Is deer hunting and fishing as bad as dog fighting?

Personally I say no, but I want to know what others think? I just read Stephan Marbury's comments about saying dogfighting is the same as deer hunting (killing animals)Is deer hunting and fishing as bad as dog fighting?
I had the same thought but after discussing this with some intelligent people I realized how stupid it is to compare dogfighting to hunting. First, off, although there are a great number of people who hunt just for sport, the majority of hunters are people hunting in rural areas who are hunting to either feed themselves and their family or keep the population of the deer, bear, etc. under control. Hunters kill their prey in the quickest and most humane way possible. They try for quick kill to ensure the animal suffers as little as possible. Dogfighting, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. A ';good'; dogfight is one in which the animal fight for a long time with lots of ';action';, this prolongs the animals suffering as much as possible. Then there is also the ';training'; that is implemented to prepare to dog's. This generally includes starvation and other means that are used to enrage the dog and get him ready to fight. Then you have the ways in which the dogs are actually killed. This is either by the other dog in the ring or out in the back woods as we have all heard by now. So again, hunting is, for the most part, conducted in the most humane way possible. Dog fighting is about as cruel and inhumane as it gets. That is the big difference and that is why it is just plain stupid to compare the two.Is deer hunting and fishing as bad as dog fighting?
Deer hunting and fishing are different, because they are a food source. True, you are killing the animal but it is for food, much the same way a predator like a wolf will kill. Dog fighting is different because its like your torturing the animal, subjecting them to a harsh existence.
I have had dogs. They were puppies and cute.





I never owned a deer. Though maybe they are cute when young, I do not know.





As for the fish, well, we eat fish.





BTW, there might be a difference between shooting a deer to keep the deer population down after we eliminated all the predators because they kill humans and cattle too relatively humanely, and making dogs tear each other apart. That is probably just racist ol' me.:)
Yes!!! Stephon Marbury knows bout da issues!!!
I live in a rural area of america where all three are common. I love animals and work on a farm. Most hunters are humane, law abiding citizens who enjoy the sport and attempt to kill animals quickly and painlessly. Most fishermen, do it for the sport and throw the fish back and no harm is done to the fish. Dogs used in dog fighting are beaten from a very young age and starved to make them mean. As another answer stated, the fight is more entertaining, the longer it lasts. The people who enjoy this sort of thing are sadistic and enjoy seeing blood, pain, and suffering. That is why it is so much fun for them to kill the dogs that don't fight well. If you want a dog put down, you can take it to a vet and for a nominal fee have it peacefully put to sleep. There is no reason for hanging, shooting, choking or drowning dogs except that it is exciting and entertaining. These people are sick. Be glad these guys weren't doing this to humans instead.
I hope that Stephan Marbury didn't cash the last check on his shoe endorsement deal because he just lost it.





Killing animals for food and killing animals for ';sport'; are two different things. I am also against hunting and fishing if you don't eat what you kill.
here are soime differences...





for starters... ones illegal one isnt





one take a split second to kill the animal, the other is slow and painfull





one takes a domesticated animal and makes it mean in order to have it rip another domesticated animal that has been turned means face off... the other is a man taking an animals life instantly and at least a little more dignifying in order to eat and trophy the aminal.





here is the kicker, the winner dog still gets all ******* up. the looser dog (if it doesnt get killed in the fight) has to get killed after the right because it is a useless animal. so the winner dog gets mangled, the looser dog gets mangled than killed... and for what?
I'll try to breakdown Marbury's foolish argument:





Either make deer hunting illegal


Or then Legalize dog fighting.
I guess Stephan Marbury is too stupid to know what is a felony and what is not.
Well then you would have to include farmers on this list. Farmers rise livestock for butcher, so in a sense they are killing animals too for some reason.





