Is their a huge difference in hunting animals,and training them to kill each other.?

I am certainly not defending Michaeal Vick,but isn't their stark comparisons in hunting ';game';,and training them to fight.Please no immature comments.They won't bother me,but don't reveal how your maturity level.Is their a huge difference in hunting animals,and training them to kill each other.?
I'd suggest you actually try hunting, then go to a pit. If you can't tell a difference, you're not paying attention.Is their a huge difference in hunting animals,and training them to kill each other.?
I for one love animals and hate the idea of them being treated in this way. But lets put things in perspective.





Firstly, all of the people that talk about it being against the law need to stop. They really don't care about the law that much, and if it was legal tomorrow, it wouldn't make them feel better about it.





Secondly, people really need to stop acting like people only hunt to eat. The vice president got into a bit of scandal hunting birds he wasn't gonna eat and no one said ';What was he doing hunting in the first place? It's despicable!'; If Tom Brady took a bunch of blood hounds fox hunting, no one would say squat.





Thirdly, people need to stop acting like they are angry because the animals were killed inhumanely. The furs that people wear (including sports stars) come from animals who are trapped and drowned, and occasionally skinned alive. The same goes for snakeskin belts, and alligator boots. I can go to Red Lobster right now and have them take a lobster out of a tank and boil it alive for me. The list goes on and one and we don't care.





So at this point, I think we can do one of two things. We can take a long hard look at ourselves and see our hypocrisy and start caring, or just admit that we don't care and get on with our lives and let Vick get on with his. Saying ';What Vick did was wrong and inhumane, but when I shot that buck through the throat from 200 yards out and mounted it's head on my wall, that was ok'; just sounds stupid.
I eat the animals that I hunt or fish. I don't think eating dog is up on my list of gourmet meals. The major comparison is that you are comparing animals to animals.
i think the issue is more the drowning and hanging of an animal for pure pleasure. while in hunting the animal is usually part of a ';thinning of the herd'; process and almost always get eaten. vick knows what he did is wrong or he would not have lied about it up front. he was financing an illegal gambling operation, across state lines and wrongfully killed several dogs for no reason except pleasure. take out the animal cruelty issue and he still broke the law. operating a business out of his home, illegal gambling operation and some charges are federal. i do not know about the lifetime ban from football but the issue there is, personal code of conduct as it pertains to the NFL. if he broke their rules, regardless of the criminal trial, he should be held accountable.
You can't compare and use Michael Vick's actions with any other inteligent thought.





Can't be done.
Yes there is. Hunting is an instinct, and in some instances still a necessity for survival.





A hunter hunts for food, materials and sustenance. In many cultures the animal is celebrated for giving it's life so that other may live and thrive. There is a biological reason for hunting as well as a rich culture surrounding it.





Training and animal to kill another for sport benefits not the human, or the animal. There is absolutely no instinctual need, there is absolutely no biological need. It is for entertainment, it is also cruel, as unlike hunting where the animals death is relatively short. In a dog fight the animal may be maimed, injured and mistreated repeatedly before death.
Ethically, perhaps not, but, there is a tradition in the west of raising animals for food, as you know. PETA would say no, there is little difference, and, it is at the heart of their mission.
Yes, there's a big difference.





As much as I don't like hunting, at least it involves a quick kill. It's over.





These dogs who are trained to attack each other know nothing but violence, pain, and torture, and it goes on and on for their entire lives.
There is no difference. It is obvious that if the Feds can t regulate and profit from license procedure etc.....then they ';outlaw'; it. Just as with everything else.








Sure, I don't eat dog....but there are parts of the world in which ';puppies'; are a delicatessen. Are these people wrong?





Our government is able to convert people into criminals for whatever they choose to put on the books......It's sad, as one can be turned into a ';criminal'; in law, for not wearing a seat belt.





Are we too smart, too college educated, too trained by the government to see that no other country would tolerate this?





We are punks....Great question by the way
The difference between ';hunting'; animals and ';training'; them to kill each other is the wording right there.Those animals that need to be ';trained'; to kill each other are not natural born killers....they just have the misfortune to be bought and raised by natural born idiots.Dogs are not born to kill anything which is why they have to be tortured,starved and beaten into doing so.Anyone who needs to torture,starve or beat an animal into doing something for them against the animal's natural habits should have the same thing done to them.
I can sit here writing to you all day but I will but it as easy as it comes and if you can't see the difference you are not well Here goes One is against the law one is not !! that is the simple answer!!
Hunting is generally for the food. It is not the thrill of watching two animals kill each other, which is sick. Yes there is a huge difference.
Yes. As far as hunting it depends on what type of hunting your speaking of. If your sitting or standing around a feeder. I would consider that simple slaughter. As for myself actually tracking down your prey. Is what I would consider hunting. The animal actually has a chance. As far as training an animal they have no choice. Lets use another word people can relate to slavery.
There is a huge difference. First, most people don't hunt domesticated animals (dogs and cats). Moreover, most dogs aren't trained to be vicious killers used in sport.





Speaking only for myself, when I go hunting I only get one deer or elk and use the meat. When I go fishing I throw the fish back in the water. I guess hunting also has been a way of life in some parts and has become a tradition whereas dogfighting is just plain mean. I can see your point, although I disagree with you, but I hope this helps you find the answer your looking for.