Bull Fighting

[Smokin]

Originally posted by mantis
I dislike boxing & would be happy if it got banned.

because you simply dislike it?

(language censored - be careful Smokin)

 

[mantis]

smokin

Are you a journo, you're pretty good at quoting someone out of context.

 

[Smokin]

Originally posted by mantis


Now your throwing in a sport where BOTH combatants CHOOSE to have the shyte beaten out of them, the bull doesn't get a choice, OH & by the way I dislike boxing & would be happy if it got banned.

Can you at least try to find a suitable comparison for your side of the argument.

that was your total post.

You first distinguished it from Bull fighting, then simply stated your opinion on boxing which is what I quoted. It was a "by the way" comment - it doesnt really have a "context" in this instance.

How was it out of context?

 

[mantis]

It is obvious, Brett was inferring that if you wanted bullfighting banned, but enjoyed boxing you are a hypocrit as both are blood sports, I was letting him know that I disliked both, also note I didn't say I wanted boxing banned, just said I wouldn't mind if it happened, it was an argument regarding bullfighting, which Brett keeps throwing in all these side issues to try & justify it.

 

[Smokin]

Originally posted by mantis
It is obvious, Brett was inferring that if you wanted bullfighting banned, but enjoyed boxing you are a hypocrit as both are blood sports, I was letting him know that I disliked both, also note I didn't say I wanted boxing banned, just said I wouldn't mind if it happened, it was an argument regarding bullfighting, which Brett keeps throwing in all these side issues to try & justify it.

No - you distinguished it by the fact that the bull has no choice in the matter, while boxing is a sport where both competitors are there by their own free will.

That last comment wasnt required at all.

And why "wouldnt you mind" if it was banned? I can see how having an innocent bull killed where it has no say can erupt emotions, but how does two willing boxers doing their job effect you at all?

 

[mantis]

I am not discussing boxing in this thread anymore, it is about bullfighting, if you want to discuss the pros & cons of boxing, start another thread.

 

[S.J Rollin]

Nice post sussudio...

your description of a bullfight is exactly as I remember it. I went to the San Fermin fetsival in Pamplona in 92 (this years festival is due to start any day now...July 7th i think).

I had a great time there and about the fourth or fifth day I went to the evening bullfight. With every bullfight...by the time the matador had pounced into and around the ring, the bull was in no condition to "fight." They would have their tongue hanging out and were heaving with exhaustion after been run around the ring and stabbed. The matador would then tease the dying beast until it couldnt move... it was hardly brave.

then came the sword... I didnt see one of these so called professionals do the job properly... death came slowly and in a highly undignified manner. It was horrible!

 

[Smokin]

Originally posted by mantis
I am not discussing boxing in this thread anymore, it is about bullfighting, if you want to discuss the pros & cons of boxing, start another thread.

Gee, sorry for asking you to elaborate on your statement made in this very thread!

It is plainly obvious you have no argument.

 

[myee8]

Brett

Would you still be defending bullfighting if it was the matadors that were getting killed every fight?
Would you be able to justify that by saying they died to show human bravery.

The matadors are taking a risk when in the ring in that they can become a Spanish Satay Stick, but i am sure they are aware of the risk by choosing to enter the ring.

 

[Booze Hound]

It is the maador's choice (as, with boxing, it is the fighters).

I think, given the option, the bull might decline.

 

[Slax]

All you guys talk about how barbaric it is but really what is the difference between this and shooting it for meat?

The bull is treated well up until the fight and quite often gets a hit or two on the matador. You also respect other cultures not all of them believe in what we do. What is humane about not culling animals but leaving them to starve?

 

[mantis]

I have seen the light, because I am not a vegetarian I say bring back dog fights, **** fights, bear baiting, baby fur seal clubbing, whale killing, killing elephants for their ivory, have I left anything out.

As long as humans are happy & entertained, what does it matter that animals will suffer pain, torture & possible extinction.

 

[Booze Hound]

As Brett loses the argument (if he was holding one to lose in the first place) you get more and more dubious lines and insults (seen it before, will probably see it again).

My one final point on the subject:

Many animals kill other animals for a reason. Food, protection, whatever.

The only animal that kills for its' own amusement is man.

 

[Night Owl]

I think bull fighting is great.

Horns turn me on!

