Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Torture is neither sport not culture. Mostly of spaniards hate the Tauromaquia, and me is one of them.
Hunting deer to cull the deer population since we have killed all the wolves that did that for us is one thing. Corrida is another. Slaughterhouses in the US kill cows/bulls humanely. Feedlots on the other hand are the devil's work.
BTW I was raised on a farm until I was 12 and then in the summers until 19yo. I have shoveled enough cow poop to last me a lifetime. I have killed chicken and rabbits for food and I have castrated hogs. Let's just say that the castration was the most barbaric thing that I have ever done/witnessed. They would holler for days. I just wish it was done more humanely.
The response of a recognized expert: Is bullfighting torture or animal abuse?
Basically, anti-bullfighting currents base their arguments on bullfighting as torture and animal abuse.
But bullfighting itself is a physical activity, both man and bovine, taking advantage of the innate aggressiveness of it. It is, therefore, an activity similar to the one that can be done riding on horseback, sledding with dogs or making work animals draft (horses, oxen ...). There is no torture or mistreatment in these activities, just as we can not consider mistreating a woman by fighting or running her.
The problem arises when, during the fight, utensils are used tending to physically injure the animal in order to stimulate it or to lose strength and power to subdue it. It should not scandalize us to speak of subjection, since all domestic animals -and the brave bull is- are subject to the will or interest of man: we educate the dog or the cat, we tame the horse, we milk the cows or sheep ...
Sitting on this foundation that bullfighting without hurting the animal is not torture or abuse, we could ask ourselves: is torture or abuse bullfighting when the animal is injured?
It is necessary to clarify here that the bovine res, during the fight, is not injured for pleasure or indiscriminately. There are two situations in which the fighting animals are wounded: in the tentadero and in the bullfight. In the tentadero de eralas (two-year-old calves) they are made to enter the horse by repeatedly stinging them with a small puja that only *****s its skin without reaching deeper tissues, so that they hardly bleed. It is a complex evaluation of his behavior in the horse to be able to assess his bravery and only done once in his life. The tentadero is the base of the genetic selection of the fighting bulls.
The fighting race is one of the few that man has selected based on its behavioral and non-aesthetic or productive characteristics. Precisely, behavior is one of the most difficult aspects to fix in genetic selection. We can assure, without fear of being wrong, that this breed is a genetic prodigy achieved by the Spanish breeders for hundreds of years for a specific purpose: to create a fierce animal but capable of attacking with nobility to achieve a very particular aesthetic, which may be liked or not, but that is unique.
The other situation in which the fighting animals are wounded is in the bullfight (basically bulls and bullfighters), being three phases of the fight in which utensils are used to break the bull. The first is the luck or third of a stick, where the puya is used, the second is the luck of banderillas and the third is the supreme luck, where the rapier is used to kill the bull.
Technically it is necessary to hurt the bull with the puja to break it and save his attack, and of course it is not done to hurt the bull for the pleasure of seeing him suffer as some argue. The dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy of Language (RAE) defines the word break as "Diminish forces or brio; soften or temper the excess of something ". In this case, the bull is taken to the horse so that it softens its onslaught and can be bullied with more mettle, which gives bullfighting more artistic beauty. A bull without itching is usually much more rough in the onslaught, nods more and has the highest face, making the fight difficult. However, this luck is closely monitored and legislated, checking the authority the dimensions of the puja, the weight of the horses, the number of rods that a bull undergoes, etc.
Is bullfight torture?
We must use the dictionary of the SAR again to find the definition of torture; in it, it is defined as the "serious physical or psychological pain inflicted on someone, with different methods and utensils, in order to obtain from him a confession, or as a means of punishment." As we see, use the indefinite pronoun someone, which refers to people; however, we could also apply it to animals. But we deduce that the fight is not torture, since it is not about causing pain to punish the animal for something bad that has been done. On the contrary, when the animal is wounded during its fight, it is for the purpose of genetic selection and therefore zootechnical, or it is to achieve the attack of a powerful animal and thus be able to express an art appreciated by many people and personalities of the arts, letters and sciences through the ages. Other people, on the other hand, do not see art here. It's a matter of sensitivities.
For its part, the Organic Law 10/1995, of November 23, of the Criminal Code, in its articles 173 and following that deal with "torture and other crimes against moral integrity" does not contemplate animals as an object of torture.
