Is hunting wrong??

[ehoez.com]

With all the talk about mike vick and his dogfighting, folks have been talking about is hunting wrong too?

What are your thoughts?

Should hunting be illegal too??

 

[angisson]

I don't see how dog fighting is related to hunting........


and no its not wrong.

 

[Phoebe_]

Illegal.. if they'll hunt for endangered species, I guess

 

[briman1970]

Hmmm... let's make a comparison...

Is hunting legal in all 50 states? Yes.
Is dogfighting legal in any of the 50 states? No.

Is hunting purely for entertainment/gambling purposes. No
Is dogfighting purely for entertainment/gambling purposes. Yes.

Can you eat your kill after hunting? Yes.
Can you eat your kill after fighting your dog? No.

Does the hunted animal suffer? Occasionally.
Does the fighting animal suffer? Severely.

Does a hunted animal have a good life before the bullet/arrow ends it? Most of the time.
Does a fighting dog have a good life before they are slowly fought to death. Absolutely not.

Is hunting related to criminal activities, such as organized crime, racketeering, drug distribution, gambling, or gangs? No.
Is dogfighting related to criminal activities, such as organized crime, racketeering, drug distribution, gambling, or gangs? Yes.

Do hunters steal pets or capture stray animals to use as live bait for their prey? No.
Do dogfighting rings steal pets or capture stray animals to use as live bait for their dogs? Yes.

According to a recent nationwide survey, 78% of Americans support legal hunting. How many Americans do you think support dogfighting? Would you rather have your child take an interest in hunting or dogfighting?

 

[ChrisChris]

Agreed how hunting is unrelated to dog fighting but I can't see anything wrong with hunting. If anything, animals that are hunted and eaten are better off than animals that are kept in captivity before being slaughtered and eaten.

 

[James]

i believe nothing is wrong with hunting, i personally do it. i believe if a over populated animal is hunted (rabbits in Australia) then i don't see anything wrong with it. it may be dangerous in the wrong hands but thats why we have gun laws.

 

[Achaias]

Is hunting related to criminal activities, such as organized crime, racketeering, drug distribution, gambling, or gangs? No.

I support hunting animals and certain people when they annoy me enough... So the correct answer to the above question is "Apply as needed". No seriously I have family that hunts all over and travels far and wide to do it. Comparing something like dog fighting and hunting is like comparing cannibalism to butchering and eating cows. Both are killing/eating but taken in context with the law are completely different. Just my opinion

If anything, animals that are hunted and eaten are better off than animals that are kept in captivity before being slaughtered and eaten.

For some reason seeing this made me think of Mike Vick eating bull dogs...

 

[neroux]

Should hunting be illegal too??

Yes

and no its not wrong.

Its easy to say so if you are not affected.

Is hunting purely for entertainment/gambling purposes. No

Other reasons are usually just excuses.

Can you eat your kill after fighting your dog? No.

Why not?

Does the hunted animal suffer? Occasionally.

It depends, but as you could usually say everyone who loses his life forcibly suffers, I'd tend to say "always".

Does a hunted animal have a good life before the bullet/arrow ends it? Most of the time.

That doesnt really matter in this case.

Is hunting related to criminal activities, such as organized crime, racketeering, drug distribution, gambling, or gangs? No.

It often is.

Is dogfighting related to criminal activities, such as organized crime, racketeering, drug distribution, gambling, or gangs? Yes.

It often is too, but such activities are side effects and do not matter for the victims.

According to a recent nationwide survey, 78% of Americans support legal hunting. How many Americans do you think support dogfighting?

You know the saying "Trust only those statistics which you have falsified yourself".

Would you rather have your child take an interest in hunting or dogfighting?

In neither of both.

 

[Jasdon]

Yes







Its easy to say so if you are not affected.


Other reasons are usually just excuses.


Why not?


It depends, but as you could usually say everyone who loses his life forcibly suffers, I'd tend to say "always".


That doesnt really matter in this case.


It often is.


It often is too, but such activities are side effects and do not matter for the victims.


You know the saying "Trust only those statistics which you have falsified yourself".


In neither of both.

What are you.....a pheasant????????

Nothing wrong with hunting, IMO.

 

[neroux]

What are you.....a pheasant????????

Sorry, I cant laugh.

Nothing wrong with hunting, IMO.

As I said, its easy to say so if you are not affected.

 

[Hitch]

Depends, if it's for food, not really.

If it's for fun, then yes, it should be classed as Illegal in my opinion.

 

[lpstong]

Depends, if it's for food, not really.

If it's for fun, then yes, it should be classed as Illegal in my opinion.

Agreed. I feel the same way.

I grew up in a big family in parts of Oregon and California. It was common for some of the fathers to go deer hunting. Oft times they would kill 1 - 3 bucks. Divide up the deer between the familys and also give portions, if not a whole deer to the local soup kitchens and or churches who feed the poor.

When I was in college, there was a lake across the way. Weekly I and my roommates would go fishing to help minimize our grocery budget by catching fish.

In these two instances of hunting would they be wrong compared to dog fighting? No hunting and fishing are not wrong. And by all means there is no great result of dog fighting.

 

[neroux]

In these two instances of hunting would they be wrong compared to dog fighting? No hunting and fishing are not wrong. And by all means there is no great result of dog fighting.

Whether its dog fighting or hunting, there is always party A (usually humans) who put their interests over party B's (usually non-humans). The intentions (and ethical views - usually defined by party A by the way) do not really matter for party B - the result is the same, party B is forced to set back its interests in order to accomodate party A.

 

[wurkanimal]

I think so yes, why can't they find another '''''''Sport'''''''?

 

[lpstong]

Whether its dog fighting or hunting, there is always party A (usually humans) who put their interests over party B's (usually non-humans). The intentions (and ethical views - usually defined by party A by the way) do not really matter for party B - the result is the same, party B is forced to set back its interests in order to accomodate party A.

Yes just like those who are against hunting and for those who are for hunting.

Again hunting is fine. As long as it serves a greater, more common good vs deviant behvior.

 

[Michelle Ü]

i think it'll only be illegal if you're hunting an endangered species.

 

[Barrucadu]

As I said, its easy to say so if you are not affected.

That implies that you have been affected by hunting in a negative way - how?

 

[neroux]

Yes just like those who are against hunting and for those who are for hunting.

I think I see what you want to refer to, but I dont think you can compare this at all. Here party A doesnt try force party B to do something, but party A is trying to prevent actively that party B violates the rights of party C.

If you see this as constraint of free expression we could also legalise murder, rape and child abuse as the current laws punishing these actions also limit the free expression of the violators.

Again hunting is fine. As long as it serves a greater, more common good vs deviant behvior.

As I said, it is very easy to say that if you are not affected.

That implies that you have been affected by hunting in a negative way - how?

Sorry, but I cannot see how this could be implied at all.

 

[Barrucadu]

Sorry, but I cannot see how this could be implied at all.

Its easy to say so if you are not affected.

As I said, its easy to say so if you are not affected.

It was the multiple "If you're not affected" statements that made me think you were implying something.

 

[lpstong]

It was the multiple "If you're not affected" statements that made me think you were implying something.

I agree with Mikor as well with implying of "If you're not affected". It just sounded like you have a story that affected you about hunting.

It is true. Hunting is not for everyone. And is not needed to be done by everyone either.

For my family it was a matter of putting food on the table during hard times as well as helping others in need. Which is to me a vital importance to those who do currently hunt vs a sport like dog fighting.