 

[NYPomme]

Originally posted by mantis
I have seen the light, because I am not a vegetarian I say bring back dog fights, **** fights, bear baiting, baby fur seal clubbing, whale killing, killing elephants for their ivory, have I left anything out.

As long as humans are happy & entertained, what does it matter that animals will suffer pain, torture & possible extinction.

Having

1. Witnessed a Bullfight live
2. Read literature on the subject
3. Read this thread thoroughly

I am would like to make a few points

1. Most posts on this thread seem largely uninformed
2. For those who contend that Animals have equal rights as humans need their heads examined. Give animals the vote ....and I'll give you respect for backing up your talk.....
3. I cannot see the difference between the majority of fishing that goes on and bullfighting. ie. free life until the point of a final, fleeting struggle - the difference is that the fish will most often die of suffocation, whereas the Bull has its Aorta cut.
4. Any meat eater ought to think before they denounce bullfighting as inhumane. There is NO COMPARISON when it comes to a) quality of life for the animal - and b) mode of death.
I have a friend who worked in an abattoir - and had many, many stories of how 'things are done.......'
Bull-breeders demand high prices based on building a reputation for delivering a perfectly conditioned fighting animal to the ring - without any human contact. We all know how inhumane factory farming of livestock is on such a grandiose scale ..I just don't understand why so many people are being so hypocritical! It beggars belief.
5. In countries where Bullfighting takes place - the Bull is treated with an enormous amount of respect - the 'art' of the fight is the sudden and deadly 'kill' not a prolonged torture (therefore NOT analagous with bear-bating) ..
6. It worries me how much power documentary editors wield in society - in particulary their ability to shape people's mind (from the cross section of australian opinion stated on this board) ..... very worrying indeed.
7. Spanish fighting bulls are bred of the purpose of fighting ... .therefore are faithful to their nature in the ring. Boozehound said something silly about fighters having the option of not fighting. Next time you watch a bullfight - see what happens when the bull enters the ring. You think his nature allows him to 'not fight'?
8. Bulls are not at risk of extinction - I believe I saw a ridiculous comparison with Ivory trade somewhere
9. Though not frequent - Matadors are killed each year. Therefore I would afford them a little more respect than most people seem to on this board. Anyone ever got up close to a 3/4 ton Spanish fighting bull?

Hey Mantis ....perish the thought of having animals killed for our enjoyment. Hell - let those nasty folks at the footie - who insisted on watching a leather footy kicked about an Oval as they devour pie-floaters - have a piece of your mind!!!!!

ps. what idiot mentioned giving a sword to the bull? Hey why not put boxing gloves on a 'roo! Hang on...... someone already tried that......

 

[NYPomme]

Originally posted by Booze Hound
It is the maador's choice (as, with boxing, it is the fighters).

I think, given the option, the bull might decline.

Does the tortured Chicken, pumped full of hormones by the folks at Sun Valley have a choice NOT to slide into you Tikka Massala sauce on a Saturday night - after you've chased a piece of red-leather around a field all day?

Given the option - I reckon the Chicken might decide NOT TO DECLARE

 

[bulltige]

As a bull and a very mean spirited one at that, I strongly object to this act of barbarity against bullkind.

I first saw a fight involving one of my fellow Toros in Iviza whilst watching Spanish TV and shooting pool back in 1978. The MoTd style action replays were most upsetting to me. I saw red!

Unlike most bulls, I am part tigre and therefore I am an omnivore, but does that make me a hypocrite?

No BS!

 

[sussudio]

NYPomme, good rebuttal. However, I would like to respond to some of your posts.

1. Most posts on this thread seem largely uninformed

Bullfighting generates an emotional response. As I've mentioned previously, because we don't have it here in Australia, it's difficult not to be ethnocentric and view the thing through our own belief systems. However, this does not excuse cruelty to animals in any way. I'm sure if people saw the situation with the battery hens and the intensive farming in Aust, they would also lobby the Govt, as I have through organisations like the RSPSA, to stop the practice.

2. For those who contend that Animals have equal rights as humans need their heads examined. Give animals the vote ....and I'll give you respect for backing up your talk.....

Of course animals don't have equal rights because humans are at the top of the food chain. But again this does not mean that cruelty to animals should be condoned...and even proponents of bullfighting have, in previous posts in this thread, said that the bulls do not die in a humane way.

3. I cannot see the difference between the majority of fishing that goes on and bullfighting. ie. free life until the point of a final, fleeting struggle - the difference is that the fish will most often die of suffocation, whereas the Bull has its Aorta cut.

