Can somebody please straighten me out, what is the difference between dog fighting..

[boobiemiles]

and hunting? Hunting gets a large amount of media coverage. If it is all about brutality to animals why is hunting so popular. Is it a racial thing?

[Goaldeje]

and hunting? Hunting gets a large amount of media coverage. If it is all about brutality to animals why is hunting so popular. Is it a racial thing?

I think to the folks at PETA, there probably is no difference, and I'm guessing they protest both. True hunting is for food, and people who have a problem with that are just silly.

Having said all that, I suspect the real, deep rooted issue is how people think about both of these things. Most people can rationalize hunting in their minds b/c of the food thing. Also, be it taken from Biblical themes or something else, most people feel that we are superior to animals, and hunting simply symbolizes our superiority.

Dog fighting is just mean in most people's eyes. We may be superior to the dogs, but training them to fight each other degrades them (and those who do it) because we are taking advantage of our position (of superiority). With hunting, we assert our position; with dogfighting, we take advantage of our position.

My take anyway.

[stoshuaj]

to answer the ??, one is for sustenance, disease and crowd control, while the other is for entertainment and gambling...

as a twist to this topic,....is there a giant leap between killing a dog b/c it won't hunt and killing a dog b/c it won't fight?

[jrockster21]

Horse racing is a better comparison - it brings in tons of money, so of course it is acceptable. I wouldn't say its a racial thing, but I'm pretty sure most horse owners and jockeys are white. Coincidence? Who knows...I will say that dog fighting definitely has more in your face "badness," which makes it more morally uncomfortable. We don't see all the horses that get shot and mistreated on TV - if we did, maybe horse racing would be viewed the same way.

[Birdlives]

I think it's about the mode and end result more than anything. In dog fighting the animals basically are tortured and then eventually tortured to death. In hunting the best case scenario is as quick and painless a death as possible coupled with using the animal in as many ways as possible, food being the primary result. Also at times people have hunted out of necessity. Dog fighting is purely for entertainment and therefore is not needed and quite cruel. The idea that someone wants to torture an animal for sport is barbaric. Meanwhile, because of our own effects on the environment (removal of top food chain hunters likes wolves) hunting can sometimes be absolutely necessary.

And for the record, yes PETA doesn't condone hunting either. However they also dont think people should keep animals as pets too. PETA is far too extreme in their belief system. The humane Society, Nature Conservacny and WWF are more reasonable versions of animal rights groups.

[Birdlives]

Horse racing is a better comparison - it brings in tons of money, so of course it is acceptable. I wouldn't say its a racial thing, but I'm pretty sure most horse owners and jockeys are white. Coincidence? Who knows...I will say that dog fighting definitely has more in your face "badness," which makes it more morally uncomfortable. We don't see all the horses that get shot and mistreated on TV - if we did, maybe horse racing would be viewed the same way.

You forgot to mention the huge amounts of drugs they pump into the horses in some cases just so they can run without pain. The U.S. horse racing industry has a huge amount of problems. The difference is, when regulated well it can be a decent pursuit where the animals are well treated and with respect. Unfortunately that's not the case in the U.S.

[Ingtar]

I have to concur with the posts thus far. Hunting would be for food, while dog fighting is about prolonged pain and torture. I think if you spoke to any respectable hunter you would find that they have a love of nature and have no desire to make the creature they hunt suffer at all. Hunting is even sometimes used for the control of an animal population, like deer. The deer overpopulation problem in areas is our fault, but it also doesn't mean we should just let them multiply out of control. Then a lot of other species would struggle and die.

The only hunting I find morally objectionable is trophy hunting, which I find to be disgusting. Those rich idiots who want to dump a bunch of cash to go to Africa and shoot nature preserve bred lions and such should not be allowed back into the country. If you go hunting so you can have a skin or horns and you throw the rest away that is not much different than dogfighting, however it is still less brutal than dog fighting.

