True to our American ideals, reaction to Michael Vick’s involvement in dog fighting has touched every conceivable emotion.
NBA guard Stephon Marbury had a novel interpretation. He called dog-fighting a sport and compared it to deer hunting.
His comments immediately became fodder for every talk-show on the map. Talking-heads everywhere have reacted as if Marbury just flew in from Mars.
I would rather give Marbury the benefit of the doubt and stop the latest round of moral outrage.
The product of an inner-city, east-coast upbringing, Marbury’s life experiences are vastly different from those who grew up in a deer-hunting culture.
Many view deer hunting as the equivalent of shooting Bambi. I understand.
I grew up in the Rocky Mountains and almost every adult male I knew went deer-hunting every season. Indeed, it is such a part of rural life that it is often the lead story in the October sports sections.
DEER HUNT BEGINS TODAY
100,000 HUNTERS HIT THE HILLS
Those stories are played above college football stories in Utah and Wyoming and Montana and parts West.
Believe me, Mr. Marbury, the deer that are killed are not left to rot in the forest. They are harvested very carefully and subsequently find their way to dinner tables everywhere.
There are excesses everywhere, even in deer hunting, but unlike the violence of dog fighting, the purpose of deer hunting is to help feed a family.
And maybe get some much-needed exercise.
The hunters don’t get rich off deer hunting. Indeed, the cost for equipment, from arms to camping gear and warm-weather clothing, is not inexpensive.
Deer hunting can be and often is a dangerous endeavor. But unlike dog-fighting, it is not inherently a malicious one.
It’s a sport, but the opposition doesn’t know it’s playing.
— Button Salmon 08/23/2007 10:38 AM #
Marbury can’t understand the “SPOTLIGHT”.
— Tony Mason 08/23/2007 11:40 PM #
Dog Races,Dog Fights. Would it make a difference if Vick sold the carcasses
to the Chinese ? Who knows ? I certainly do not. All I know is my dog and I do not eat foods from “China”.
— Boxer Rebellion 08/24/2007 12:02 AM #
I have never met any self-proclaimed “hunter” whose family’s sustenance was dependent upon killing a wild animal. People hunt for one reason: to legally stalk and slaughter something. It’s blood-lust, and Marbury was spot-on.
— Bambi 08/24/2007 02:35 PM #
Let me guess Bambi, you’ll hop in your Prius hybrid and head down to the local Safeway to buy “meat”, but god forbid anyone actually be allowed to spend their time and effort to harvest their own, right?
Maybe you should ask a hunter how often he comes home empty-handed, compared to how many he’s “slaughtered”. Hunters care more about the environment, and the animals, than all of you latte sipping, PETA hypocrites put together.
— KP 08/24/2007 03:40 PM #
#6 Good call. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
— azcoachb 08/24/2007 03:48 PM #
Hansen doesn’t care about black people.
— dandy 08/24/2007 11:23 PM #
Where is Marco’s daily tyrade on Hansen?
— Jack A. 08/25/2007 10:32 AM #
# 8 Your wrong. Hansen is Howard Cosell in a sea or state of Evan Mechams. Your wrong and need to apologize or the wrath of I will afflict you
— Tony Mason 08/25/2007 12:16 PM #
Marbury is a moron. Ignore him. He’s not the brightest bulb in the pack.
What Vick did was illegal and morally reprehensible. Cruelty to animals is a foreshadow of cruelty to humans.
Vick should serve time. And never play professional football again.
The American public is far too forgiving. Maybe they’ll forget. But I won’t.
— The Zeeman 08/27/2007 05:24 AM #
KP- I don’t have a problem with hunting or your enjoyment of the so called “sport”. But I do agree with what Bambi is saying. Don’t categorize us all as PETA loving, latte sipping, hybrid driving types. That sounds as ridiculous as the Right always labeling people that don’t agree with them as “liberals”.
— Paul 08/27/2007 08:05 AM #
Paul,
unless you are a seventh-level Vegan, and refuse to eat anything that casts a shadow, then you are a hypocrite when it comes to the morality of harvesting game.
You’ll happily purchase the goods of a hired gun, who harvests from a un-natural “crop” of domesticated animals, but you would condemn someone who hikes for miles, communes with nature in a way that man has done for centuries, and does the dirty work for himself?
Hipocrisy. Plain and simple.
You and Bambi can relenquish the moral high-ground.
The hunting community does more to protect species and habitat than anyone.
There is a true appreciation for nature, that is realized during time spent among nature, trying to understand its ways, and its laws.
Hunters are not “bloodthirsty killers”. Human beings have always been hunters.
Perhaps you think that purchasing un-recognizable, plastic wrapped, trays of “meat”, makes you more “evolved”. I say it makes you ignorant of an important, visceral, part of human nature, and of nature in general.