The bull is wounded during the fight, but not to cause pain, but for reasons that have a specific purpose and subject to strict legal regulations. For these reasons we believe that bullfighting can not be considered torture.
Is bullfighting animal abuse?
We turn again to the dictionary of the RAE, where the word abuse appears defined as "Treat someone wrongly word or deed". Again use the pronoun someone, but apply it to the animals.
Do we really treat the fighting cattle badly? Definitely not, rather the opposite. The breeding of fighting cattle is one of the most natural that takes place in domestic species, usually in places of great environmental value. Ethology, food, genetics, health and all natural management are meticulously respected.
For example, in an exploitation of milk cows, they are inseminated artificially in the heat and milked until about two months before the birth; the terneritos usually separate of the mother as soon as they are born and are reared with adequate milk powder. After three to six months (depending on the type of weaning), go to the transitional pens and bait until they reach the sales weight with about 14 months. During all this time, mother and calf are treated with all care and care, complying with all the rules of animal welfare and health.
The same happens with fighting cattle, only that the cows are separated with a stallion during the breeding period and the calves are naturally weaned from their mothers at 7 or 8 months of age. Then they go to the closed with animals of the same sex and age. The females are tempted with about two years and if they do not show nobility and bravery they are fattened and humanely sacrificed in a slaughterhouse; otherwise they are left as nurse cows until they die of old age. Meanwhile, the males are separated in runs with about 3 years of age (utreros) and are usually bullied with 4 or 5 years (bulls). We think it is interesting to note that only about 10 percent of livestock die in the plaza; the rest either die in the field in a natural way or are slaughtered in the slaughterhouse.
The breeding and handling of the fighting bull, from birth until it comes out through the chiqueros of the plaza, can be considered as the paradigm of animal welfare.
But it is that in a confinement or a cape where animals run freely in a circuit roaming for their respects and giving free rein to their instincts and where they are not hurt at all, there is no abuse.
In addition, during the transfer, the trucks and the conditions of the trip and accommodation must comply with the strict European rules of animal welfare, being checked and supervised by the authorized veterinary services and by the governmental and police authority. Everything is absolutely legislated in terms of welfare and animal health until the death of the bull.
The slaughter or sacrifice of animals should not scandalize us. Homo sapiens, as a species, has every right in the world to kill other species for their interest, as do the cat, the lion, the lynx or the eagle. We, instead of killing, use the euphemism sacrifice, because it is done in the most humane way possible. The slaughter of animals is enormously regulated in all civilized countries, complying with all the standards that guarantee a dignified death.
Bearing all this in mind, we could consider abuse not the fight or bullfighting itself, but when the animal is injured during the fight, being especially unpleasant for some people when the bull dies in the square. But is that the other option is to die humanitarianly pointed.
Here I allow myself a subjective license ... is it a dignified death for a brave bull to die pointed in a slaughterhouse? Precisely we believe that death in the square is what most deserves (the most dignified) an animal that has been highly selected and raised expressly to fight and defend his life in a bullring before a bullfighter, thus creating a deep feeling ( for many, artistic, although for others it is not). The death of an imposing brave bull pointed in a corral or in a slaughterhouse that we find a death unworthy for him, since we cut his reason for being. Other people, on the other hand, find the death of the bull in the plaza abhorrent. As we have already mentioned, it is a matter of sensitivities.
As it is a matter of sensitivities the abortion or 'sacrifice' of human embryos; or the euthanasia or 'sacrifice' of terminal people. To some people their sensitivity leads them to take a position and to others it leads to the opposite.
Says Francis Wolff (1), Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris: "There is only one argument against bullfighting and it is not really an argument. It is called sensitivity ... Sensitivity is not an argument and yet it is the strongest reason that can be opposed against bullfighting ... but can the sensitivity of some be enough to condemn the sensitivity of others? ".
Francis Wolff. 2010. 50 reasons to defend the bullfight. Ed .: Campo Bravo SL. Madrid. pp 9-10.
https://www.taurologia.com/respuesta-reconocido-experto-toreo-tortura--4492.htm
Bullfighting is just another indicator of mental degradation that is detected in humanity by various forms.
This thread has been viewed 998238 times.