I am unequivocably opposed to dog fighting. Some call it a sport. I don’t know of an awful lot of it going on but I do one person who has 21 pitt bulls and fights them quite regularly. I have been out to his place a few times and I must say that the dogs are well cared for with the exception of the fights. Each has its’ own dog house, well kept and well fed and LOTS of attention. I was a little apprehensive of them but have found out that they are all friendly. Cutting to the chase…fighting them is illegal for the most part. Why do we allow boxing, toughman, ultimate fighting etc. but no dog fights?
The dogs are forced to fight each other, so it’s not their fault that they get hurt. Most boxers, wrestlers, kick-boxers, and so forth go into their respective rings under their own free will.
Of course, there are a lot of people who are opposed to humans fighting each other for sport as well . . .
Because humans have a choice to participate in the sports you named. Animals do not.
There is a big difference between regulated sport between two consenting adults, such as boxing or UF, and an illegal pit fight between two dogs that are specifically bred to kill each other.
These fights often last for hours, and usually end with the death or severe injury of one of the animals.
It is an incredibly cruel event (I won’t refer to it as a sport), and dogs that are bred to fight are often a danger to other people, expecially children. I understand that the breeding of the American Pit Bull is now banned in Queensland as a result of a number of attacks on children.
Have a look at this link for more info.
JB
It is definitely cruel. I saw a couple dogs that were recently fought. They were lacerated quite a bit but I must say this guy was not delinquent in caring for thier wounds, in fact quite expert by this time.
Of course he’s going to take care of the dog. You don’t think he’s going to let a good fightin’ dog die on him, is he?
I doubt a guy who trains dogs to kill one another is very concerned about his dogs’ welfare.
Animals have been made to do things for the benefit of man for thousands of years. Animals such as horses and dogs have specifically been bred for specialized roles. So the fact that the animal has no choice doesn’t really matter, does it? It isn’t wrong to train a dog for such dangerous roles as law enforcement or rescue operations. Hell, we even used dogs in war as late as the Viet-Nam war.
Marc
Oh please, Marc. You know very well that many people perceive a difference between breeding and using animals for “the benefit of man” and breeding them for fighting one another. Howsabout you? You really don’t see any difference between using dogs on a police force and pit fighting?
I thought about this after watching some of the “ultimate fighting”. Man it is barbaric. These guys are also trained to fight and they want to fight. My dog always loved to fight. I never trained any such behavior but he took every chance to fight and never backed down from other dogs. Are we sure that they don’t like to fight?
Yes, the dogs have the same choice as the ‘ultimate fighters’. Are you ready to start trolling properly?
JB
Who said they don’t enjoy it? That’s not the issue for most people.
A dog and a man each may want to fight. A man, however, will usually constrain himself to sanctioned arenas with others who want to fight. Of course, there are lots of men who think a parking lot is a sanctioned arena, but let’s stick with professionals. Professionals always make an individual choice. Dogs and other animals do not.
[hijack]I’m not so keen as to humans treatment of animals otherwise either. I’m omnivorous, eat plenty of meat, and have absolutely no intention to change. But that doesn’t mean the seatshop-factory like conditions most animals endure is a good thing. I fully understand the need for breeding food animals to feed the population, I understand the economies of scale, and I appreciate how such farming of animals keeps prices down and uniform quality (not good quality necessarily, but uniform). I try to reconcile myself with the necessities of the business of feeding 300 million Americans and 6 billion people worldwide with the overall treatment of the animals. I have no easy, sound-bite like answer on how to improve things[/hijack]
You should report the guy to the local authorities…
I have a pitbull- he is going on 2 years old now. Judging from his behavior, I don’t think he is capable of walking away from a fight on his own.
I do not believe in dog fighting, and I have experience with larger, more aggressive breeds. (My father was a police dog trainer for many years). When I bought this puppy, I played with and petted the litter’s mother- who was very sweet. She barked only when I came in, and watched as I handled the puppies- I have seen other dogs and breeds with much worse reacions to strangers in the house handling their pups.
At about 1 year of age, the dog “turned on” pretty suddenly- he became much more agitated at the sight of other dogs, and began making aggressive overtones. He was socialized with other dogs in my family before that time- dogs of various sizes and temperments- a chow mix, a beagle, a doberman, a great dane, a rott and a husky, as well as another pit puppy…he is still fine with them, but he barely abides “strange” dogs.
