murder is ten years. how is that for confusing your priorities?

[jacobdrj]

on a side note, if you want to hear about retarded laws, here in chile you can get 15 years jailtime for stealing livestock (chicken, cattle- this is a law from colonial times), but the max sentence for murder is ten years. how is that for confusing your priorities?

In your case, I simply must ask: Can you go talk to your legislators, even if you wanted to?

[Obstructed_View]

It's a privilege to kill animals?
First of all, spare me the sanctimonious moral outrage, please. Until you start living strictly on food that you grow in your own garden, you have no moral high ground to take whatsoever on this issue.

Since hunters pay for licenses and for all the other shit required to go hunting, then yes, I'd say they consider it a privilege. People that enjoy venison typically get it from hunting.


If the sole purpose of going hunting was for "population control", I'd figure it would be a fairly unfavorable task for anybody who was forced to do it. People wouldn't want to pay for the "privilege" of controlling the animal population.
Um. Almost. If you read my post again that's exactly what I said, except that population control isn't the "sole" purpose, but it is the primary one. If people didn't enjoy doing it someone would have to be paid to do it, because it needs to be done, whether or not you choose to understand it.

[v2freak]

and mounting it's head in your study is part of the eating process?

It's tacky but would you prefer they throw the head away? It doesn't really matter

[td4mvp21]

Fuck Stephon Marbury, I guess he didn't read up on what all Vick did to the poor dogs.

[monosylab1k]

First of all, spare me the sanctimonious moral outrage, please.

i'm not trying to come at this from some moral high ground. believe me, i'm not. i enjoy a bloody steak just as much as the next guy.

and i really don't want people to see this as a dogfighting vs. hunting issue. there's no question that dogfighting is a more disgusting thing.

i'm just saying that in the end, both dogfighting and hunting serve the same purpose - for humans to get some sort of satisfaction from the death of innocent animals.

i think hunters are able to hide behind excuses like "we eat the deer" and "population control" to make themselves feel better about the fact that they just really enjoy going out and blowing the living hell out of Bambi's mother. And that's got a certain sickness to it. Maybe not to the degree of people that enjoy dogfighting, but there's still something wrong with it IMO.


People that enjoy venison typically get it from hunting.

if it's strictly for the food, then there's no problem whatsoever with hunting IMO. i just call bullshit on people who say they go hunting solely because they enjoy venison. i think they get some joy out of ending the life of another living being.


If people didn't enjoy doing it someone would have to be paid to do it, because it needs to be done, whether or not you choose to understand it.

If it needs to be done then fine. That's a necessary evil and completely understandable. But why do people enjoy killing an innocent animal? It's not as sadistic and sick as dogfighting, but again, why get any joy out of the death of another living thing?

[monosylab1k]

It's tacky but would you prefer they throw the head away? It doesn't really matter
yeah i'd prefer they throw the head away than proudly display to anyone that walks into their house that they enjoy blasting the shit out of defenseless deer.

just like i'd prefer that the government work a little harder to get rid of all dogfighting rather than just be satisfied with busting one high profile case.

[Flopper]

But why do people enjoy killing an innocent animal? It's not as sadistic and sick as dogfighting, but again, why get any joy out of the death of another living thing?

:lol did you just ask why people enjoy killing an animal? that's just human nature, humans are naturally prone to violence (in my opinion). just be glad they're aiming their rifles towards wild animals rather than humans.

But really, if you want an answer to your question, ask a psychologist on how a human mind works.

[monosylab1k]

did you just ask why people enjoy killing an animal?
yeah, i did. people are going apeshit over Michael Vick doing it, and with every good reason to, yet they're finding any bullshit excuse available to excuse it when they themselves are the ones that go blowing deers straight to hell with their rifles.

if they're so intent on killing shit, then just play a fucking video game.

again, if it's for necessary reasons, i have no problem with hunting. i just think any redneck with a gun is full of shit when he says that he hunts for "the food" or "population control".

[BeerIsGood!]

yeah, i did. people are going apeshit over Michael Vick doing it, and with every good reason to, yet they're finding any bullshit excuse available to excuse it when they themselves are the ones that go blowing deers straight to hell with their rifles.

if they're so intent on killing shit, then just play a fucking video game.

again, if it's for necessary reasons, i have no problem with hunting. i just think any redneck with a gun is full of shit when he says that he hunts for "the food" or "population control".

You bring up a good point, I think some people get some sort of self validation from killing an animal, possibly a validation that they have sought and not received from other facets of their lives. It is a necessary evil, but a lot of people do it because it makes them feel masculine or enpowered. I think it's wrong for that reason, but it's almost impossible to prove that is the motivation and the govt. won't even try to attempt it. Like all things in our society, if it serves some sort of purpose that the govt. wants or needs then it'll be allowed regardless of the possible moral implications. The govt. is self serving, and the truth is it can produce monetary gains from hunting, but not from illegal dog fighting that it doesn't sanction. Same reason you can gamble in Vegas but not in a building in downtown Dallas. If the govt. doesn't get their cut they will ban it and arrest you. It's the way it is.

Obviously the govt. can't sanction dogfighting because of the close emotional bond Americans share with dogs. It would cause an outrage.

[BeerIsGood!]