— kp 08/27/2007 12:28 PM #
I wasn’t claiming that eating meat was amoral. I was claiming that hunting for “sport”, that inflicting pain upon an animal for enjoyment, is no different than training dogs to inflict pain upon one another. What is the difference? You eat the animal after making it suffer wounded while you finish your hike to finish it off? If Vick ate the dead dogs would that make dog-fighting moral?
I’m not trying to protect any species. I am claiming that this talk that hunters hunt for food is nonsense. They hunt because they like to do it. And what is hunting? Killing. You can go on plenty of hikes without gunning anything down.
— Bambi 08/28/2007 03:20 PM #
I agree with kp. We should start having dog-fights in the woods. That way, we can hike out there, commune with nature, shoot the victor (the loser already taken care of, naturally), and feast on the dogs dead bodies. That way, dog fighting is moral AND humane. We can even get in some great male bonding while we’re at it.
— The Great White 08/28/2007 07:42 PM #
Bambi,
the meat that you eat was obviously killed by someone.
What difference does it make if it was killed by Sam the butcher, or by a hunter in the field?
Well, for one, the animal in the field can utilize all of tools given to it by nature and evolution to avoid the hunter. And that happens much more often than not.
The animal at the meat packing plant does not have any chance, since from the time it is born, it is confined to an area where it is available to be “slaughtered” at your request.
My point is that you are quick to refer to hunters as “slaughtering” animals, when actually, by definition, your trip to the Mickey D’s drive thru promotes more “slaughter” than a score of hunters.
So, how do you come to the conclusion that there is moral superiority in hiring a “murderer”, than there is to being one?
And finally, hunters take no pleasure in the fact that their actions have caused pain to an animal. It happens yes, but unless you weep for good old Bessie as you pour the A1, then you probaly have no room to judge.
A hunter who is field dressing a deer, has immeasurably more respect for that deer, than you have for all of the Big Macs you have ever eaten.
So, either go Vegan, or accept your hipocrisy.
There is nothing wrong with either choice.
— kp 08/29/2007 10:44 AM #
The difference is, kp, that Sam the Butcher is not killing animals because he wants to and is having a good time shedding blood. It’s his job. Once again, knot-head, I’m not, nor have I ever, claimed eating meat is amoral. I’ve been writing that doing so for enjoyment is wrong. Stalking and killing an animal for nothing more than your amusement and to satisfy your lust for blood is wrong.
If we didn’t have such conveniences as refrigeration, than I would never write anything like I have. But since we do, the only reason people hunt is to kill. It is done for that reason, and that reason alone. So either actually read what I’m writing and understand that I’m not claiming eating meat is immoral, but KILLING FOR PLEASURE is, or accept that your a sanguinary-dolt.
— Bambi 08/30/2007 07:10 AM #
Bambi,
try to keep up.
Lets forget all about the meat being eaten. It doesnt matter if you are eating it, or making a belt, or upholstering your Prius’ seats. The fact is that you have no problem with the animal being killed so you can benefit.
You have convinced yourself that its OK, because you have several degrees of separation.
I say that’s BS. Period.
You’d probably get some enjoyment from that animals death once his carcass was embossed with “Manolo Blanik”, and hung with a 75% off tag, right?
I am reading what you are writing, and its very clear that you’ve convinced yourself that you’re morally superior, because somehow, hiring someone to kill animals, is better than actually killing the animal yourself.
We are human. Humans are predatory. Some of us recognize our place in the natural world, and accept it.
Some of us,(you), feel that because you bought the new Iphone, and you are separated from any killing buy a sesame-seed bun, that you are “evolved”.
That must be nice for you. Good luck with that.
— kp 08/30/2007 09:33 AM #
Geez, bambi, you’re willing to assign hateful motive (“killing for pleasure”) to hunters but not to the meat processing employee? How does that work? Guy can’t find another job?
I don’t think a person can possibly understand the difficult feeling associated with killing for food unless they’ve done it. I assume that includes you, bambi.
BTW; Ever try to find Gambel’s Quail, Peccary, Mule Deer or Dove at the local butcher? Good Luck. We hunt & fish because we enjoy the authenticity, the honesty of the action and the food. We enjoy preparing the game for the table (believe it or not) sharing it with our friends & family and gaining a greater appreciation for life before refrigeration.
Killing is a necessary part of all animal harvest but to say that hunters enjoy killing is baseless and crude.
Hunters UNDERSTAND killing, that’s true. I’m not sure you can say that.
— FlaCat 08/30/2007 09:48 AM #
— azcoachb 08/23/2007 09:17 AM #
— Button Salmon 08/23/2007 10:38 AM #
— Tony Mason 08/23/2007 11:40 PM #
to the Chinese ? Who knows ? I certainly do not. All I know is my dog and I do not eat foods from “China”.
— Boxer Rebellion 08/24/2007 12:02 AM #
— Bambi 08/24/2007 02:35 PM #
Maybe you should ask a hunter how often he comes home empty-handed, compared to how many he’s “slaughtered”. Hunters care more about the environment, and the animals, than all of you latte sipping, PETA hypocrites put together.
