by Hamlet Pericles

Created on: September 14, 2007   Last Updated: July 12, 2008

The simple definition of a criminal states the following: somebody who has committed a crime and somebody acting illegally. Yes, Michael Vick did commit a crime, for he acted illegally by promoting dog fighting. Dog fighting does represent an act of animal cruelty; there is no other way to put it. However, he does not fit the motif of a criminal, especially in regard to dog fighting.

Reading so many articles by sports sites and listening to major news channels, it is apparent that many people think he's a bad guy and the law should make an example of him. The consensus by many is clear: he is a criminal and should be given the maximum sentence. If those who argue that Vick is a criminal evaluated this issue objectively - concerning all acts of animal cruelty through the sport of animal fighting/killing - they would realize that Vick's situation isn't so different (e.g., hunters).

Don't people realize that animal cruelty occurs every single day? Don't people realize that animal killing is legal and a sport in some states? Don't people understand that hunters take joy in killing defenseless animals constantly? With that understood, why aren't hunters considered criminals? They are acting in the same behavior as Vick - but much deplorable. Vick admitted to killing a few dogs, but when one really thinks about it, hunters have killed thousands of animals during their lifetime. In fact, one hunter alone may account for over a hundred of kills or even more. Isn't that more disturbing than Vick's promoting and possible killings?

To further this argument, one issue of importance will be addressed: wildlife agencies (in conjunction with hunters).

Wildlife agencies are obligated to protect wildlife and ensure their safety, but they do quite the opposite - because wildlife agencies issue hunting licenses. It is not for certain if these hunting licenses generate most of their revenues, but one should assume that the selling of hunting licenses are advantageous to their income due to the amount of hunters that are out there. Wildlife agencies argue that hunting animals in parks and forests is crucial to maintain the population and stop the overpopulation.

First of all, doesn't nature have a way of controlling overpopulation? Secondly, why are we, humans, trying to control the number of animals with the act of killing them? If bears, deer, or whatever animal that it may be are overpopulating the wild and not interfering with human life, then what's the problem?

Moreover, if

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>