Although I think Marbury opened his mouth and got into a hornets nest that he probably doesn't want to enter, I think this is a damn good discussion. In the end, though, there really isn't a reason to validate hunting for sport. It's allowed simply because animal population control is a necessary evil and hunting is a hold-over mainstay from the frontier days of America when people had to do it for survival. Hunting is built into our genes. We try to make ourselves believe that we are some high and mighty species, but in the end we are not much more than hypocritical savage predators ourselves. Myself included.

[T Park]

Obviously the govt. can't sanction dogfighting because of the close emotional bond Americans share with dogs. It would cause an outrage

or maybe becuase its a morally reprehensible, disgusting, barbaric thing, that we as human beings in this time period should be evloved enough to NOT do!??!

[BeerIsGood!]

or maybe becuase its a morally reprehensible, disgusting, barbaric thing, that we as human beings in this time period should be evloved enough to NOT do!??!

We as a society in this time period do all sorts of morally reprehensible, disgusting, and barbaric things that are not only allowed by the govt. but are sanctioned and perpetrated by the govt. There are thousands of humans being killed or disfigured all across the world right now by people in this time period. There are millions of animals being tortured and killed for sport and many, many other purposes. All of this the govt. is making money off of or has a self serving interest in. It's the way it is. If you actually think the govt. gives a shit about whether you live or die then you are being completely naive of the situation.

Dogfighting is morally reprehensible, disgusting, and barbaric - but that's not why it's illegal. It's illegal because it serves no use to the govt. and therefore there is no incentive for the govt. to attempt to make a positive spin on the situation or outright lie in order to sanction dogfighting. If killing dogs was a priority for the govt. you better believe that the govt. would find a way to rationalize the killing of dogs through fear. And that's not just the US govt. It's all govts.

[Obstructed_View]

i'm just saying that in the end, both dogfighting and hunting serve the same purpose - for humans to get some sort of satisfaction from the death of innocent animals.
Actually, dogfighting is about the suffering more than the death. If a hunter doesn't get a clean kill he's not happy about it.


i think hunters are able to hide behind excuses like "we eat the deer" and "population control" to make themselves feel better about the fact that they just really enjoy going out and blowing the living hell out of Bambi's mother. And that's got a certain sickness to it. Maybe not to the degree of people that enjoy dogfighting, but there's still something wrong with it IMO.
First of all, so what if they do? If Michael Vick slated his blood lust by going out and bagging a fuckin' deer, he'd be in a shitload less trouble right now. If someone enjoys shooting a deer just to kill it, and they buy their license and follow the rules, why shouldn't they be able to do it? I wouldn't feel the need to do it, but so what?

Secondly, people that enjoy hunting don't have any problem killing for meat, and don't apply your bizarre morality to it, so there's no need to "make themselves feel better." Humans have been hunting for food for a hundred thousand years; it's programmed into us to take satisfaction in it. The cavemen who cried because Og killed that poor deer with his spear either starved or learned to deal with it. A hunter doesn't have any guilt about killing a deer, and again, there's no triumph in causing the animal to suffer, which is what dogfighting is all about.

As for my experience, the people I know that enjoy hunting are among the most responsible people I know. They are typically more likely to come back with nothing but a memory of a hunting trip and stories about what they didn't kill. They certainly aren't pulling in dozens of deer every season, which is why a hunter might mount a buck. They absolutely aren't shooting at everything that moves. The image of the drunk redneck gunning down everything in the forest or the guy with a thousand hunting trophies is, at best, atypical, and at worst a popular Hollywood myth. It's funny that you'd mention Bambi, where everything from owls to sparrows to chipmunks are fleeing for their lives from bullets and buckshot. The people that made that don't understand what a hunting license is or how it works.

Just for the record, somebody that goes out to a deer lease and shoots a bobcat because he's bored isn't a hunter, he's a poacher, and is no better than Vick, and I'd never attempt to defend someone that does that, nor would anyone I've ever known that hunts.


if it's strictly for the food, then there's no problem whatsoever with hunting IMO. i just call bullshit on people who say they go hunting solely because they enjoy venison. i think they get some joy out of ending the life of another living being.
I call bullshit on someone that would say that, too. But most of them wouldn't bother saying something that lame. It's just not that simple. Someone that just likes the taste of venison can go buy it. People enjoy hunting for lots of reasons, one of them being the satisfaction of making a kill. There are a thousand reasons they enjoy it, and just because you can't see your way past the icky blood part doesn't make those reasons invalid. Just be glad someone's willing to do it so you can sit back and be judgmental about it without starving deer digging through your garbage.

/rant

[Obstructed_View]

Obviously the govt. can't sanction dogfighting because of the close emotional bond Americans share with dogs. It would cause an outrage.
Yeah, that's the only reason, and it's why there's that government sanctioned cockfighting league. :rolleyes

[Manu Pacquiao]

dogfighting is like you have a baby boy, and you raise him to be hateful and angry, you physically abuse him and brainwash him that fighting is good. You teach him how to use a knife to kill people.

When he turns 7 years old, you bring him to a human cockfight arena. Where all 7 year old kids fight each other in hand to hand combat.

You pick an opponent, you strap on a double edged knife to his hand, and then you let him go fight in the middle of the arena.

