OK, so you’re one of 97% of pollsters who think it should be a felony for people to hold dogfights, because violence and cruelty against animals for mere entertainment should be punished.

What if a dogfight was held for filming a movie? Ok, so you boycott the movie or vote to charge the producers and the director for felony or a misdemeanor, because the stunt-dogs might suffer physical harm for mere entertainment.

What if the dogfight was held for purposes of filming for a documentary? Would you press felony charges on the producers, or would a possible educational value alleviate the offense?  Well, it depends on what’s being labeled a dogfight.

Would it make a difference if the animals were watched carefully against harm, and dogs were pitted against humans or other animals for training purposes? This may be for market value, educational value, or entertainment value, but also for more accepted uses for those dogs.  Like police dogs.

Sorry for the series of questions there.  The point I’m making here is, everything is on a scale.

It is easy to point fingers at a black-and-white issue like dogfights and their perpetrators.  It is another thing altogether to ask for extreme measures against Zoos or hunting, when there is the greater picture to consider than individual animal suffering.

One animal or even millions of animals being killed is all a matter of context and relevance; one whole species being represented by one animal is different from millions of animals over-crowding an area.  In the latter situation, it may be kinder to kill some, making it easier for the rest of the animals to survive because it leaves more resources available.  Another example of this is in herding.  When the herd is too large, it puts extra strain on the environment throwing it off balance, which may endanger the whole herd for next seasons to come.

Just like killing some can be kinder to a greater number of animals, Zoos have their places too. Since animals (generally) cannot specifically communicate their distress to us, veterinarians have a more complex job than doctors do. Zoos and rehabilitation centers cooperate together in research and share this knowledge with veterinarians.  Even if it makes you sad to see those captive animals, they served to save countless lives of animals you don’t see in those zoos, because of the research and the veterinary insights we have gained.

We easily impute feelings, pain, and individuality to our pets, like dogs and cats.  We observe animal cruelty more readily, against cats and dogs.  It is easier to sense someone’s intention toward those animals.  However, it would be a mistake to assume animal cruelty on the part of zoo keepers and hunters, by misplacing those subjective feelings and taking an extreme position.

One can easily argue that zoologists, through the knowledge and expertise, and hunters, through their wildlife preservation, funding, and donations, combine to save more animals than all the animal rights activists ever did.