1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle precludes the government from interfering with property rights except to protect humans from harm.
2. Dogs don’t have legal rights. We buy and sell them as a commodity between each other. If dogs are entitled to rights, pet birds, & cats too? What about the genocide of the meat market, and how veal is manufactured using baby cows? Consider the confinement facilities where pigs—smarter animals than dogs and, by that crude measure, more deserving of our sympathy—are raised for slaughter without ever seeing the light of day, without contact, without affection of any sort. Is the behavior of the corporate pig farmer inherently morally superior to that of a professional dogman with a well-tended yard?
Therefore,
3. Humans are agents of property, & animals are property. One might argue "Dogs aren’t chairs or my TV set, they aren’t property!" Then why did you purchase your dog? Was it not a something you acquired via exchange, payment of some kind? (Unless you stole your dog..)
4. IF you really want to change peoples minds about dogfighting and prevent animal cruelty, share your ideas and persuade. I promise it’s not that hard. I think 90% of people abhor dogfighting via this method of deterrence. And as individual agents of property, we are entitled to do whatever we want with our property as long as our exercise of our personal freedom does not interfere with another’s. THINK you moron, it’s not US Anti-Dogfighting Laws are what’s keeping our pets collectively safe and happy, it’s the uncoerced and freely persuaded agreement between individuals that dog-fighting is an undesirable act.
5. Fund animal cruelty? I suppose you still think there are WMDs in Iraq…

the US is lucky that over time people like you have remained like mesmerized cows where most individuals with IQ’s under 70 end up, firmly in the background of authentic flesh-outs of the law. Vick should never have been put in jail because like any misguided and erroneous law the Congresses have passed in history, (such as the Alien and Sedition Acts (excepting the Alien Enemies subtext), for example, since you’re apparently in 4th grade your social studies class might not have gotten there yet), the critically untenuous legal reasoning undergirding the law here renders it unconstitutional and unjustifiable.

My arguments:
1) dogfighting doesn’t violate the harm principle which undergirds the central spirit of American criminal law, which is to protect property agents as victims of improper encroachment on their natural liberty interest in their persons and property,
2) Dogs are not agents of property, they are property, we have commodified them for years & any implied “exceptional” status truly rings hypocritically hollow because of our woefully inhumane treatment of even more intelligent & sentient animals,
3) AGENTS of property are entitled both to freedom from coercive State action and protection by the State from violations of their personal freedom under the rule of law,
4) Humans are agents of property, dogs are property,
5) The empirical reason why dogfighting doesn’t exist en masse is because 90% of individuals have freely convinced themselves and each other through persuasion, NOT through some capricious & arbitary deterrence mechanisms that primarily heighten the popularity of self-serving political figures to capitalize on unthinking knee-jerk reactions from drones like you to demonize virtual straw men.
Your answers:
1) A citation to an animal welfare NGO’s website
2) Hilariously bad/dumb ALL CAPS ditties
3) “Your statement is FALSE (in so many ways!) because dog-fighting is ILLEGAL. Get yourself ARRESTED, I bet it’s ILLEGAL. If you don’t think so, TRY IT. I BET it’s ILLEGAL. (I’m still waiting for a follow-up on the *”so many ways"* element of that remark – ie why it is constitutionally justifiable law). If you believe the law is justifiable, simply re-stating “it’s justifiable, because it’s enforced because the government says it’s justifiable”, is not an answer.