Post by Jessica on Feb 5, 2010 4:51:38 GMT -5
Contributed personally by Col David Hancock - Please respect the Copyright
FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES by David Hancock
Organised dog-fighting has a feature which is unique amongst criminal activities: a successful prosecution brings the greatest punishment to the victim. The convicted humans receive jail sentences or a substantial fine; the dogs forced to take part are sentenced to death, those which survive death in the ring, that is. There is rightly little sympathy for the human culprits; sadly there is no compassion for the dogs. I appreciate the manifold problems of re-homing dogs made to fight each other; I just wish some form of rehabilitation for them could be attempted. It is rare, I believe, for a dog used in organised fights to be aggressive towards humans, despite the justification which might exist for that.
It is difficult to fathom the rationale behind dog v dog contests, which are staged from Mexico to Milan and from the Himalayas to the Philippines. Gambling of course has always played a major part in such odious activities and surviving winners can command relatively huge fees in breeding programmes. But what kind of man participates? Do they consider themselves 'hard' by taking part or consider it a way of demonstrating their toughness? I have had the privilege of working and playing sport with some of the toughest men you could find: I played rugger for England as a schoolboy; I went on two arctic expeditions before I was 21; I was a paratrooper for three years; I served in Gurkha formations in both Malaya and Borneo. I have learned from personal experience that there is a world of difference between beinq tough and actinq tough; those who try to appear tough by engaging in cruel activities unwittingly reveal their actual lack of toughness immediately.
Making your companion dogs, quite needlessly, display their courage, pluck, gameness, ferocity, aggression, whatever you choose to call it, seems to me to be a very transparent cover for human cowardice. Bravery by proxy is not bravery at all.
But where are the studies into dog-fighting, why it's conducted, how it's justified and what is its purpose? Is there a distinct sort of personality who is attracted to such a barbaric activity? It has appealed to all types from Lord Camelford to Bill Sykes, but are they the same type under the skin? Lord Camelford owned a dog called Belcher which survived 104 fights; it is not recorded how many dogs he was made to kill. When two champion dogs Boney and Gas fought each other at the Westminster pit on January the 18th 1825, the pit was illuminated by chandeliers and over 300 spectators attended. They would have been a mixture of street hooligans and 'young bloods', as street hooligans of nobler birth were described in those times. Did such men feel tough by attending such an activity? Did they think they would be regarded as 'hard' if they patronised such a place for such an activity?
In Mexico and North America, where dog-fighting is commonplace, the dog's bite strength is bred for and fatalities are common. It is this awe-filling bite-strength, outdone only by the hyena and the wild dogs of Southern Africa, which makes the American Pit Bull Terrier such a danger when it does bite a human being. Bigger dogs, like the mastiff types, can grip for longer but will never inflict such damage. Their jaws were designed for gripping and holding, not tearing or slashing.
A century ago the calmer quieter more skilful dog was preferred; now it seems the 'fight-crazy screamers' are desired. Both in America and Ireland, a century ago, fighting dogs were preferred to be quiet whilst fighting. Silence was interpreted as stoicism, held to indicate courage, and was prized. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was a silent fighter and much respected as such. But the spectators at such dog-fights were reported in subsequent accounts to be highly vocal, bloodthirsty and seeking savagery in the ring. There is a hint of humans admiring the dogs' qualities but not being able to match them. Again, bravery by proxy. It might even be a desire to witness stoic bravery out of sheer envy; it is certainly not very admirable supporting an activity in which dogs actually fight for their lives. That's pure sadism. The video evidence produced in prosecutions for dog-fighting are just too sickening to view for any length of time. What research has been conducted over any likely success rate in retraining such cruelly-misused victims of man's baseness? Animal rescue agencies are overwhelmed in many places but it does seem grossly unfair for misused dogs to have to pay the supreme sacrifice. A further sadness is that so many of these dogs are physically well above average for soundness and fitness. Who fights for them? Any social-inadequate who thinks dog-fighting is manly, an outward sign of toughness or an activity deserving respect is deluded. It is the sure sign of a coward hiding behind his dogs.
FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES by David Hancock
Organised dog-fighting has a feature which is unique amongst criminal activities: a successful prosecution brings the greatest punishment to the victim. The convicted humans receive jail sentences or a substantial fine; the dogs forced to take part are sentenced to death, those which survive death in the ring, that is. There is rightly little sympathy for the human culprits; sadly there is no compassion for the dogs. I appreciate the manifold problems of re-homing dogs made to fight each other; I just wish some form of rehabilitation for them could be attempted. It is rare, I believe, for a dog used in organised fights to be aggressive towards humans, despite the justification which might exist for that.
It is difficult to fathom the rationale behind dog v dog contests, which are staged from Mexico to Milan and from the Himalayas to the Philippines. Gambling of course has always played a major part in such odious activities and surviving winners can command relatively huge fees in breeding programmes. But what kind of man participates? Do they consider themselves 'hard' by taking part or consider it a way of demonstrating their toughness? I have had the privilege of working and playing sport with some of the toughest men you could find: I played rugger for England as a schoolboy; I went on two arctic expeditions before I was 21; I was a paratrooper for three years; I served in Gurkha formations in both Malaya and Borneo. I have learned from personal experience that there is a world of difference between beinq tough and actinq tough; those who try to appear tough by engaging in cruel activities unwittingly reveal their actual lack of toughness immediately.
Making your companion dogs, quite needlessly, display their courage, pluck, gameness, ferocity, aggression, whatever you choose to call it, seems to me to be a very transparent cover for human cowardice. Bravery by proxy is not bravery at all.
But where are the studies into dog-fighting, why it's conducted, how it's justified and what is its purpose? Is there a distinct sort of personality who is attracted to such a barbaric activity? It has appealed to all types from Lord Camelford to Bill Sykes, but are they the same type under the skin? Lord Camelford owned a dog called Belcher which survived 104 fights; it is not recorded how many dogs he was made to kill. When two champion dogs Boney and Gas fought each other at the Westminster pit on January the 18th 1825, the pit was illuminated by chandeliers and over 300 spectators attended. They would have been a mixture of street hooligans and 'young bloods', as street hooligans of nobler birth were described in those times. Did such men feel tough by attending such an activity? Did they think they would be regarded as 'hard' if they patronised such a place for such an activity?
In Mexico and North America, where dog-fighting is commonplace, the dog's bite strength is bred for and fatalities are common. It is this awe-filling bite-strength, outdone only by the hyena and the wild dogs of Southern Africa, which makes the American Pit Bull Terrier such a danger when it does bite a human being. Bigger dogs, like the mastiff types, can grip for longer but will never inflict such damage. Their jaws were designed for gripping and holding, not tearing or slashing.
A century ago the calmer quieter more skilful dog was preferred; now it seems the 'fight-crazy screamers' are desired. Both in America and Ireland, a century ago, fighting dogs were preferred to be quiet whilst fighting. Silence was interpreted as stoicism, held to indicate courage, and was prized. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was a silent fighter and much respected as such. But the spectators at such dog-fights were reported in subsequent accounts to be highly vocal, bloodthirsty and seeking savagery in the ring. There is a hint of humans admiring the dogs' qualities but not being able to match them. Again, bravery by proxy. It might even be a desire to witness stoic bravery out of sheer envy; it is certainly not very admirable supporting an activity in which dogs actually fight for their lives. That's pure sadism. The video evidence produced in prosecutions for dog-fighting are just too sickening to view for any length of time. What research has been conducted over any likely success rate in retraining such cruelly-misused victims of man's baseness? Animal rescue agencies are overwhelmed in many places but it does seem grossly unfair for misused dogs to have to pay the supreme sacrifice. A further sadness is that so many of these dogs are physically well above average for soundness and fitness. Who fights for them? Any social-inadequate who thinks dog-fighting is manly, an outward sign of toughness or an activity deserving respect is deluded. It is the sure sign of a coward hiding behind his dogs.