You bet hundreds of dollars on him. If he loses, you bring him home and you torture him until he dies.

[BeerIsGood!]

Yeah, that's the only reason, and it's why there's that government sanctioned cockfighting league. :rolleyes

I didn't say that was the only reason, partner. The govt. has to have some sort of vested interest, something to gain from it. They won't gain a damn thing from cockfighting so they don't do it. But horse racing... where the animals are pumped full of chemicals to race against eachother with midgets on their backs for money, that the govt. can make a dime off of. Why? Because the rich and elite in our society love it and pay millions to partake.

I don't particularly care if you agree with every point of my argument, but please tell me you don't actually think the govt. cares about morality and yours or my wellbeing.

[BeerIsGood!]

dogfighting is like you have a baby boy, and you raise him to be hateful and angry, you physically abuse him and brainwash him that fighting is good. You teach him how to use a knife to kill people.

When he turns 7 years old, you bring him to a human cockfight arena. Where all 7 year old kids fight each other in hand to hand combat.

You pick an opponent, you strap on a double edged knife to his hand, and then you let him go fight in the middle of the arena.

You bet hundreds of dollars on him. If he loses, you bring him home and you torture him until he dies.

You just described that Jet Li movie where he's the "human pitbull".

[johngateswhiteley]

marbury is an idiot, but of course he has a point. we are talking about putting a guy in jail b/c he pitted dogs against one another...think about that. its insane. some people running this country are insane...

its a dog, not your dog, but a dog...who gives a fuck.

[mavs>spurs2]

marbury is an idiot, but of course he has a point. we are talking about putting a guy in jail b/c he pitted dogs against one another...think about that. its insane. some people running this country are insane...

its a dog, not your dog, but a dog...who gives a fuck.

People that do this shit to animals are sick..bastard deserves to go to jail for what he did. I can't believe you are actually saying it's ok. I hope a pit bites yours and Vicks balls off and eats them.

[johngateswhiteley]

People that do this shit to animals are sick..bastard deserves to go to jail for what he did. I can't believe you are actually saying it's ok. I hope a pit bites yours and Vicks balls off and eats them.

1. is vick hurting society, really?
2. is he damaging the dog population?
3. is vick human?
4. is vick more important than a dog?
5. should vick go to jail for treating dogs inhumanely?

...think about that? i never said vick was doing something i deemed acceptable and you wont find me at a dog fight in the future, nor have i ever been to one. this is a perfect example of the media getting into a fuss without realizing why they got into a fuss. its outrageous. vick should be fined, at most, and continue being the most overrated QB in the NFL.

furthermore, i love dogs, cats, hell all animals. but he isn't fighting anyone's foofoo, or precious little furball...he is fighting his dogs...so the fuck what. and while we are at, whats the big deal with cock fights?...America is getting overrun by pussies.

[BeerIsGood!]

1. is vick hurting society, really?
2. is he damaging the dog population?
3. is vick human?
4. is vick more important than a dog?
5. should vick go to jail for treating dogs inhumanely?

...think about that? i never said vick was doing something i deemed acceptable and you wont find me at a dog fight in the future, nor have i ever been to one. this is a perfect example of the media getting into a fuss without realizing why they got into a fuss. its outrageous. vick should be fined, at most, and continue being the most overrated QB in the NFL.

furthermore, i love dogs, cats, hell all animals. but he isn't fighting anyone's foofoo, or precious little furball...he is fighting his dogs...so the fuck what. and while we are at, whats the big deal with cock fights?...America is getting overrun by pussies.

He did kidnap and use other people's pets for "training".

Besides, you can't just go around electrocuting or torturing animals. It's just not good for society. Society has to put you in jail for that. Or at least in a straight jacket because you're a damned psycho.

[BeerIsGood!]

Texas just electrocuted it's 400th prisoner in the last 25 years... it's not getting overrun by pussies. We kill mother fuckers around here, but nicely with a syringe and some poison.

[johngateswhiteley]

He did kidnap and use other people's pets for "training".

Besides, you can't just go around electrocuting or torturing animals. It's just not good for society. Society has to put you in jail for that. Or at least in a straight jacket because you're a damned psycho.

1. i didn't know about kidnapping other people's pets...if true, yeah, thats fucked up. though, i never heard about that...interesting

2. society does not have to put you in jail for hurting animals...you're nuts. but society should probably fine people and put in some community service

[johngateswhiteley]

Texas just electrocuted it's 400th prisoner in the last 25 years... it's not getting overrun by pussies. We kill mother fuckers around here, but nicely with a syringe and some poison.

Texas is 1 of 50 states...not sure if you got that memo.

[BeerIsGood!]

1. i didn't know about kidnapping other people's pets...if true, yeah, thats fucked up. though, i never heard about that...interesting

2. society does not have to put you in jail for hurting animals...you're nuts. but society should probably fine people and put in some community service

Ah, depends on the level of severity we're talking here. If they're kidnapping people's pets to kill - definitely jail. That's theft of property. If they're killing dozens or more animals on some sort of sick spree - possibly jail, but definitely some mental evaluation. Not long before that becomes people. Just whacking a stray on the street - nice fine, court appearance, and community service.

[BeerIsGood!]

Texas is 1 of 50 states...not sure if you got that memo.

