# Petition channel 4 Dog Fighting



## beris (Aug 30, 2010)

Please sign the petition . Channel 4 'Going to the Dogs' Dog Fighting.
Cutting edge.

Please boycott and sign petition 
Http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...tion_type_map=["og.shares"]&action_ref_map=[]

I hope I have done this right.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I saw this advertised last night, and have to say I was extremely shocked. It appears they'll be hiding the identity of these CRIMINALS! even altering their voices - they should be named, shamed & flippin prosecuted, nevermind shielded! 


I signed the petition.


.


----------



## beris (Aug 30, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> I saw this advertised last night, and have to say I was extremely shocked. It appears they'll be hiding the identity of these CRIMINALS! even altering their voices - they should be named, shamed & flippin prosecuted, nevermind shielded!
> 
> I signed the petition.
> 
> .


I agree The photos on facebook are horrendous. It is. So so sad.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

beris said:


> I agree The photos on facebook are horrendous. It is. So so sad.


I can imagine, poor dogs


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I saw this advertised last night, and have to say I was extremely shocked. It appears they'll be hiding the identity of these CRIMINALS! even altering their voices - they should be named, shamed & flippin prosecuted, nevermind shielded!
> 
> I signed the petition.
> 
> .


I thought they could be made to reveal if taken to court. Why do you think it would not be s good thing to air?
Even if their motives are in their ratings if it brings it the fore and get people talking about it so something can be done why not show it?

Not saying right or wrong just interested


----------



## beris (Aug 30, 2010)

Don't you think it will only glorify it, publicise it, and possibly encourage it.

Whilst enraging every other dog lover in the world.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It could be a good way of showing how barbaric it is but sad for the dogs involved . The thing is some pitbull people don't see it for what it is, there was this kennel in the US champion showdogs, did really well in weightpull and truly cared about their dogs. So it came as a surprise to everyone when they got busted for fighting. They argued it was the same as a lab doing a field trial or testing a collie's herding ability :nonod:.


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

beris said:


> Don't you think it will only glorify it, publicise it, and possibly encourage it.
> 
> Whilst enraging every other dog lover in the world.


Depends on how it's done I would think but if it enraged every dog owner then that should be great.

I would rather sign a petition for harsher sentences and more resources to stop the fighting


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

not seen an petitons banning the programmes/documentaries on 

murderers
rapists
paedophiles
shoplifters
war criminals
domestic violence

Nor are their identies necessarily revealed

What is the difference pray tell?

I certainly will NOT sign the petition as a) it is a waste of time and b) I want to see it.

Only by acknowledging that something exists and brought to the attention of the "ordinary person" will change be effected.

Talk about a nanny state.

I wonder if anyone who originates these petitions and calls for bans ever stops to think about what it is like to live in a state where a lot more important things are banned?

Like the freedom to express this view for one.


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

I know there are a few people on here who have dogs who were used in fights I'd like to know their view


----------



## vet-2-b (Sep 25, 2008)

signed it, saw the adverts for it, it looks awful poor dogs


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I'm all for expose's but from the advertisement I saw, it appeared to be sensationalising dog fighting, it was only a snippet so I could be wrong. In documentaries on the subjects you highlight SB, you don't actually see the offender committing the crime. If the program producers of this docu do witness illegal activity I expect them to give all names and evidence to the police. Maybe they have, if they haven't then I think its disgusting, these revolting animal abusers shouldn't be allowed to get away scot free..


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> In documentaries on the subjects you highlight SB, you don't actually see the offender committing the crime. ..


Oh dear, you obviously do not watch a lot of documentaries when the you actually DO see the offender comitting the crime, these programmes are on almost a daily basis!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Oh dear, you obviously do not watch a lot of documentaries when the you actually DO see the offender comitting the crime, these programmes are on almost a daily basis!


No I have never seen documentaries of them filming murders, rapes, peadophilia 

.


----------



## Dimwit (Nov 10, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I'm all for expose's but from the advertisement I saw, it appeared to be sensationalising dog fighting, it was only a snippet so I could be wrong.


Do you think that possibly they have chosen a sensational clip to advertise the documentary in the hope that it will attract more viewers...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dimwit said:


> Do you think that possibly they have chosen a sensational clip to advertise the documentary in the hope that it will attract more viewers...


Possibly, my main concern is if they have filmed dogs fighting instead of reporting to the police and if they haven't informed the police of the identity of the toe rags.

.


----------



## redroses2106 (Aug 21, 2011)

I seen that advertised - it made me really angry to think channel 4 are going to film these scum and they are going to just get away with it, and probably continue, how anyone could witness that and do nothing to stop it makes me sick to my stomach, these people need prosecuted, and then maybe a documentary made regarding it.

as for other criminals being filmed, they wouldn't not be arrested for their crimes like these people, they would generally of already been tried but these "people" are getting away with it, it makes me really angry actually, they don't deserve protected identities they deserve to be shot. I so hope the show doesn't glamourize it in anyway 

I am all for awareness being raised but just not like this, the producers and everyone involved in making the show should be utterly ashamed of themselves, imo they are no better than the scum who are fighting the dogs 

lets hope that someone who witnessed it reported them.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Why do people assume that the makers of the film have not passed on the relevent details to the authorities?

Oh wait, that is another conclusion it is easier to jump to rather than to research the truth.

And another bandwagon ready to jump on by the professionally outraged.

Just like all those documentaries which show the pixellated pictures of those comitting violence to HUMANS or shoplifting etc.