Dog fighting is done for gambling purposes and the animals are tortured. People hunt and fish for the food aspect, does Mike Vick eat the dogs that he kills? I think not...
Well the last time i went deer hunting i TRIED to DROWN a Buck but he was to strong for me to keep his head under water and the fish i tried to drown just wouldnt die for some reason........ You point does NOT make sense.....VICK is a D!ck and he NEEDS to go to PRISON!!!!!!!! No body can help this so called man like time spent in the HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no intelligent or logical comparison between dog fighting and hunting/fishing. The human animal is an omnivore and a predator which means it's in our genes to hunt. Dog fighting is simply a cruel way for idiots to make wagers.
it is leagal to hunt deer bear ect. bcuz they r wild and ppl say the population needs to be controld. cats dog and things like that are domestic so we r not supose to breed wat we cant take care of. so that is why deer can be hunted and stuff and dogs cats can not. i think it is crap that ,that guy said that cuz he does not know wat he is talking about. i hunt and i do and i know why we can and cant. i think wat he did to the dogs was mean and i dont agree with him doing that to them.i also think hunting is rong if u dont eat wat u hunt!
hunting, as wierd as this may sound, saves many species like deer. without us, they would overpopulate





fishing, on the other hand, is just recreation, and you can throw them back if you want to
No because it's legal and they eat deer and fish.





But i killed about a hundred mosquitos today
It isnt a moral issue. Hunting and fishing are LEGAL. Plain and simple. But there are laws that apply to each one. And those laws are meant to protect wildlife. Break those laws and you will pay
MARBURY IS AN IDIOT
While I hate hunting I say no.





This is because there is no deliberate attempt to torture the hunted animal. In the case of dogfighting torture is involved. Also the animals that are put down are done so inhumanly. And gambling is involved.
Yes, it is.





I was just at this backwoods deer-fight, and afterwards we electrocuted the deer that lost. Hundreds of people were in attendance and thousands of dollars changed hands. It was a blast.





This is such a ridiculous argument. Marbury is a dumbshit.
People who say that are from the city.





If you came from a rural background, you would know that if there isn't enough deer hunting, they are sicker, starved, come onto human property more looking for things to eat, and are a big nuisance.





Hunting thins the populations of weak, old and sick. What's more, deer populations explode so quickly they sometimes have to give out TWO deer tags just to keep the populations under control.





Plus... Not kept in a cage, baited to make aggressive, fought to the death, and then killed anyways, like in dog-fighting. Deer have a very good chance of not being killed by a hunter. More likely to get hit by a car. Can't say the same for those dogs.





Marbury is an idiot.
First of all dogfighting is just wrong plain and simple. But hunting deer is just as wrong if not worst. I know that's it's legal in all, but the Bambi's are just too innocent. I mean just look them. Standing there eating the grass, just enjoying life, not hurting a fly. THEN, ALL OF A SUDDEN, BAM!!!! OUT OF NOWHERE, some idiot comes and kills it.





Probably all the people complaining about the dogfighting would take a pit bull if someone paid them to take it.
I bet just about everyone that answers this question doesn't hunt or fish very often or at all.


I have been fishing and hunting all my life and I have never considered it a sport. I do these outdoor activities because when I was a boy my father and friends taught me the ways of the outdoors and they became hobbies of mine and I love to eat fish and wild game.


We hunted and fished for food and enjoyment. While most people I knew were getting into trouble and getting mixed up in ';Bad Situations';, I was in the woods and on the rivers which I believe kept me out of the trouble they were in.


Sure these days it is not a matter of starvation for most people but believe me when I say there are some people that do need to hunt and fish to put food on the table. Have you seen prices at the grocery store lately?


Not everyone thinks the way city dwellers do which is why hunting is perfectly legal in Alabama than Washington D.C.


I have more freedoms than people in big cities and I should. There are less vicious crimes where I live than other places and not near as many crazy idiots.


If you don't like that move!





LeeDungarees is the dumbest person I have ever read on here. I actually lost I.Q. points reading his post!





Remember, the 2nd amendment protects the 1st which means it protects what you want to post on yahoo answers.
no!!! there is a big difference!
those 2 are not as bad mainly because they are both legal.





dog fighting is being unhumane to animals.


stephan marbury needs to take the giant headphones off his ears long enough to learn that dogfighting is illegal in all 50 states and not a sport