Dogfighting and the Law

There's a lot of emotion wrapped up in "protecting" animals. I'll pose an honest question, raised by one of our comment contributors:

"I agree that dogfighting is depraved. But (you knew there would be a 'but') why should it be illegal?"

Why, indeed? I encourage thoughtful comments from our readers. I could be persuaded by a sound argument for Vick's punishment, but I'm not really sure the dog-fighting component of his actions should be punishable.

For the record, I'm a person who would never take pleasure in the suffering or killing of an animal. Moreover, I'm repulsed by the creeps who would. Laws preventing such cruelty make sense on an emotional level, but only on that level.

I've seen unspeakable cruelty inflicted by animals on other animals in the wild: It angers me to hear animal "sport" purveyors ridiculous claim that "fighting" dogs are "born" aggressive and that the dogs are merely "acting naturally." Simplistic, dishonest rubbish.

On the other hand, I have no respect whatsoever for the "animal rights" crowd. That pack exudes a similar "ick". Ultimately they argue from guilty nihilism: That humans are not part of nature, and that our impacts upon animals and nature in general is perverse and always undesired. It's a far more sophisticated argument than the one Bubba makes at the cock-fight - but it is just as ignorant, in my view, and more dangerous.

Hunters, farmers, carnivores of all stripes I can abide. As a species we have had many impacts upon our ecosystems. (People Eating Tasty Animals!) We farm and we hunt, trap and kill for a living. Sometimes swift, sometimes cruel, sometimes pleasurable, almost always hard work. We give thanks to G-d for the lives and sustenance, and we take responsibility to ensure the safety of the herds and their ranges.

I suppose that my question about the illegality of dog-fighting hinges partly around the concept of choice: There is no Law mandating involvement in animal cruelty. Yet there are those who would (and have) dictate unto all what may not be done. Dog-fighting idiots may be cruel, but theirs is not an extreme position. It is the bleeding-heart idiots who take the extreme view by imposing their fears upon us all.

I suppose as well that my concerns are based as well upon the Biblical command to take responsibility for animals in my care, and upon Rabbinic commands to show animals only fairness and appropriate kindness. It strikes a balance between the neo-animal worship of the bunny-hugger set and the mindless stupidity of the suffering-for-fun types.

(Yeah, I catch mice. Live traps: We carry the little invaders to Central Park, where we hope they become part of the food chain. The odds aren't great of them scampering back across Central Park West to raid the kitchen. Life's tough, then you feed a cat.)

So, should dog-fighting be illegal? Better, where should the Law start and stop? Fire away.

Joseph Hayyim

Damian responds: I defer once again to that WaPo article from yesterday, to illustrate why my answer to this question is an emphatic "yes." We already have laws against animal cruelty, which all but the most extreme libertarians would agree agree are justifiable, and something as inherently cruel as dogfighting certainly falls within that orbit. Is it unfair that we eat and hunt some animals while recoiling with horror from the mistreatment of others? Maybe, but such is life and Western culture.

The real question is whether the gambling component of Vick's activities - for the NFL, probably more important than what he did to these poor dogs - should be illegal. But here's a more important question: had Michael Vick been accused of physically assaulting his wife or girlfriend, would we see even a fraction of the outrage directed at him today? Four NFL players were charged with domestic violence in 2006, with hardly a peep.

Admittedly, none of the players were as well-known as Vick, and charges were dismissed against two of them. Moreover, this was before Roger Goodell was established as NFL commissioner, and discipline of players became the major issue it is in 2007. Still, the difference is striking.

Posted by Joseph Hayyim at August 23, 2007 07:24 AM