[STARBURY] Marbury Defends Vick, Calls Dogfighting a Sport

FACT: Deer hunting is legal.

FACT: Dog hunting is illegal.

FACT: Running a gambling ring in your home is illegal.

Vick made a concious decision to brake the law.

If you think it's a double standard. Good for you but it's irrelevant. The law is the law.

 

Marbury makes a complete ass of himself. What else is new?

 

I am not going defend marbury, but how is hunting any better than dog fighting. The pitbulls have a better chance against other pitbulls than deer have against or other wild life have against humans.

 

As someone who never particularly care for pets of any kind, I wonder if people would feel the same way if dogs weren't involved. That is, suppose the victim of cruelty is some other animal(i.e. had Vick set up a cockfighting ring), would everyone still think Vick in such a horrible light?

 

Well put.

 

This is a good question. I realize that he has pleaded guilty to more than just dogfighting but that is the element that is getting the most of the attention. I figure it wouldn't be as bad a backlash and would probably even be more comical with "Chicken George" references being brought up and about.

 

Hmmm, I don't hunt, but there is a very different cruelty:
(A) Distress and kill an animal purely for amusement.
(B) Distress and kill an animal to (ideally) eat it.

If people kill deer and don't eat the deer, then they are with the dog fighting crowd, IMO. But if people kill deer and eat the meat, then they are more honest version of the millions of Americans who eat hamburgers and chicken fingers, after those animals are treated horribly out of their sight.

 

I would like to see a deerfight. Or a steel cage volematch.

 

its not like hunters are starving and have to go kill deer for survival, they could easily have a salad or go to taco bell instead and then the deer would be free and live a full life

people hunt for amusement

 

You are forgetting that wildlife hunting is professionally managed. People pay the state for a hunting license that pays for professional management of the numbers of animals hunted. Without limits random hunting would be deplorable, but without management the animals would suffer even more. The numbers of deer that can be sustained in an area without massive disease, or the numbers of certain types of ducks/geese/dove that can be taken in a given season are examples of a humane approach to hunting. This is far different than what occurred here. People are actually studying ways to keep sustainable numbers of healthy animals, and harvesting of oversupply is part of that equation.

 

Well, managed hunting is certainly better than unregulated hunting. But how is it better than simply NO hunting?

I have a hard time believing that these animals' lives were all messed up before the age of human domination that they'd require "population control" to prosper. Look, it's one thing if we're simply killing them because to many of them interferes with human prosperity. Since I personally believe no animal should be in the way of us humans living well. But at least say it like it is. And not come out and say hunters are killing them for their benefit.

 

This is what I'm thinking too. Yet I can't see the difference between cockfights and dogfights. I'm guessing the roosters that "couldn't make the cut" didn't end up any better than the dogs Micheal Vick tortured to death. Yet no one would care, of course. Because one animal is only regarded as food, while the other is only regarded as pet.

 

Marbury actually makes some sense to me.

There is a legal difference, and there is an emotional difference because the animals being torturned and killed in this case are dogs... and people in this country generally love their dogs.

Like Jeff said, people think of different animals differently... if the animals involved are lizards or chickens, it wouldn't be the same. If Vick has set up an illegal cockfighting ring, it's not the same emotional impact. People in this country love their dogs, they don't have the same emtional attachment to their cocks.

 

As a person who's actually hunted before, I can say there's a LOT of difference between dog fighting and hunting:

First of all, hunting is about a hunter testing his skills against a wild animal. There is an deep down desire in all humans to test their skills whether it be at sports, video games, hunting, or other activities. This is why setting bait traps, hunting with large packs of dogs, etc. is highly frowned upon by most hunters. More often than not, hunters do not get their prey. The smarter or faster the animal, the better its odds of escape, the same situation as if it were being chased by a natural predator.

In most hunting, there is also an attempt to kill as painlessly as possible. Head or heart shots are emphasized with hunters attempting to get close enough for a quick kill. Although a shot with a high chance of wounding the prey can be taken from far away, it is preferable to get closer even if this allows the animal a better chance to escape.

In many cases, such as with deer, hunting is actually a necessity. The natural predators of these animals have been driven from their habitats due to man. Without hunting, animal populations would explode, leading to mass starvation, disease, and the destruction of farmland. The only alternatives to hunting in these cases is poisoning or mass extermination (usually through bait and kill operations set up by the conservation department of the state). Such operations are not pretty. There was one done near my Dad's place when the deer population got out of control. The animals often die slowly and kills aren't limited to just the adults of the species.