[ouvan59]

and hunting? Hunting gets a large amount of media coverage. If it is all about brutality to animals why is hunting so popular. Is it a racial thing?

Why would it be a racial thing? Dog fighting isn't tied to any racial lines. Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Asians do it. And the difference is the reasoning behind both. Hunting at least can be rationalized that it is about putting food on the table. The enjoyment of hunting has nothing to do with the torture and suffering of the animal. It is an unfortunate byproduct but it isn't part of the enjoyment. In dog fighting the enjoyment is directly derived from the suffering of the animal. Forcing two animals to try to kill and/or maim each other generally for a wager is what separates the two.

[grego]

you've gotta be kidding.

[boobiemiles]

How many people you know hunt to put food on the table? The american diet never consisted of Deer, etc. We don't eat these animals, yet we hunt them. I can understand if you we needed to hunt to eat. But we have cattle, chicken etc., that are produced in large enough numbers that we can eat with out plucking buck shot out of our meals. I persoanlly think that is a weak arguement. This whole thing issue centers around mis treatment of animals. Yet no body talks about the exstintion that is occuring with the Snow Leopard, or other animals that are being hunted to exstinction. Now everybody is angry because they think that these dogs are their pet Spot. It's none sense. And to feel that hunting is different when you are actually killing the animal is outrageous to me. These dogs are fighting. SO what is the difference between a Dog fight and boxing match, or The Ultimate Fighting Matches?

Which brings me to the reason I say it is racial. When it involves a counter culture or a culture that is not seen as part of the majority's norms, it is banished. And holding Michael Vick as the poster boy for the Evil Dog Fighter is wrong. Our society wants violence, but we want violence our way. Just ask people about the end to the Sapranos. This is a deeper issue than Dog fighting in my opinion.

[SkinsOrlando]

Horse racing is a better comparison - it brings in tons of money, so of course it is acceptable. I wouldn't say its a racial thing, but I'm pretty sure most horse owners and jockeys are white. Coincidence? Who knows...I will say that dog fighting definitely has more in your face "badness," which makes it more morally uncomfortable. We don't see all the horses that get shot and mistreated on TV - if we did, maybe horse racing would be viewed the same way.

Horse racing would never be viewed the same way simply because the goal is to win a race, not kill another animal. Two completely different distinctions. There is no doubt mistreatment among horses in the racing industry, shady dealings and the fact the horse injuries are often treated by euthenasia(sometimes all that can be done). Racial component is non existent in this case just a straw man argument for Vick apologists.

[Burgold]

to answer the ??, one is for sustenance, disease and crowd control, while the other is for entertainment and gambling...

I think you nailed it.

[stoshuaj]

1. **what is the difference between a Dog fight and boxing match, or The Ultimate Fighting Matches**

I've heard this argument a couple of times and it's silly. Last I checked anyone that doesn't want to fight, isn't forced into any arena. The punishment for losing or not fighting isn't death. The fighter/boxer can make the decision to fight or not.

in summation, the dogs had no decision making capabilities, fighters do.

2.**mis treatment of animals.**

Hunters typically pride themselves on one shot/one kill and seek to harvest the animal with least amount of suffering for the animal. I don't think the dogs suffering is part of the equation in this type of dog fighting. (Although I know that in some styles of dog fighting, the dog is treated much better than Mr. Vick's apparently were)

3.**How many people you know hunt to put food on the table? **

There is a non-profit organization in Va. called "Hunters for the Hungry".

Look 'em up. They donate thousands of pounds of meat to food banks and shelters throughout the state so that people can put food on their table.

4.**This whole thing issue centers around mis treatment of animals.**

**Which brings me to the reason I say it is racial.**

so which one is it?

[Prosperity]

and hunting? Hunting gets a large amount of media coverage. If it is all about brutality to animals why is hunting so popular. Is it a racial thing?

Dogs are more important animals emotionally... cruelty to such loving and loyal animals is degrading to the human spirit

[TheDoyler23]

Hunting is super regulated.

