Outdoors with Don

High-profile dog-fighting case enrages hunters

Why is it that every time something horrible happens to an animal, someone brings hunting into the discussion? The latest unprovoked attack on the outdoor sports came as a result of the Michael Vick dog fighting debacle.

For anyone who hasn’t had access to a television, radio, magazine, newspaper or workplace water cooler for the past month, Michael Vick is the NFL quarterback who just pleaded guilty to torturing, killing and using dogs for fighting. His crimes were disgusting, even by his own admission, and included drowning and hanging dogs that did not perform adequately in the gruesome fights.

No right-thinking person finds dog fighting entertaining, including outdoorsmen. In fact, outdoorsmen are probably more outraged than anyone by the allegations, since they have a long history of training, caring for and relying on man’s best friend. Ask any bird dog owner what he thinks about people who torture dogs, and you’re likely to get a profanity laced response.

Unfortunately, hunting is being wrongly attacked by people who confuse hunting with animal abuse, such as the dog fighting that NFL quarterback Michael Vick was involved in. “No right-thinking person finds dog fighting entertaining, including outdoorsmen,” says Don Mulligan, Outdoor Life columnist. (File photo)

    So why, then, did members of the otherwise respectable media and social organizations use hunting in their defense of Vick and the outrage over dog fighting?

    The answer lies in their own bias and lack of understanding of the hunting sports. And nothing is as dangerous or frustrating as someone with a pulpit who preaches lies and misinformation.

    The first uneducated comment came from R.L. White, president of the NAACP’s Atlanta chapter. In an already nonsensical defense of Vick‘s actions, White partially blamed Vick’s conspirators and said Vick had received more negative press than if he had killed a human being. Then, out of nowhere, he attacked hunting.

    White said he personally does not support dog fighting and that it is as bad as hunting. “His crime is, it was a dog, “White said.

    Not surprisingly, the Associated Press ran that unsupported, unrelated statement in a very matter-of-fact way and without questioning it.

   The next unprovoked attack on the outdoor sports came from Frank Deford on National Public Radio. Deford is a nationally recognized sports commentator, who frequently offers commentary, but usually restricts his comments to things he understands.

    Like White, Deford used the Vick case to spew some of his pent-up bias against hunting, even if the connection was tenuous at best.

    In a commentary that started about Vick, Deford eventually compared the reprehensible nature of dog fighting to Internet hunting, canned hunting and, eventually, all big game hunting. At one point, he sarcastically referred to hanging taxidermy on the wall as an act of “brave, big-game hunters.”

    While it’s impossible to win a debate over statements based on prejudice, it’s equally tough to just let Deford and White’s statements stand unchallenged.

    First, only anti-hunters refer to the act of hunting as some right of manhood that proves bravery or strength. Chasing 1,500-pound brown bears with a long bow doesn’t make a hunter brave — stupid perhaps — but not brave. It does, however, help him feel alive and grateful for life in a way desk jockeys will never understand.

    Unlike dog fighting, real hunting has nothing to do with torturing animals. In fact, the killing part of hunting consumes only a few seconds of what is often weeks in the field.

    Anti-hunters like to dwell on the few seconds when we pull the trigger because it’s shocking, and because they have no concept of what else we do. They simply refuse to believe the fact that all hunters strive for quick, humane kills.

    They also routinely fail to mention the consumptive or management role regulated hunting plays. To do so would require challenging personal prejudices and, frankly, wouldn’t be as exciting. Guys like Deford and White, after all, make their living stirring up controversy and keeping their name in the public eye.

    The next time someone in the mainstream media or large corporate organization compares hunting to anything, consider the source. Deford, White and other public figures who are taking jabs at hunting in the current conversation about dog fighting are not only unprofessional, but also irresponsible.
.