— KP 08/24/2007 03:40 PM #
— azcoachb 08/24/2007 03:48 PM #
— dandy 08/24/2007 11:23 PM #
— Jack A. 08/25/2007 10:32 AM #
— Tony Mason 08/25/2007 12:16 PM #
No.
— dandy 08/25/2007 10:54 PM #
What Vick did was illegal and morally reprehensible. Cruelty to animals is a foreshadow of cruelty to humans.
Vick should serve time. And never play professional football again.
The American public is far too forgiving. Maybe they’ll forget. But I won’t.
— The Zeeman 08/27/2007 05:24 AM #
— Paul 08/27/2007 08:05 AM #
unless you are a seventh-level Vegan, and refuse to eat anything that casts a shadow, then you are a hypocrite when it comes to the morality of harvesting game.
You’ll happily purchase the goods of a hired gun, who harvests from a un-natural “crop” of domesticated animals, but you would condemn someone who hikes for miles, communes with nature in a way that man has done for centuries, and does the dirty work for himself?
Hipocrisy. Plain and simple.
You and Bambi can relenquish the moral high-ground.
The hunting community does more to protect species and habitat than anyone.
There is a true appreciation for nature, that is realized during time spent among nature, trying to understand its ways, and its laws.
Hunters are not “bloodthirsty killers”. Human beings have always been hunters.
Perhaps you think that purchasing un-recognizable, plastic wrapped, trays of “meat”, makes you more “evolved”. I say it makes you ignorant of an important, visceral, part of human nature, and of nature in general.
— kp 08/27/2007 12:28 PM #
I’m not trying to protect any species. I am claiming that this talk that hunters hunt for food is nonsense. They hunt because they like to do it. And what is hunting? Killing. You can go on plenty of hikes without gunning anything down.
— Bambi 08/28/2007 03:20 PM #
— The Great White 08/28/2007 07:42 PM #
the meat that you eat was obviously killed by someone.
What difference does it make if it was killed by Sam the butcher, or by a hunter in the field?
Well, for one, the animal in the field can utilize all of tools given to it by nature and evolution to avoid the hunter. And that happens much more often than not.
The animal at the meat packing plant does not have any chance, since from the time it is born, it is confined to an area where it is available to be “slaughtered” at your request.
My point is that you are quick to refer to hunters as “slaughtering” animals, when actually, by definition, your trip to the Mickey D’s drive thru promotes more “slaughter” than a score of hunters.
So, how do you come to the conclusion that there is moral superiority in hiring a “murderer”, than there is to being one?
And finally, hunters take no pleasure in the fact that their actions have caused pain to an animal. It happens yes, but unless you weep for good old Bessie as you pour the A1, then you probaly have no room to judge.
A hunter who is field dressing a deer, has immeasurably more respect for that deer, than you have for all of the Big Macs you have ever eaten.
So, either go Vegan, or accept your hipocrisy.
There is nothing wrong with either choice.
— kp 08/29/2007 10:44 AM #
If we didn’t have such conveniences as refrigeration, than I would never write anything like I have. But since we do, the only reason people hunt is to kill. It is done for that reason, and that reason alone. So either actually read what I’m writing and understand that I’m not claiming eating meat is immoral, but KILLING FOR PLEASURE is, or accept that your a sanguinary-dolt.
— Bambi 08/30/2007 07:10 AM #
try to keep up.
Lets forget all about the meat being eaten. It doesnt matter if you are eating it, or making a belt, or upholstering your Prius’ seats. The fact is that you have no problem with the animal being killed so you can benefit.
You have convinced yourself that its OK, because you have several degrees of separation.
I say that’s BS. Period.
You’d probably get some enjoyment from that animals death once his carcass was embossed with “Manolo Blanik”, and hung with a 75% off tag, right?
I am reading what you are writing, and its very clear that you’ve convinced yourself that you’re morally superior, because somehow, hiring someone to kill animals, is better than actually killing the animal yourself.
We are human. Humans are predatory. Some of us recognize our place in the natural world, and accept it.
Some of us,(you), feel that because you bought the new Iphone, and you are separated from any killing buy a sesame-seed bun, that you are “evolved”.
That must be nice for you. Good luck with that.
— kp 08/30/2007 09:33 AM #
I don’t think a person can possibly understand the difficult feeling associated with killing for food unless they’ve done it. I assume that includes you, bambi.
BTW; Ever try to find Gambel’s Quail, Peccary, Mule Deer or Dove at the local butcher? Good Luck. We hunt & fish because we enjoy the authenticity, the honesty of the action and the food. We enjoy preparing the game for the table (believe it or not) sharing it with our friends & family and gaining a greater appreciation for life before refrigeration.
Killing is a necessary part of all animal harvest but to say that hunters enjoy killing is baseless and crude.
Hunters UNDERSTAND killing, that’s true. I’m not sure you can say that.
— FlaCat 08/30/2007 09:48 AM #