Yeah I was just being funny. So does that make Texas the only non-pussy state?

[johngateswhiteley]

Ah, depends on the level of severity we're talking here. If they're kidnapping people's pets to kill - definitely jail. That's theft of property. If they're killing dozens or more animals on some sort of sick spree - possibly jail, but definitely some mental evaluation. Not long before that becomes people. Just whacking a stray on the street - nice fine, court appearance, and community service.

1. stealing?...yes jail

2. anything else?...no jail, some other measure of reform aside from mass, mass, mass killing

[johngateswhiteley]

Yeah I was just being funny. So does that make Texas the only non-pussy state?

no, but there aren't many. Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Dakotas, Maine, and Colorado are cool. actually, i was mainly referring to our central government...but OK.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

The national outrage over this is hollow at best.

Do people not realize what horses are put through in order to race? What happens to them if they don't produce?

[johngateswhiteley]

The national outrage over this is hollow at best.

Do people not realize what horses are put through in order to race? What happens to them if they don't produce?

exactly.

[monosylab1k]

Just be glad someone's willing to do it so you can sit back and be judgmental about it without starving deer digging through your garbage.
If called on to hunt deer for the sole purpose of "population control" then there's really no problem.

With the stray dog problem experienced in a lot of cities, perhaps the government should take a look into legalizing dogfighting. If it was regulated by the government and done responsibly, it would help greatly with "population control" and appease man's appetite for a "kill". And you wouldn't have starving dogs digging through your garbage.

[monosylab1k]

Yeah, that's the only reason, and it's why there's that government sanctioned cockfighting league. :rolleyes
is there a population control problem with roosters? if there is, then why not? and then just throw those things on the grill once they're done fighting to cover that base too.

[RC's Boss]

People that do this shit to animals are sick..bastard deserves to go to jail for what he did. I can't believe you are actually saying it's ok. I hope a pit bites yours and Vicks balls off and eats them.
You want a pit to bite off a poster's testicles, but you get your panties in a bunch over a freakin' dog? :rolleyes Human life > dog's life.

[MajorMike]

Maybe he knows Vick personally? And good people do shady things all the time. You don't base judgments off of one incident.

You are totally correct I'm sure all the recent mothers, who were all cited as good persons, who killed 3 or 4 or 5 of their babies at a time should be let go because we shouldn't base judgements off one incident.





Dumbass.

[LEONARD]

No, he's a fucking moron...

[MajorMike]

Wow, the Capn and Leo have agreed on something.


By the way, Leo, didn't your favorite team used to be the Mavs?

[jmard5]

Starbury might have a point but it is a little bit misguided.

Anyway, dog fighting is still a cruel way to treat dogs/animals. I am not even fond of cockfighting even it is popular here in the Philippines.

Anyone seen the bear baiting incidents in Pakistan?

http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/391_bear_baiting.cfm

[mbass]

You're still killing an animal for your gratification. Did the deer ask if he wanted to be hunted for sport?

What if the deer were being hunted for FOOd? Is there a difference between being humted for sport or for food?

[mbass]

There is truth to Marburry's line of reasoning.

There is also the very real fact that hunting is for food, and because there are no more natural predictors, we actually keep the species alive by hunting, because if we didn't they would overpopulate and die of disease and hunger.

Finally, if you don't think dogfighting is a big deal, you should go to your legislators and let them know. Be active in your community. If you think a law is wrong, don't break it, work to fix it.

Personally I think it is a deplorable act. But if I had my way, nobody would be allowed to have pets, because I think keeping animals in homes, period, in inhumane and cruel. Generally, animals belong outdoors, where they naturally occur. If the animals aren't for direct human benefit (Search dogs, Shepard dogs, food cattle etc) they shouldn't be handled by humans. I even have hard time with Zoos if the species kept are not endangered.

Interesting - but animals are companions to those that live alone and to the elderly. Isn't that a direct human benefit?

[jacobdrj]

Interesting - but animals are companions to those that live alone and to the elderly. Isn't that a direct human benefit?


I understand that some people are lonely and this serves as a form of companionship... but if you are going to own an animal, and just keep it in a house, effectively caged in, with not even a back yard... I still find it to be cruel and selfish. Now if you live on some kind of estate where the animal can go free, I have little issue with it. Dogs are domesticated, but only to a point. Most need a level of freedom.

[Reggie Miller]

I think hunters are able to hide behind excuses like "we eat the deer" and "population control" to make themselves feel better about the fact that they just really enjoy going out and blowing the living hell out of Bambi's mother. And that's got a certain sickness to it. Maybe not to the degree of people that enjoy dogfighting, but there's still something wrong with it IMO.

if it's strictly for the food, then there's no problem whatsoever with hunting IMO. i just call bullshit on people who say they go hunting solely because they enjoy venison. i think they get some joy out of ending the life of another living being.


Just like anything else, there are levels and degrees involved here, or shades of gray (whatever you want to call it). For example, both Michael Jordan and Kevin Willis are NBA champions, but no one would say they had equal careers.

There are lots of different kinds of hunters. I hunt deer, but it is more or less for the meat. (Farmers have had me help them shoot a few to protect their crops too.) I don't particularly enjoy it, especially since it is so restricted in Indiana.