Dog fighting is akin to organized crime.

Hunting is thinning out the herd in a responsible way that HELPS the population of the animal.

Dog fighting is using domesticated breeds of dogs as gladiators.

There's a difference.

[Teller]

Which brings me to the reason I say it is racial. When it involves a counter culture or a culture that is not seen as part of the majority's norms, it is banished.

Who do you think buys the majority of "gangsta" rap albums?

(Hint: It's not some small fraction of 12% of the population.)

To make this a racial issue, or to say that a significant portion of white America hasn't embraced counter culture, ESPECIALLY that involving the African American community is simply wrong.

[Prosperity]

Who do you think buys the majority of "gangsta" rap albums?

(Hint: It's not some small fraction of 12% of the population.)

To make this a racial issue, or to say that a significant portion of white America hasn't embraced counter culture, ESPECIALLY that involving the African American community is simply wrong.

If you go by total numbers more white kids listen to gangsta rap than black kids. I also happen to listen to "gangsta" rap (well recently) and I think I turned out ok... I do not listen to the the mainstream garbage though.

[Burgold]

It's totally a racial thing. Canine is a race isn't it?

[twa]

You forgot to mention the huge amounts of drugs they pump into the horses in some cases just so they can run without pain. The U.S. horse racing industry has a huge amount of problems. The difference is, when regulated well it can be a decent pursuit where the animals are well treated and with respect. Unfortunately that's not the case in the U.S.

That seems to describe professional sports,and some amateur ones :laugh:

As far as dog fighting ,I don't oppose it,nor support it.

However the treatment/abuse of the animals is another matter.

I guess I should add, dog fighting always results in injury to the animals,while horse racing ect. does not.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Interesting thread and some very interesting responses so far. Here's my take on it.....

Dogfighting, ****fighting, etc... are activities which are designed to see damage, if not death done to one or more of the participating animals. These animals are bred solely for the purpose of being used as weapons or combatants in a "game" where even if they win they often end up seriously wounded, if not maimed. If they lose, they die... either at the teeth/claws of their opponent or as a final "punishment" for having lost. There is nothing humane or decent about the entire activity.

Horse and dog racing are somewhat better than the fighting groups. Yes, in many instances the animal has no more emotional input from their owner/trainer than the fighters, but at least the intent is somewhat better. A successful race horse will likely live out his or her life breeding and living a very nice life. Losing animals are rarely killed outright these days, and the groups looking to place greyhounds, standardbreds and saddlebred horses do wonderful work with placing these animals in loving homes. That isn't to say that none of these animals have horrible things happen to them. A crippled horse or dog will often be put down, but more and more these days kennels and stables are looking at potential rehabilitation before simply killing injured racers.

Hunting is a very different activity than either of the others. Hunting purely for sport disgusts me, as does the idea of taking an animal then not tracking it down to ensure it doesn't suffer. Those who choose to do so are among the lowest levels of trash in my mind. They're also the great exception to the rule among hunters. However, the activity of hunting provides a lot of wonderful opportunities and involvements. Hunters and fishermen are the among the most active conservationists in this country. All too often people get the idea that hunters simply stand in the woods, wait for an animal to come by and shoot it. That is VERY rarely the case. There is a lot of preparation, tracking, waiting, and patience involved in the activity. It is, for many hunters, a sport of man against nature... where man does not always win. Hunters also provide assistance in culling many over-grown animal populations that would otherwise starve or start invading more urban areas. I've had the absolute pleasure of dining on venison, moose, rabbit, bear, pheasant, duck, goose, and a couple other game animals over the years. They've all been wonderful meals, and always taken by honest, law abiding hunters who respected their prey. Not all hunters are great sportsmen, but you'll find most hold very little in common with the people involved in dogfighting.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

As a native West Virginian, everyone I know who hunts - which is basically everyone from WV - does several things that make it different:

1. Use as much of the animal killed as possible. My grandfather always had a freezer full of venison by the end of November. West Virginians hate seeing a deer go to waste. My uncle hit a deer with his truck once and made jerkey out of it.