I have worked with him quites a bit- he knows the basic obedience commands, and I have gotten him to walk past most “strange” dogs without going too crazy…but I would never ever trust him off lead with strange dogs. He still hardly tolerates small yippy dogs, even on lead.
He is still good with people. He barks at strangers (as I have encouraged him to do), but after a brief period will usually let most strangers pet him. He has never offered to bite any person.
He is very sweet to me and my friends, and I am confident in his ability as an alert an deterance dog- he is a GOOD DOG.
It is part of his temperment and breeding to be dog aggressive- I am convinced he would fight until he was physically incapable of fighting anymore. I don’t think he would enjoy it, but just feel somehow compelled to.
JC
That’s besides the point. I’m simply pointing out that we make animals do all sorts of things without giving them any choice. So the fact that they don’t have a choice isn’t a valid reason to complain about animal fights.
Marc
Say what you will, I always root for Snoopy to kick the Red Baron’s ass. 
What is up with this? This is a legitimate topic that I tought would stimulate debate. What exactly is the deal with throwing around the trolling thing.
I think both human and dog fights are unusually cruel. Some of the human fighters I have seen are about on the level of a dogs IQ. What I am trying to discover is the big difference. I know there are differences but they seem pretty subtle. I mean if we respect dogs ignorance enough to outlaw organized fighting shouldn’t we be kind enough to do the same for humans?
Yeah, sorry about that, I was pretty drunk when I wrote that, it was uncalled for.
JB
First, it should be understood that I wasn’t making a condemnation; rather, I was trying to express one (of many) reasons an animal lover might give to defend the rights we grant “man’s best friend.” The example I gave–-that animal’s don’t have a choice–may not be the best in the world, but it is an argument you might hear from animal-rights advocates.
So, is the fact that animals don’t have a choice whether or not to participate in these bloodsports a valid reason to prohibit dog fighting? I say yes. My reasoning is that we should act in animals’ best interests, making decisions on their behalf that reflects the way they would choose if they could. Putting two animals in a pit together and provoking them into bloody combat isn’t in an animal’s best interests. Some of the other activities we breed and train animals for are, I believe, in an animal’s best interests. For example, although IANAK9, I think that your average police dog is probably happy and healthy in addition to doing society a great service. Of course, not every decision we “civilized humans” make for our animal friends is in their best interests–-pork chops come to mind. But I don’t think we should say “because we restrict animal rights in one area, we should restrict them in another as well.” Instead we should, imo, do the opposite and say, “If animals deserve rights in one area, don’t they deserve rights in other areas as well?” Other areas being things like medical labs, fur coat companies, farms, etc.
[sub] FTR, I may be a hypocrite here because I’m one of those people who consider themselves an animal-lover yet I love to eat animals . . . a tangent that might be good to explore in another thread. Also, let me say that while I think the best interests of animals should be looked after, I think that the best interests of humans are more important. For example, I would never bomb a lab that tests drugs on animals, but I would lobby to minimize the pain the lab animals suffered as much as possible.[/sub]
Anyway, I think dog-fighting is mean and cruel and that it’s only proper that this activity is illegal.
Finally, to address the OP in more detail. There are a lot of reasons dog-fighting is illegal, some of them valid reasons, some of them not. Ultimately, I suspect, a lot of the reasons that may be given are rationalizations to support emotional reactions. A “civilized human” will probably look at the bloody and mutilated body of a post-fight dog and think of Spot or Fluffy and go, “How could somebody condone such a terrible activity, much less derive pleasure from it?” Then people start coming up with reasons to outlaw such activities–-the Bible says it’s wrong, it’s associated with illegal gambling which is associated with even bigger and worse things, and so on and so forth.
Okay, I’m done. Sorry for such a long ramble. I hope that all made sense to everybody (whether you agree with it or not). As usual, I started out with the intention of just a couple quick sentences.
Oh yeah . . . I always root for Snoopy, too! 
I see you position
. I do understand the sentimental “poor fluffy” thing. The fact is that the sport is cruel to the animals. I don’t doubt that some owners are cruel to thier dogs otherwise too. I do however, see alot of similarity in human fights and dog fights, gambling is huge in human blood sport and probably contributes a great deal to its’ popularity. I guess the thing I am getting to is this. If we can allow organized fighting amoung us humans with referees and medical personel, why would it be any more cruel to sponsor legal dog fighting with similar controls in place. It just seems to me that forcing it under ground promotes the excessive cruelty of the sport. Could we actually help the animals by bringing it into the open and forcing a degree of restraint upon it that may not exist under current underground conditions?