In terms of "trophy hunting" or gratification, I would love to hunt a great brown bear (Grizzly, Kodiak, etc.). That is pretty much the pinnacle for North America. However, I will never do so for a number of reasons: 1) I hate bear meat and won't eat it (only tried black bear); 2) Most subspecies of brown bear are at least on watch lists, if not endangered; 3) It is fantastically expensive, considering the travel, permits, etc.; and 4) Ultimately, I would be doing it for the "wrong" reasons.

I would love to go on an East African safari and just kill enough to supply a party in the field. You know, sort of a combination between a "photo safari" and a traditional hunt. This is one of the best ways to appreciate the big game animals in their own environment and see the world at the same time.

O.K. Now the "dark" side. I am mostly an upland hunter. I eat all of the birds, but I must admit I enjoy blasting the suckers. I also enjoy shooting at clay birds more than a paper target. In my case, I think it is a case not so much of enjoying killing an animal, but enjoying the challenge of a moving target. (Few firearms were ever designed just to make holes in paper.)

I hope this explains this better for some people. My point is that there are many different types of people involved in hunting. Some of them are conservationists, some need the food, some enjoy the sporting aspect, and some people are just plain assholes, whether hunting or what have you.

[TDMVPDPOY]

MARBURY
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/839/youropinionmo0.jpg

[Flopper]

marbury is an idiot, but of course he has a point. we are talking about putting a guy in jail b/c he pitted dogs against one another...think about that. its insane. some people running this country are insane...

its a dog, not your dog, but a dog...who gives a fuck.

Look...the point is dogfighting is illegal, so deal with it. Vick broke the law where he damn well knows dogfighting is not allow.

Oh, and the popular conscience among the people is that dogfighting is morally wrong. If a shitload of people write to the "insane people running this country" and request that dogfighting be legal, you don't think they'll change the law for it????

[TDMVPDPOY]

after all this incident, i bet yah some animal protection governing body will be looming...rspca....

[mbass]

I understand that some people are lonely and this serves as a form of companionship... but if you are going to own an animal, and just keep it in a house, effectively caged in, with not even a back yard... I still find it to be cruel and selfish. Now if you live on some kind of estate where the animal can go free, I have little issue with it. Dogs are domesticated, but only to a point. Most need a level of freedom.

Some animal protectionists feel that it is much kinder to keep an animal inside (especially cats) since they do not fall prey to predators (spelling?) and automobiles. And many cats are happy inside if provided with enough space and sunlight. Along the same lines, what do you think about the ethics of breeding and selling pedagreed animals?

[jacobdrj]

Some animal protectionists feel that it is much kinder to keep an animal inside (especially cats) since they do not fall prey to predators (spelling?) and automobiles.

Than they are not animal protectionists, they are cat and/or domesticated animal protectionists. With that line of logic, you are taking away a vital food source for those often HIGHLY endangered predators.

As far as automobiles, it is certainly not ideal, but in my real life experence, it is survival of the fittest: The squirrels on my block look both ways before they cross the street. No joke. Besides, that roadkill is just a much a part of a scavenger/predator's diet.

I know that sounds a little absurd, but that is conclusion to that line of reasoning.



And many cats are happy inside if provided with enough space and sunlight.

If you keep a cat indoors, and need to declaw it, I think that you have already crossed the line... But if you are willing to live with a clawed cat, and it seems content with the space it is given, it is no different than the estate I mentioned earlier... but if you are constantly worried that when you open the door, the cat is going to run away, I think you need to seriously consider the fact that by keeping it indoors you are being somewhat cruel and a little selfish. I get that it is for their own good, but try telling the cat that. Or, don't own the cat.


Along the same lines, what do you think about the ethics of breeding and selling pedagreed animals?

Absolutely absurd, completely inhumane, eerily racist, and totally disgusting.

Owning an animal may be justified, especially if said animal has the personality, and the owner makes the necessary concessions. But breeding for pedigree is so wrong on so many levels.

The history of 'pedigreed' animals is a strange one. Pets were not common among the peasants before the industrial age, but was a luxury of the wealthy, those who like to hunt foxes, for example. It was a way of the nobles showing superiority as they were able to feed the animals and take care of them, as well as their families.

But as the peasants became factory workers and more well off and wanted to emulate their nobles, they too took pets. To distinguish their animals from that of their 'subjects', the nobles started to 'breed' their animals based on totally arbitrary attributes and traits. Basically, if said particular breed didn't have said particular 'perfect' attribute, said animal was an inferior animal.

It made the 'nobles' feel good, and inadvertently also caused a long term problem with the animals. The only way to keep the traits of the animals consistent, is to inbreed them. This wreaks havoc with the genetic diversity and variability. Animals now bred to be a certain type are now at high risk of genetic defects and diseases. All because people want to breed them a certain way, inconsistent with how nature intended.

Some would say that the idea of keeping a breed 'pure', not even for strength, or for size, but just for color and shape, was an early way people could justify being able to marginalize people in this fashion, as was prevalent in the early part of the 20th century.

It is laughable that people all of a sudden decided to declare a certain dog a species out of the blue, especially when the dogs themselves never diverged in this way naturally. Dogs are some of the most physically diverse animals on earth, and while these traits are significant, speciation within dogs themselves is as limited as humans, i.e. nonexistent.