I think enough people have mentioned enough about hunting for food, so I won't touch on that subject.

So now let's move on to dog fighting.

There is no skill or challenge involved for the humans participating (unless you count gambling). People are just there to observe the carnage.

There is also no hope of escape (at least one or both of the dogs are guaranteed to be injured or killed). This is also unnatural because in a wild setting, dogs usually do not fight to the death. They often work together in packs and chase away their competition through intimidation with little bloodshed.

Unlike some types of hunting, dog fighting does not fulfill any need of society. It is not meant to control the population of stray dogs and is more likely to lead to people abandoning more dogs if anything.

And most importantly of all, dog fighting makes no effort to quickly end an animal's suffering. In fact, the suffering is the focus of the "entertainment". When I'm not hunting, I can be content with going to the shooting range because the focus of hunting involves the skills of the hunter. Since dog fighting focuses on the fighting/suffering of others, I'll let you imagine how a fan of that sport may content himself when not at a fight...

 

People have a tendency to show affection towards animals that are cute/domesticated.

If you had to kill the puppy or the calf, I think most would choose the calf.

BTW, People in China eat dog and probably have a slaughterhouse. They need tl eat something. I'm not against using any animal, no matter how cute, for food. I am against animal cruelty though, no matter how ugly.

As for hunting, I think its ridiculously stupid, unless of course you eat what you kill.

Fishing... Don't know what to say about that.

 

All those who have listed hunting being different dogfighting in that the animals do not suffer, let's be real. I am hunter of many different types of wild game, from doves to deer. Yes, the goal in hunting is going for the quick kill but how often does that really happen? (Yeah right, to all those who are going to post that they or those they know are crack shots!) It is rare, in all my instance of hunting alone or with others quick kills do not happen most of the time.

I have shot a deer with a rifle and spent hours upon hours trying to find where it has run off to lay down in order to die. Do you think there was no suffering there? I have shot one with a bow and I am sure it is/was even worse. The death is usually not slow.

I have shot hundreds of rabbits and most of the time they end up just wounded and when you find them you have to end it buy shooting them again or breaking their neck. Sometimes their front or back legs are the only things hit. Sometimes you can hear them squeal when you find them or even worse the dogs find them and start to tear them apart.

Shooting doves or any type of bird is the same. Sometimes their wings get clipped so they come crashing down into the ground flopping around trying to escape, sometimes they die on impact or drown in water and of course if you find them still alive you must finish them off or you can just sit there and let them bleed to death.

Frogging bullfrogs is no more light-hearted. Taking a three-prong gig and ramming into the frogs back then stuffing them in a cooler, basket or whatever while they are still alive. Yes, they are suffering and it is not easy-going.

I can keep naming and naming but I know most of the time hunting is not a clean-cut, easy-going, and painless as a lot of people claim it to be.

 

I always laugh at this. What skills could you test on a wild animal that you can test with skeet, targets, etc.?

I am sorry but the odds are not fair, usually we (humans) are sitting with some type of advanced weapon that can kill from a range of 10s to thousands of yards away. What does the animal have? It's instincts and physical skills, nothing more. If you want a fair fight get in a ring with a wild animal that is hunted and go hand-to-hand combat and really test your skills.

In my above post I note that I am a hunter but I definitely do not try to sugarcoat hunting. It is a violent and gory affair most of the time but I hunt because I like wild game that is not readily available in my supermarkets. I fully admit that I have an unfair advantage in weaponry, technology, and overall intelligence. It is definitely not a fair fight.

 

Vick was involved in an illegal underground business, this is on top of brutal animal cruelty. I don't feel any sympathy for him, I'd have more for an athlete banned for doing a recreational drug as long as he/she doesn't hurt anyone or drive a car that could. Marbury is an idiot for downplaying, shame, because I thought his shoe thing was nice.

That said, I won't say there is any consistency in animal treatment/this debate. Some cultures have the cows sacred or particularly valued, others dogs and cats, others horse, while still in other cultures they are eaten. There is no way to find make a logical argument for some of these being right and others not.