Are you talking recreational/sport fishing or farm fishing. For the former, yes the fish are free, but bulls are not. For the latter, this is done for food, but bullfighting is not. Again, if people were better informed, they would lobby against intensive fishing and be aware of which fish is at risk of being overfished and choose accordingly when going to the market.

4. Any meat eater ought to think before they denounce bullfighting as inhumane. There is NO COMPARISON when it comes to a) quality of life for the animal - and b) mode of death.

You are right - it is NO COMPARISON to compare meat eating to bullfighting. One is done for sport, one is for food - it's like comparing apples and pears. Your contention, and other previous pro-bullfighting contentions, that meateaters are hypocrites and should not comment is a misnomer. The initial issue: "is bullfighting cruel and should be banned?" The comparison should be between other instances where animals are killed for sport, like fox hunting. If you want to debate the hypocrisies of meat eating, start another thread.

5. In countries where Bullfighting takes place - the Bull is treated with an enormous amount of respect - the 'art' of the fight is the sudden and deadly 'kill' not a prolonged torture (therefore NOT analagous with bear-bating) ..

Really? I will re-write what I posted earlier: In Mexico, bullfighting also includes novillada, or baby bullfights. Baby bulls, some no more than a few weeks old, are brought into arenas where they are stabbed to death by spectators, many of whom are children. These bloodbaths end with spectators cutting off the ears and tail of the often fully conscious calf lying in his own blood.

The so-called "bloodless bullfights" that are legal in many U.S. states involve people’s teasing and attacking the bull. Although tormenting and abuse is part of the show, killing must be done outside the arena. The worst thing is that such fights are sponsored by big American companies, like Pepsi, who have signs plastered all over the arena.

In Colombia, there is an annual festival in which solitary bulls are tormented by thousands of people who think they are testing their "bravery" (aided by a festive atmosphere and large quantities of alcohol). "If nobody gets killed, it’s boring," laments Carlos Perez, head of the committee that organized the contest in 1996. But even Colombian bullfighter Luis Cuadrado admits, "It’s just one bull against a thousand morons." Cuadrado prefers to sit on the ground until the bull is close enough to stab with a lance, after which Cuadrado promptly scurries away to safety. These festivals last four or five days, with at least 35 victimized bulls each day.

When commenting on the picador, even purists in spain argue that current "killing" techniques are flawed and results in unnecessary torture for the bull. A well known pro-bullfighting writer in Madrid used scientific evidence to demonstrate that the bull suffers unneccessarily due to the slip in skill and professionalism of the picadors, when performing the Art of Spears.

6. It worries me how much power documentary editors wield in society - in particulary their ability to shape people's mind (from the cross section of australian opinion stated on this board) ..... very worrying indeed.

as compared to the power wielded by the tourism industry in misleading tourists and promoting propoganda about bullfighting? as compared to the EU who sanctions this? as compared to the Catholic Church that supports this, even though their teachings strictly prohibit it? yes, very worrying indeed.

7. Spanish fighting bulls are bred of the purpose of fighting ... .therefore are faithful to their nature in the ring. Boozehound said something silly about fighters having the option of not fighting. Next time you watch a bullfight - see what happens when the bull enters the ring. You think his nature allows him to 'not fight'?

yes they are bred to fight...this breeding is in itself cruel. as I've stated previously, Selective breeding has enabled ranchers to create a bull who will die in a manner most satisfying to the public. Bulls are chosen to breed with cows who, when stabbed with lances, always charge in the same manner. They are bred to return to the torture repeatedly. but the bulls are also artificially coerced into fighting. they are drugged, suffer beatings to the kidneys, petroleum jelly rubbed into their eyes to blur vision, heavy weights hung around their neck for weeks before the fight, and confinement in darkness for 48 hours before being released into the bright arena, where it is initially blinded and completely disoriented.

8. Bulls are not at risk of extinction - I believe I saw a ridiculous comparison with Ivory trade somewhere

no risk of extinction is not an excuse for cruelty to animals. horses are also not at risk of extinction so do you condone them being disembowelled by the bull?

9. Though not frequent - Matadors are killed each year. Therefore I would afford them a little more respect than most people seem to on this board. Anyone ever got up close to a 3/4 ton Spanish fighting bull?