[rasho8]

Alright here's my take.

Is Vick getting the short end of the media straw? Proabably, but his actions are reprehensable. Sadly today he would have been better off beating a stripper outside the club at 3am... thats the way things are, it sucks but there it is.

But to compare running an illegal, interstate dogfighting circuit, breaking numerous state and federal laws in the process, going through all kinds of pains to hide what they were doing and keep it "behind closed doors", to hunting and fishing? Or even to try to compare ti to feeding kittens to hawks and bobcats... thats a stretch.

Even if you dont support hunting (which I do), the arguments dont coincide. No matter what I say on hunting, the Vick apologists will ignore it and everythign has been seaid already in the thread, but I can try again.
Hunting is a sport where you go into the woods and try to kill and animal. usually in the end you eat it and mount its head... is it a little barbaric? Yeah. Does the animal have a chance? No... not if youre a good hunter, but it is legal. Hell in Utah if you didnt hunt deer they would over populate, eat all the food and die of starvation in 2 years and there would be disease rampant in the animal world from all the rotting deer carcasses.
If you didnt dogfight... I dont see the same thing happening.
Exotic game reserves and enclosed hunting is a little different but the same principles applies. The animals are born raised and allowed to wander around eating, breeding and living until they get shot... not quite the same as being born, having your ears cut off, beaten and tortured every day, thrown into a pit against stolen housepets and forced to fight, then fought against an equally abused and tortured animal until your jaw is ripped of, your eye is missing and your bleeding out internally from ruptured organs. All this time you are trying to do the same to another dog. Then, if you live through it, you are beaten, electrocuted, drowned or shot to death.
The lives are markedly dissimlar dont you think? The only thing they have in common is they die by human hands.

Trying to say eating meat and not supporting dogfighting is hypocrtical is also disingenuous.
Eating meat is something we are built to do, we are omnivores. There are also a whole lot of people on this planet, which requires a process of raising, slaughtering, butchering and distributing animal products.
I dont go to the grocery store, place a bet on a pig and hope he kills another pig after I have tortured it for a year, then hope to take home the tenderloin.

Feeding kittens, mice whatever to predators in another story in genral. Its not like a hawk can say "Oh well fuck it just give me a carrot." Thats insane to expect a predatory animal to not eat prey. There really is no argument here.

The Vick apologists need to understand that yes, people take a certain offense at torturing animals... in Virginia he is also probably facing additional prison time. The animal cruelty law there is punishable by 5 years in prison PER DOG. He could be locked up for over 40 years for this.

The racketeering and interstate gambling laws are federal felonies they use to prosecute organized crime... but its just some dogs right?

Wrong.

[atxrocker]

i have personally seen some dog fights, and they are brutal as fuck. a friend of mine used to fight some of his dogs and i saw a couple. not that i condone it personally, but there are some good points made in this thread. it's a sport, a fucking SPORT to go out and kill a deer or a buffalo or all kinds of shit and mount that motherfucker on your wall to boast and brag at "your kill" but the public shuns what happened here? i mean, the torturing shit is mad fucked up, but all you bastards crying foul need to get in touch with reality. dog fighting itself is no more fucked up than going out and hunting innocent live animals for no other purpose than to prove that you can.

[Slinkyman]

i have personally seen some dog fights, and they are brutal as fuck. a friend of mine used to fight some of his dogs and i saw a couple. not that i condone it personally, but there are some good points made in this thread. it's a sport, a fucking SPORT to go out and kill a deer or a buffalo or all kinds of shit and mount that motherfucker on your wall to boast and brag at "your kill" but the public shuns what happened here? i mean, the torturing shit is mad fucked up, but all you bastards crying foul need to get in touch with reality. dog fighting itself is no more fucked up than going out and hunting innocent live animals for no other purpose than to prove that you can.

Funny you think dog fighting is no more fucked up then hunting since you enjoy watching a good dog fight! :lol Keep trying to justify to yourself that you're not a sick fuck.

[DarkReign]

Same old, tired-ass argument.

If you cant see the difference between dog-fighting and hunting, youre a delusional idiot. Congratualtions! Youll receive your prize in the mail, right after you get you OJ prize.

[DarkReign]

Funny you think dog fighting is no more fucked up then hunting since you enjoy watching a good dog fight! :lol Keep trying to justify to yourself that you're not a sick fuck.

Yeah, that too. Nothing like breeding, conditioning and implementing a system by which you can enjoy the "sport" of two animals tearing each other apart literally, piece by piece.

[Flopper]

i have personally seen some dog fights, and they are brutal as fuck. a friend of mine used to fight some of his dogs and i saw a couple. not that i condone it personally, but there are some good points made in this thread. it's a sport, a fucking SPORT to go out and kill a deer or a buffalo or all kinds of shit and mount that motherfucker on your wall to boast and brag at "your kill" but the public shuns what happened here? i mean, the torturing shit is mad fucked up, but all you bastards crying foul need to get in touch with reality. dog fighting itself is no more fucked up than going out and hunting innocent live animals for no other purpose than to prove that you can.

I'm sorry, but you're a dumbshit and just trying to justify your enjoyment of having dogfights in your garage.

