I cannot believe that such an ill-informed, ignorant article was allowed to be written and published in your newspaper.
Yes, I realize that everyone has first amendment rights. However, this article was so filled with ignorant comments and inhumane thoughts that it was completely unbelievable and inflammatory. Possibly this is what you were hoping for by allowing it to be published?
But did you consider the people reading this and how it might add to the inhumane treatment of animals? This type of rhetoric only serves to increase the suffering of innocent, helpless animals.
Although some people consider animals to be "property" and not entitled to the basic necessities of life, including the right to live in peace, many others disagree.
Dogs were domesticated from wolves as work animals and companions. They were not meant to be treated cruelly for entertainment and money-making purposes, which is what dog fighting is all about.
I don't think society puts a higher value on dogs than any other animal. We do not "consider dogs to be human", but they are deserving of care and respect. Dogs cannot "choose" to fight or not to fight.
They are forced to fight because they have to due to their owners' decisions. They have no voice, they have no rights, they have no alternative. I'm sure that if the dogs could speak for themselves, they would NEVER choose to fight in this manner.
The fact that "cute little dogs" were made to fight has no bearing on the outrage people feel about dog fighting. No one with an ounce of decency and humanity would want to see, know about, participate in or have anything to do with dog fighting, whether the dogs are considered to be "cute" or not.
Also, regardless of how many animals there are of a certain species, humane people would not want to see them in a fighting ring, as you quote Daniel Tosh: "Comedian Daniel Tosh adds a very humorous opinion to Vick's dilemma. 'I've wanted to kill a human today; I've never wanted to hurt your dog.'
Vick could have killed six thousand cats and people would have been like, 'You know they're overpopulated, right?' ' he said." No one who abhors dog fighting would rather see another species of animal subjected to this barbaric treatment in their stead. It's not the type of animal, it's the practice of fighting for entertainment that is abhorrent to people.
I don't think our society sympathizes with dogs more than humans. Dogs depend on humans for survival because they are domesticated animals. They should not be abused, mistreated, starved, electrocuted, drowned or forced to fight and breed because some people want a form of "entertainment".
Lastly, this is not a "small deal", as you wrote. It is a huge deal. People who abuse animals oftentimes abuse children as their need for barbaric thrills escalates. This is a proven fact.
Maybe if Matt Weber would have investigated animal cruelty and abuse instead of trying to defend an immoral, inhumane, sadistic person, he would have discovered the repercussions of animal abuse on our society.
They are not "just dogs". They are living beings that deserve our respect and care. They do not deserve to be mistreated in this or any other way.
Marnie Marrone
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