I have no respect for matadors. If they are killed, they are incompetant, because after all the druggings, beatings, selective breeding, if the matadors still get hurt or killed then it's because they are incredibly incompetant. the odds are after all stacked overwelming against the bull. I will have respect for the matador if they go up against a bull that hasn't been hampered and without the aid of the picadors etc.. the matador is just there to administer the coup de grace to the bullfight; the rest has been done for him/her.

 

[S.J Rollin]

Originally posted by NYPomme


Anyone ever got up close to a 3/4 ton Spanish fighting bull?

Yes... six of them averaging in around the 600kg mark.

 

[NYPomme]

Originally posted by sussudio
NYPomme, good rebuttal. However, I would like to respond to some of your posts.

Okay, let's have you



Bullfighting generates an emotional response. As I've mentioned previously, because we don't have it here in Australia, it's difficult not to be ethnocentric and view the thing through our own belief systems. However, this does not excuse cruelty to animals in any way. I'm sure if people saw the situation with the battery hens and the intensive farming in Aust, they would also lobby the Govt, as I have through organisations like the RSPSA, to stop the practice


You are correct .... However you omit the fact the life led by the fighting bull prior to a short death (10 minutes on average) is one of freedom - compared with the 'life' led by factory-bred animals. I just find it amazing that a relatively minority sport (globally it is...) elicit such emotive, knee-jerk reponses - whereas NON-ESSENTIAL farming methods are rarely question - and practiced on a global/grand scale. Can I reiterate ...... WE DO NOT HAVE TO EAT MEAT TO SURVIVE!!!!!!!!!!



Of course animals don't have equal rights because humans are at the top of the food chain. But again this does not mean that cruelty to animals should be condoned...and even proponents of bullfighting have, in previous posts in this thread, said that the bulls do not die in a humane way.


Matter of opinion basically ....



Are you talking recreational/sport fishing or farm fishing. For the former, yes the fish are free, but bulls are not. For the latter, this is done for food, but bullfighting is not. Again, if people were better informed, they would lobby against intensive fishing and be aware of which fish is at risk of being overfished and choose accordingly when going to the market.


Ah no! Bulls live on huge ranches .... enjoying far more freedom that conventional farmed stock.... FACT.

Regarding their death .... Fish take a matter of minutes to suffocate, whereas killing a bull over a similar time-period is inhumane....apparently?



You are right - it is NO COMPARISON to compare meat eating to bullfighting. One is done for sport, one is for food - it's like comparing apples and pears.

Sorry - I was actually wrong when I said there was no comparison. It is matter of degrees.... meat farming is far more cruel than killing a bull in a ring..... (IMHO)

To make the comparison .... both practices are non-essential to human survival.

Your contention, and other previous pro-bullfighting contentions, that meateaters are hypocrites and should not comment is a misnomer. The initial issue: "is bullfighting cruel and should be banned?" The comparison should be between other instances where animals are killed for sport, like fox hunting. If you want to debate the hypocrisies of meat eating, start another thread.


Foxes are not bred for sport unlike Spanish fighting bulls!


In Colombia, there is an annual festival in which solitary bulls are tormented by thousands of people who think they are testing their "bravery" (aided by a festive atmosphere and large quantities of alcohol). "If nobody gets killed, it’s boring," laments Carlos Perez, head of the committee that organized the contest in 1996. But even Colombian bullfighter Luis Cuadrado admits, "It’s just one bull against a thousand morons."

Right - so the Bullfighter denounces the torture of a bull by the crowd ... great , seems like the chap is remaining true to his sport. We are not talking about this Columbian crowd-tortuing festival are we - we are talking about a Corrida - no?


When commenting on the picador, even purists in spain argue that current "killing" techniques are flawed and results in unnecessary torture for the bull. A well known pro-bullfighting writer in Madrid used scientific evidence to demonstrate that the bull suffers unneccessarily due to the slip in skill and professionalism of the picadors, when performing the Art of Spears.


Matter of opinion - you quote no source - however interestingly, your comments seem to acknowledge a careful consideration of how the death in handled by afficianados ............ From your comments (and from my experience) I'm not led to belief bullfighting 'purists' have a lack of respect for the death of the bull.



as compared to the power wielded by the tourism industry in misleading tourists and promoting propoganda about bullfighting? as compared to the EU who sanctions this? as compared to the Catholic Church that supports this, even though their teachings strictly prohibit it? yes, very worrying indeed.