[mbass]

Than they are not animal protectionists, they are cat and/or domesticated animal protectionists. With that line of logic, you are taking away a vital food source for those often HIGHLY endangered predators.

As far as automobiles, it is certainly not ideal, but in my real life experence, it is survival of the fittest: The squirrels on my block look both ways before they cross the street. No joke. Besides, that roadkill is just a much a part of a scavenger/predator's diet.

I know that sounds a little absurd, but that is conclusion to that line of reasoning.




If you keep a cat indoors, and need to declaw it, I think that you have already crossed the line... But if you are willing to live with a clawed cat, and it seems content with the space it is given, it is no different than the estate I mentioned earlier... but if you are constantly worried that when you open the door, the cat is going to run away, I think you need to seriously consider the fact that by keeping it indoors you are being somewhat cruel and a little selfish. I get that it is for their own good, but try telling the cat that. Or, don't own the cat.



Absolutely absurd, completely inhumane, eerily racist, and totally disgusting.

Owning an animal may be justified, especially if said animal has the personality, and the owner makes the necessary concessions. But breeding for pedigree is so wrong on so many levels.

The history of 'pedigreed' animals is a strange one. Pets were not common among the peasants before the industrial age, but was a luxury of the wealthy, those who like to hunt foxes, for example. It was a way of the nobles showing superiority as they were able to feed the animals and take care of them, as well as their families.

But as the peasants became factory workers and more well off and wanted to emulate their nobles, they too took pets. To distinguish their animals from that of their 'subjects', the nobles started to 'breed' their animals based on totally arbitrary attributes and traits. Basically, if said particular breed didn't have said particular 'perfect' attribute, said animal was an inferior animal.

It made the 'nobles' feel good, and inadvertently also caused a long term problem with the animals. The only way to keep the traits of the animals consistent, is to inbreed them. This wreaks havoc with the genetic diversity and variability. Animals now bred to be a certain type are now at high risk of genetic defects and diseases. All because people want to breed them a certain way, inconsistent with how nature intended.

Some would say that the idea of keeping a breed 'pure', not even for strength, or for size, but just for color and shape, was an early way people could justify being able to marginalize people in this fashion, as was prevalent in the early part of the 20th century.

It is laughable that people all of a sudden decided to declare a certain dog a species out of the blue, especially when the dogs themselves never diverged in this way naturally. Dogs are some of the most physically diverse animals on earth, and while these traits are significant, speciation within dogs themselves is as limited as humans, i.e. nonexistent.


I agree with the declawing - it's cruel.

I'm not an expert on dog or cat speciation - but I know that dogs are considered a single species. And I don't think that the different breeds are even considered subspecies.

In modern times cats are not only bred for appearance but, more importantly, for temperament. And out-crossing between the 2 parental types is often done (eg. a Tonkinese is a cross between a siamese and a bumese)- so the incidence of genetic defect is lessened. Personally I am conflicted when it comes to breeding for type - is it better to do this type of breeding or should we just let the animals run wild and self-select? And with random selection, is it even necessary or ethical to neuter?

From your comments I would wager a guess that you would never have, for example, a Golden Retriever. Do you have any pets?

[mavs>spurs2]

Not only is this shit wrong, the way people fucked up the breed is the reason you hear about so many pit bull attacks on children. Do you sick fucks that see nothing wrong with dogfights also see nothing wrong with fatal pit bull attacks on children? These dogs aren't naturally blood thirsty monsters, they are raised and made that way by man. So Johngateswhitely next time your on your high horse trying to sound like a hardass, think about all the people maimed and killed by pit bull attacks and tell me if it's "just a dog" and that shit aint wrong.

[mardigan]

The national outrage over this is hollow at best.

Do people not realize what horses are put through in order to race? What happens to them if they don't produce?
For sure
The amount of greyhounds killed a year (in just as horrible ways in not worse) is huge, but you hardly ever hear any public outcry for those animals.

[Slinkyman]

For sure
The amount of greyhounds killed a year (in just as horrible ways in not worse) is huge, but you hardly ever hear any public outcry for those animals.

I didn't know greyhounds fought once they crossed the finish line.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

So it has to be a horse fighting to be deemed cruel, evil and inhumane? Are there levels of animal cruelty or is it just animal cruelty?

Selective outrage is funny.

[monosylab1k]

okay okay fuck this, i'm done.

nobody is condoning dog fight in any way, and i have yet to see anybody say they enjoy watching a dogfight. motherfuckers are seriously misreading shit here because theyr'e blinded by rage of someone suggesting that their beloved pasttime of blasting deers straight to Deer Hell just might be morally wrong in some way (though NOT NEARLY as wrong as dogfighting).

but it's clear that all the gun-totin' rednecks on this board are gonna continue to tell all us "Communists" that there's no double standard because their thirst to snuff out the life of innocent animals helps prevent chronic wasting disease.

so dogfighting - evil, trophy hunting - noble work blessed with God's loving approval. the end.

[mardigan]

So it has to be a horse fighting to be deemed cruel, evil and inhumane? Are there levels of animal cruelty or is it just animal cruelty?