How about this? Once at football practice, a deer came out of the woods, ran across the field, ran up a hill, and ran headlong into the backstop of the football field, breaking its neck. Our running backs coach, stopped his drills, went to his car, got his tools, and cleaned the poor thing there. Next week, all the running backs got venison steaks.

Trust me. Real hunters kill one buck a year (if that) and get everything they can out of it.

2. Believe in the one shot method. If you don't kill a deer on your first shot, you may want to reconsider what you are doing. And if you wound a deer, it is your moral obligation to find it and put it out of its misery as quickly as possible. I have a friend who tracked a wounded deer for eight hours because his shot went into the shoulder, not the head. I don't think he has hunted since.

3. Follow the law. Hunting is highly regulated.

4. Respect nature/respect the deer. I know a hunter who has not fired a shot in three years. He just loves being in the woods, tracking deer.

5. Understand that deer are dying because of overpopulation. I've seen too many skeletal deer desperately looking for food in the winter. We've put them in this situation; we need to fix it.

I am on record as saying that we should simply let the pit bull breed die out. I would have no problem with making it illegal to breed pit bulls. There probably is not a need for the breed any longer, and it's not a great pet. There is nothing cruel about this; dozens of breeds no longer exist. And it would go a long way to eliminating this problem.

[Jumbo]

1. There is not one iota of difference, in any way, between hunting and dog fighting. They couldnt't be more exactly alike. That's patently obvious. It's the same from the very first consideration, down to the last detail. Even just a moment's thought would reveal this as undeniably true. It's so wierd you had to ask.

2. I blame Bush (the president not the group), the music of Little Boll Weevil or Boo Woo or whoever he is, and the widespread social failure that is Christianity in the U.S.

So it's a racial mix. We need more Buddhist moderates who like Motown to change things for the better.

[RDSKNfaithfull]

Does anybody think all this would have happened if Vick raced Greyhounds and shot them when they were done racing? I don't think so :whoknows: a lot of people are overreacting in my opinion.

[Doozinbrah]

How many people you know hunt to put food on the table? The american diet never consisted of Deer, etc. We don't eat these animals, yet we hunt them. I can understand if you we needed to hunt to eat. But we have cattle, chicken etc., that are produced in large enough numbers that we can eat with out plucking buck shot out of our meals. I persoanlly think that is a weak arguement. This whole thing issue centers around mis treatment of animals. Yet no body talks about the exstintion that is occuring with the Snow Leopard, or other animals that are being hunted to exstinction. Now everybody is angry because they think that these dogs are their pet Spot. It's none sense. And to feel that hunting is different when you are actually killing the animal is outrageous to me. These dogs are fighting. SO what is the difference between a Dog fight and boxing match, or The Ultimate Fighting Matches?

Which brings me to the reason I say it is racial. When it involves a counter culture or a culture that is not seen as part of the majority's norms, it is banished. And holding Michael Vick as the poster boy for the Evil Dog Fighter is wrong. Our society wants violence, but we want violence our way. Just ask people about the end to the Sapranos. This is a deeper issue than Dog fighting in my opinion.

I know at least 10 people who hunt to put food on the table. I guess you have never lived in the country or know anyone who is from the country. Hell, for that matted it doesn't even have to be somone from the country. There are some people that would rather eat deer and rabbit than the meat you buy at the grocery store. I also think it can save people money to go out and hunt or fish to put food on the table :2cents: I personally don't go hunting, though I do do some fishing from time to time.

[techboy]

Well, let me ask you a question.

What's the difference between me hunting a deer with a rifle, and perhaps having some venison, and me drugging a deer with a dart gun, strapping it to a surgical table, and slowly flaying it alive for the sheer pleasure of it?

I mean, both kill the deer, right?