Really couldn't give a toss about Catholic hypocrisy .... certainly has nothing to do with an afternoon in the Sun at the Corrida.



yes they are bred to fight...this breeding is in itself cruel. as I've stated previously, Selective breeding has enabled ranchers to create a bull who will die in a manner most satisfying to the public. Bulls are chosen to breed with cows who, when stabbed with lances, always charge in the same manner. They are bred to return to the torture repeatedly. but the bulls are also artificially coerced into fighting. they are drugged, suffer beatings to the kidneys, petroleum jelly rubbed into their eyes to blur vision, heavy weights hung around their neck for weeks before the fight, and confinement in darkness for 48 hours before being released into the bright arena, where it is initially blinded and completely disoriented.

None of what you have described is something you will find happening at reputable ranches ... the practice of putting petroleum jelly in the eyes of a bull increases the chance of matador injury .... and is certainly denounced by the bullfighting community. Probably makes a good comment on a documentary however.......



no risk of extinction is not an excuse for cruelty to animals. horses are also not at risk of extinction so do you condone them being disembowelled by the bull?


Not something that either:

Happens regularly at a bullfight

Is the PURPOSE of the bullfight.

I see the infrequent death of a horse as analogous to horses being shot after a bad fall at a horse race (culturally acceptable recreational sport in our society) - beither are a specific purpose of the event - and both incidents are, thankfully, rare!


I have no respect for matadors. If they are killed, they are incompetant, because after all the druggings, beatings, selective breeding, if the matadors still get hurt or killed then it's because they are incredibly incompetant. the odds are after all stacked overwelming against the bull. I will have respect for the matador if they go up against a bull that hasn't been hampered and without the aid of the picadors etc.. the matador is just there to administer the coup de grace to the bullfight; the rest has been done for him/her.

With respect .... I strongly disagree with what you say here.

You summarise the whole breeding process as the drugging and torture of the animal. This is just not the case ...... beating the animal or rubbing vaseline into the eyes of bull is not condoned .... it just isn't.....

Another interesting point is that we live in a culture where, let's say someone's talent for fishing or shooting is respected ie. the fisherman catches the fish due to his supreme mastery of the rod and line, whereas the matador talent isn't accorded the same respect. I'm not placing one higher than the other - however I think judgement should be applied neutrally.
By the way - never seen a pike or perch pluck a fisherman from his stool yet!

Re: Picador: Pic-ing allows the sword to be placed - so that death comes quickly.

ps. Are you happy that your beef, chicken, lamb, and pork is drugged.? In the case of the chicken .... the legs are often broken due to the artifical increase of flesh to bone ratio ... so that the animal 'lives a life' slumped on it's front before it gets dragged out of the cage by its feet and zapped! Nwo that i've dwelt on it ....I might think twice about having a KFC before I go and watch my next corrida!

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by happy_in_hell

I am betting that if this was to happen at least 60% of the time, Bullfights would soon lose popularity.

Question, if it is just to show the bravery of a matador, why do they kill the bull, why can't he just go into the ring & wave his little flag around for awhile & then unless the bull gores him, they both get to leave the ring unscathed?

 

[NYPomme]

Originally posted by mantis


I am betting that if this was to happen at least 60% of the time, Bullfights would soon lose popularity.

Question, if it is just to show the bravery of a matador, why do they kill the bull, why can't he just go into the ring & wave his little flag around for awhile & then unless the bull gores him, they both get to leave the ring unscathed?

Because the kill is the most dangerous element of the bullfight for the matador .....

 

[mantis]

HA HA HA what when the bull is half dead already after being speared numerous times.

 

[sussudio]

WE DO NOT HAVE TO EAT MEAT TO SURVIVE!!!!!!!!!!

yes agreed. I am not a vegetarian btw, but I try to make myself aware of the unnecessary cruelty that goes on in food production and to lobby for more humane methods. humans lack neither the teeth or the digestive system to handle huge quantities of meat, unlike carnivores like lions and tigers; most of the time, meat sits in our digestive tract and putrifies because we can't process it fast enough.

Matter of opinion - you quote no source - however interestingly, your comments seem to acknowledge a careful consideration of how the death in handled by afficianados ............ From your comments (and from my experience) I'm not led to belief bullfighting 'purists' have a lack of respect for the death of the bull.