Selective outrage is funny.
And thats the point many idiots dont get, just because greyhounds or horses dont actually fight each other, its humane. Not realizing the horrible treatment that these animals get. But I guess since they dont actually fight each other, its ok to treat animals like shit

[atxrocker]

I'm sorry, but you're a dumbshit and just trying to justify your enjoyment of having dogfights in your garage.


you stupid bastard, i never said i "enjoyed" shit. i said i had seen a couple of dog fights. i said i do NOT condone it. people do what people do, who am i to say shit? if you think it's ok to fucking shoot a deer in the head while it's in its natural habitat not hurting anybody but have the opinion that it's so fucking inhumane to put a couple of dogs against eachother then you seriously need to wake the fuck up. you're the dumbshit for trying to make shitty assumptions about what i "enjoy".

[BeerIsGood!]

And thats the point many idiots dont get, just because greyhounds or horses dont actually fight each other, its humane. Not realizing the horrible treatment that these animals get. But I guess since they dont actually fight each other, its ok to treat animals like shit



... The govt. has to have some sort of vested interest, something to gain from it. They won't gain a damn thing from cockfighting so they don't do it. But horse racing... where the animals are pumped full of chemicals to race against eachother with midgets on their backs for money, that the govt. can make a dime off of. Why? Because the rich and elite in our society love it and pay millions to partake.



If it can be profitable and isn't viewed by the empowered as "low class" like dogfighting and cockfighting - it's just fine according to the govt. Nobody getting arrested for slaughtering horses or greyhounds. Fucked up hypocricies like that have just been engrained in our culture for so long, nobody even questions it anymore.

[mardigan]

Well, their going to euthanize all of the dogs found on his property, its the most humane things to do
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=070823&cat=sports&st=sportsd8r6l2lg0&src=ap

[monosylab1k]

PETA was so busy burning Vick jerseys that they forgot to save the actual dogs.

[Flopper]

The only reason I don't condone hunting as much as I do to dogfighting is that of the process that goes with each activity. Can you honestly say that torturing a dog and putting it through the process that leads to dogfighting the same as that of hunting a deer? Do the hunters now torture the deer before shooting it? If they do, then the government should make hunting illegal and just hire professionals to control the population like they do with other animals.

I don't hunt and I don't like hunting, but to compare the process of hunting to that of dogfighting is ignorant and stupid.

[mavs>spurs2]

PETA was so busy burning Vick jerseys that they forgot to save the actual dogs.

That is true. Those PETA people have their hearts in the right place but not their heads. But on the other hand I guess there's not much they could do in reality, no one will take a fighting dog as a pet. It would be too hard to find a home for all of them. Too much of a liability, probably best that they are put down.

[rasho8]

That is true. Those PETA people have their hearts in the right place but not their heads. But on the other hand I guess there's not much they could do in reality, no one will take a fighting dog as a pet. It would be too hard to find a home for all of them. Too much of a liability, probably best that they are put down.

PETA euthanizes thousands of animals a year. They are more anti-human involvement toward animals than are really pro-animal

[jay014]

Maybe he'll get a movie deal to star in The Longest Yard 3 when all this is over with.

[jacobdrj]

I agree with the declawing - it's cruel.

I'm not an expert on dog or cat speciation - but I know that dogs are considered a single species. And I don't think that the different breeds are even considered subspecies.

In modern times cats are not only bred for appearance but, more importantly, for temperament. And out-crossing between the 2 parental types is often done (eg. a Tonkinese is a cross between a siamese and a bumese)- so the incidence of genetic defect is lessened. Personally I am conflicted when it comes to breeding for type - is it better to do this type of breeding or should we just let the animals run wild and self-select? And with random selection, is it even necessary or ethical to neuter?

From your comments I would wager a guess that you would never have, for example, a Golden Retriever. Do you have any pets?
That was kind of my point, dog is dog. There are no subspecies as far as this conversation is concerned.

You are correct. I don't own a pet.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Well, does he?

[jacobdrj]

What Starburry means is that if it were not culturally unacceptable to eat dogs, than we wouldn't have a problem with it. I do understand where Marburry is coming from, and I think he has a valid, if not misdirected, line of reasoning.

Most of us in America condemn matadors as well, and the bulls they killed and eaten, but is tortured before death, and is therefore frowned upon.

Hunting is a means of acquiring food. Torture to the animal is expressly forbidden. There is a sporting aspect here. From a sporting aspect, the animal must be given some semblence of a fair chance (hence, no fully automatic machine guns). I don't nessacarily agree with this, but the skills learned and exercised from hunting are valeuble ones.

There are those who go out to hunt for the sake of shooting/killing something. I would actually agree with Starburry, that this behavior is no different than dogfighting, or my example, matadoring. But it is hard to tell intentions of people and seporate those from the legit hunters.

There is a final aspect of hunting. In the US, we have effectively eleminated most, if not all predators to large prey animals. As such, we are now the top predator. Without a predator, these animals will (and do) explode in population to the point they will starve themselves, or worse, cause mass dissease to spread. Deer are overpopulated, and need controll. It is better that these animals are killed, and at least have a chance of their deaths not being a waste if you hunt them, where the alternitives are mass extinction through disease, hunger, or just plane waste of materials, which also can breed dissease.

[E20]

He obviously doesn't know about the underground deerfighting circuit.

That made me :lol