Now I think we can make some other differentiations. I can buy an argument chicken and fish are even cognitively different than those above--less sentient animals. Treatment of them maybe could come to a less standard. Slippery slope, but maybe this case can be made. Ulimately I think you can break it down endlessly for each person, don't kill any animals (including single cell animals and incects?), don't eat any animal products (but you don't have to kill anything to generate milk and eggs), don't kill any food source (only eat what has fallen/died naturally, doesn't hurt the plant to consume part, ect?) Lots of different lines to draw.

All I can saw is where I fall. Any unneccesay animal cruelty of higher level animals bothers me. If Vick was slaughtering his dogs in the most human way possible for consumption, well I wouldn't go to his house because he would disgust me, but I wouldn't say arrest him either. And I think that would be more humane than styles of hunting where a quick less painfull kill is not the norm. Further, I think we forget nature isn't always easy and painfree. Would a hungrey Cow on the open range rather take a slow death via Wolves or Mountain Lions they can smell coming and have lots of fear, or the equivalent to a bullet to the head after having protected land to roam, good food, and maybe lots of breeding.

So in the end, it is the humane treatment that matters to me. And if hunting is done in an efficient and pain free as possible with reasonable measures, OK by me. But the higher animal it is, and a dog is a pretty high animal, the better treatment should be.

Oh, and I do enjoy Soyrizo and smart dogs and Soyronis on pizza, still waiting for the So-Filet Mignon or RibeyeSO, and then I'll really go vegetarion. Maybe I'll go vegetarian without that, but kinda doubt it.

 

Guns are only a small part of what hunting is but since you brought it up, as a hunter, I'm sure you know that skeet shooting is good for practicing how much of a lead (distance to aim ahead of) to give a target and well as adjusting the angle of your shot. It's basically a hands-on way of understanding the physics of movement and the effect of gravity on your aim. I focus more on stationary targets such as deer and turkey for hunting, so it's less important to me than regular marksmanship skills.

Yes, a gun can shoot thousands of yards, but I rarely (pretty much never) shoot over that distance because I know my limitations and would rather avoid wounding animals. Plus most areas in which I hunt are wooded and my visibility is limited to a couple of hundred yards max and usually a lot less than that.

Hunting is not about "fighting an animal" (unless it has rabies maybe) or simply being a good marksman. It's more about understanding an animal so that you can track it. It's about being able to move quietly in the woods so you can get close to your target. It's about camouflage and hiding your scent. Knowing how to tell directions by sun, moss, and compass so you don't get lost. Have patience in finding your prey and enjoying being outdoors in the process. The shooting part is only the last part of a successful hunt and if it takes more than 1 shot, then you need to practice more on the things mentioned above (and no one is 100% perfect, so its always an ongoing improvement)

I do not consider myself a crack marksman, but I typically get a single "kill" shot 80-90% of the time. Some of my friends are considerably better and rarely miss at all. It should be noted that I did grow up in a "town" of about 150 people and have been hunting since I was about 8 years old (some of my friends started even younger). Getting a clean shot requires a lot of patience and skill. More often than not, the animal catches my scent or hears me before I feel comfortably close. It this case, I have failed and concede to the animal's escape since I don't like shooting moving targets (this leads to wounded animals and Dick Cheney type incidences).

Whether or not the hunt is "fair" to the animals is entirely up to you. You can make hunting as difficult as you like depending on your weapon, prey, and style. You said that you hunt for the taste of wild game, so it's more understandable that you would greatly stack the odds to your favor. The comments on wounded rabbits/doves does alarm me however. Since you have more experience with those animals, I'll concede to your point that there are gory types of hunting which may be unavoidable. The only rabbits I've shot were the ones raiding my vegetable garden...

I'll look for your reply since I'm always interested in the opinions of others. However, I won't post anymore since I don't want to derail this thread further...

I'd rather go back to discussing about the team and the "hunt for the ring"...

 

I'm not gonna get into the morals of Vick's dogfighting issue, but I would like to say that Marbury is completely out of his mind. I'm sure there are others who would defend Vick's actions, as seen in this forum, but why would he voice it out loud when he knows his comments are gonna get super magnified?

Having an opinion is one thing, but someone really needs to sit him down and teach him how to understand the context and timing of his thoughts. He's lucky he has some God given talent in basketball, or else I wouldn't know what he'll be doing right now for a living.