This view is from an article by the author Fernando Valero and was published in the newspaper La Tribuna de Ciudad Real (Spain), on September 1999, about the puya (the picador's lance). In a twisted way, he asks for improvement and purity in bullfights by demonstrating that current techniques are unnecessarily cruel. This is not to say that if done in a "purist way", bullfighting should be condoned, as there is no evidence to suggest that by perfecting the techniques, it will lessen the torture for the bull. However, he shows that current studies into bullfighting demonstrate that it is cruel.

In his article "Injuries and traumatisms that the puya causes the bull" published in "La Tribuna" newspaper, Fernando Valero proves, with information from scientific studies, that the bull is mistreated in the ring and undergoes great pain and suffering, currently increased by the wrongful practice of the puya and the Act of Spears (Suerte de Varas) by most bullfighters.

Valero's conclusion is that "the current regulation puya and the wrongful carrying out the Act of Spears, causes much more serious injuries that it can initially seem at first sight because of the negligence, ignorance, wrongful use or of abuse from the professionals". Analysing the information from the studies with complicated mathematical formulae, Valero concludes that "the puya penetrated almost four times its length into the muscle, a real monstrosity" and the encounters between the horse and the bull were "too long". Moreover, in the cases studied, the vara (lance with the puya) went into every orifice too many times, an average of 7.4 times. Another point that Valero mentions in his article is that the first vara was longer in duration and much more traumatic than the second one and this one more than the third one, "what makes clear that the castigo (weakening of the bull) was not gradual, and clearly proves it was administered excessively in the first lance, instead of regulating it gradually as it should be".

According to Valero, the morrillo (pronunciated flesh portion in the superior and anterior part of the bull's neck) is the ideal area to jab because "the puyazo (puya jab) causes a haemorrhage without getting to any bones, cartilages or nerves that are especially important to the mobility". But the studies reveal that 95.3% of the puyazos analyzed were on the cruz (withers, highest part of the back at the base of the neck), on the shoulders or on the back, known as rear puyazos. "The withers area is the suitable place for the estocada (final thrust with the sword) but not for the puya, because at that anatomical level it's not the head muscles which are more important, but the back and front leg muscles which is why the puyazo in this area, is not good for ahormar (making the bull ready for killing by making it lower its head)", says Valero.

Puyazos in the other two areas "reduce the mobility of the bull by seriously injuring the muscle union between the front legs and the thorax, causing the loss of composure of the affected bulls and causing possible limps because of affected nerves, and even respiratory failures when the pleura is unfortunately perforated and even the lung in rear puyazos and falls". "Puyazos administered in the back area are really criminal as they regrettably injure the rib zone, which by no means affects the head muscles and consequently does not reduce the butting nor weakens its drive or its energy, it actually deregulates the locomotion of the animal", he adds.

In his article, Federico Valero also clarifies that the purpose of the Act of Spears is to ahormar the bull's head by breaking the extensor and elevator muscles. In other words, the objective is for the bull to lower its head, humiliated, so that its movements are less abrupt and to ease the fight. Moreover, the Act of Spears should gradually diminish the power of the bull, reducing the energy or strength so that it is in better condition for the later Act of the Kill (Suerte de Matar). But presently, bullfighters do not carry this out correctly and do not accomplish their objectives. Traditionally, another of the aims of the Act of Spears, according to the studies, was to increase the bleeding of the animal. But veterinarians dismiss this idea because the loss of blood is "so small" that it cannot be considered bleeding as such.

Another interesting point Valero makes is that bulls have no shoulder blades like humans. So both front legs are extremely united to the trunk through several muscles. He also points out that the Act of Spears has slowly moved its position. According to old tauromachies, the Act of Spears had to be in the area of the morrillo. Afterwards, it moved to the area of the withers and even to the back parts. "It seems that when you jab the cruz or the area of union of both scapulae, you don't manage to lower the bull's head in the charge or humiliate the bull, which should be the objective, but instead, the muscle joint is destabilized so the bull has less mobility and strength, according to Valero.

