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 ing mind.
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.
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.
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.
Poaching?
Fishing is also a sport. Ever seen one mounted?
Yes he did.
Hunting for food. Not hunting for ego.
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, 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 , 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. , 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.
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.
I don't get why yous guys are getting bent out of shape about hunting. The food chain. You learned that 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 ing 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 , 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 ing 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
I see your point, there are important differences, but there are also essential similarities, no?
The head is mounted and the rest is eaten. What part of a dog is eaten?
Some, but dogfighting is simply worse IMO. Hunting is even humane in some instances to curtail overpopulation. Dogfighting is pure sadism.
There's a difference in hunting and dogfighting.
There's no difference in fighting and dogfighting.
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.
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 for why and how the two are different. He doesn't make a point that isn't great.
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.
he does have a point. and anyone who's ing 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