OK, so he claims it is cruel but if perfected, will cause "less suffering" for the bull. However, the aim is still to humiliate the bull, and the bull still suffers as it is being severely handicapped by the picadors.

ps. Are you happy that your beef, chicken, lamb, and pork is drugged.? In the case of the chicken .... the legs are often broken due to the artifical increase of flesh to bone ratio ... so that the animal 'lives a life' slumped on it's front before it gets dragged out of the cage by its feet and zapped! Nwo that i've dwelt on it ....I might think twice about having a KFC before I go and watch my next corrida!

nope, not happy at all. I abhor fast foods like McDonalds, etc.. I support the RSPCA in its campaign against cruel farming methods, like battery hens, intensive farming, and inhumane transport of export animals. I think a lot of people are (hopefully) clueing in on organic and macrobiotic food products.

 

[NYPomme]

Originally posted by sussudio

yes agreed. I am not a vegetarian btw, but I try to make myself aware of the unnecessary cruelty that goes on in food production and to lobby for more humane methods. humans lack neither the teeth or the digestive system to handle huge quantities of meat, unlike carnivores like lions and tigers; most of the time, meat sits in our digestive tract and putrifies because we can't process it fast enough.


right ....... still saying nothing to contradict me here....



This view is from an article by the author Fernando Valero and was published in the newspaper La Tribuna de Ciudad Real (Spain), on September 1999, about the puya (the picador's lance). In a twisted way, he asks for improvement and purity in bullfights by demonstrating that current techniques are unnecessarily cruel. This is not to say that if done in a "purist way", bullfighting should be condoned, as there is no evidence to suggest that by perfecting the techniques, it will lessen the torture for the bull. However, he shows that current studies into bullfighting demonstrate that it is cruel.

In his article "Injuries and traumatisms that the puya causes the bull" published in "La Tribuna" newspaper, Fernando Valero proves, with information from scientific studies, that the bull is mistreated in the ring and undergoes great pain and suffering, currently increased by the wrongful practice of the puya and the Act of Spears (Suerte de Varas) by most bullfighters.

Valero's conclusion is that "the current regulation puya and the wrongful carrying out the Act of Spears, causes much more serious injuries that it can initially seem at first sight because of the negligence, ignorance, wrongful use or of abuse from the professionals". Analysing the information from the studies with complicated mathematical formulae, Valero concludes that "the puya penetrated almost four times its length into the muscle, a real monstrosity" and the encounters between the horse and the bull were "too long". Moreover, in the cases studied, the vara (lance with the puya) went into every orifice too many times, an average of 7.4 times. Another point that Valero mentions in his article is that the first vara was longer in duration and much more traumatic than the second one and this one more than the third one, "what makes clear that the castigo (weakening of the bull) was not gradual, and clearly proves it was administered excessively in the first lance, instead of regulating it gradually as it should be".

Puyazos in the other two areas "reduce the mobility of the bull by seriously injuring the muscle union between the front legs and the thorax, causing the loss of composure of the affected bulls and causing possible limps because of affected nerves, and even respiratory failures when the pleura is unfortunately perforated and even the lung in rear puyazos and falls". "Puyazos administered in the back area are really criminal as they regrettably injure the rib zone, which by no means affects the head muscles and consequently does not reduce the butting nor weakens its drive or its energy, it actually deregulates the locomotion of the animal", he adds.

Another interesting point Valero makes is that bulls have no shoulder blades like humans. So both front legs are extremely united to the trunk through several muscles. He also points out that the Act of Spears has slowly moved its position. According to old tauromachies, the Act of Spears had to be in the area of the morrillo. Afterwards, it moved to the area of the withers and even to the back parts. "It seems that when you jab the cruz or the area of union of both scapulae, you don't manage to lower the bull's head in the charge or humiliate the bull, which should be the objective, but instead, the muscle joint is destabilized so the bull has less mobility and strength, according to Valero.


Right .... a description of one journalist's opinion of how the pic is applied to the tossing muscle.......
The point of addressing the 'murillo' being to allow for a shorten 'kill'. Yes... what else?


OK, so he claims it is cruel but if perfected, will cause "less suffering" for the bull. However, the aim is still to humiliate the bull, and the bull still suffers as it is being severely handicapped by the picadors.


With respect I think that you ought to speak to a few more sources before you stated that the point of the bullfighting is 'to humiliate the bull'. This is simply nonsense.



nope, not happy at all. I abhor fast foods like McDonalds, etc.. I support the RSPCA in its campaign against cruel farming methods, like battery hens, intensive farming, and inhumane transport of export animals. I think a lot of people are (hopefully) clueing in on organic and macrobiotic food products.

However ...remains practiced by the majority of the developed world's population.....

I guess people have more important things to worry about ....