They are just sensationalist programmes where no responsible action is taken.............


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I don't recall the Panaorama documentary on the same subject that was aired several years ago getting this treatment. Maybe people should get some background on the filmmaker and the synopsis of the documentary before they make judgements. I won't be signing it for all the reasons already mentioned by Smokeybear.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Anyone wanting to watch dog fighting can (and arguably _should_) watch the Animal Cops documentaries and the likes. At least you see the scum being arrested and find out the [often tragic] outcome for the individual dogs.  If it's showing for entertainment purposes and to test ratings, then it's not something I want to watch. 

Signed.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> I don't recall the Panaorama documentary on the same subject that was aired several years ago getting this treatment. Maybe people should get some background on the filmmaker and the synopsis of the documentary before they make judgements. I won't be signing it for all the reasons already mentioned by Smokeybear.


Ah but some people never let the facts get in the way of an (uninformed) opinion.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

In the interests of fairness here's a link to the synopsis:

Going to the Dogs: Cutting Edge - Channel 4 - Info - Press

Not everyone who signed just automatically jumped on the bandwagon.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

That doesn't sound like they're glorifying it quite the opposite in fact . And oh look it even mentions what comes up when people talk about dangerous dogs on here, that we punish the wrong end of the lead. 

If channel 4 does it right, debatable of course, it could be a good look at this and other activities where animals are harmed. But the screeching of the reporter being as bad as the people that fight their dogs is more important of course.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

The more attention this programme gets....
the better Channel 4 will like it. 
Just be thankful it`s not Channel 5... a step further down the ladder to the sewers


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

As much as I abhor dog fighting, I dont see this documentary as any different from a documentary on any other given subject. From reading the synopsis it doesnt sound like it's glorifying it but giving a very frank account of this underground sport.

And for those who have said how she can make the film and not do anything to stop what is going off - that is not the purpose of a documentary or a reporter. I could say the same about wildlife camera men/women who film animals getting killed, injured animals who they leave to just die, lost baby animals who cannot find their mother. The film makers could help in all these situations but that is not what they are there for, they merely observe and record so that we can see what truly happens.

And nowhere in the synopsis did it say that those involved in the dog fighting she filmed got away scott free.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Well, if it's being aired on National Television, I fail to see how the Police couldn't be aware of it.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

With respect, it doesn't really matter how many of these types of documentaries they air on TV nothing will ever change.

The BBC exposed an international dog fighting ring and connections between Finland, Ireland and the UK and how simple it was to export an illegal animal (banned breed in the UK) with false papers from Finland to Britain via Ireland. They were not stopped at customs.


I believe it is the duty of those in a position of opportunity to make the public more aware of what goes on behind the scenes of their lives and they should also become more familiar with the savage inhuman cruelty that's attached to such an iniquitous and deplorable lifestyle.

If the law really wants to put an end to this problem it's going to have to impose harsher punishments/sentences than the p155 taking penalties it heaps at present upon the guilty once exposed.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Amazes me how many people will sign any petition based on only an impression rather than researching facts. How many petitions now actually mean anything?


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

This is what the film makers had to say about it:



> It is being made through social enterprise Latimer Creative and will draw on interviews with dog-owners, historians, academics and criminologists.
> 
> Woolcock began shooting in late summer and aims to complete the edit by the end of January.
> 
> ...


I don't quite see how comparing it to production animals or horse racing has any relevance. Just because one thing causes _more_ deaths doesn't mean the other one isn't just as bad, or worse.

Being involved in rescue I have to say I really won't be watching this, especially knowing dogs that have been saved from fighting and baiting. Also most of the rescue people I know are very much against this film, I think there all worried that it will either glamorise dog fighting, or make light of it, both dangerous routes.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Ive seen the ads and it makes me so angry but i cant decide if i do or dont want to watch it


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

People, this is Channel 4. Do you not remember the whole Brass Eye business? 

You present them with a petition to get one of their programmes censored, and they'll be rubbing their hands with glee. 

I haven't signed it. It won't make a blind bit of difference to the outcome.


----------



## Labrador Laura (Sep 12, 2010)

After seeing the advert and the clips I don't think I'll be able to watch ! 

But I do hope they talk about 'free to good home' dogs and the risk of these poor dogs being sold on for bait.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

I really can't see how showing the programme will glamorise dog fighting? In that case we should probably ban all the tv shows and documentaries about crime. Just in case some people will think it's cool to rape and kill? No one seems to mind all the shows on animal planet about animal cruelty cases. Yes, in the shows you can see that people are fined and convicted, but do you think removing this information would glamorise animal cruelty and neglect? 
I think people need to see this show and understand that dog fighting is real and not just some stories from america. It's not just scary gangs in rough neighborhoods in america that have them. There's still people out there who have no clue of poor quality dog foods, dog fighting and puppy mills. Speaking of which, I wish they would make a programme about puppy mills. I personally don't care if the show is shown just for their ratings as long as the show will make at least some people think twice before selling their dogs for 50 quid on gumtree to the first person who calls...


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

Someone has had an email from Ch 4 saying they've cancelled it.

I know of A LOT of people who phoned and emailed them asking for it to be cancelled.

Not me though, I'm undecided on my opinion of the programme...guess we'll never know how it was going to portray the fighting world...


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Sarah H said:


> Someone has had an email from Ch 4 saying they've cancelled it.
> 
> I know of A LOT of people who phoned and emailed them asking for it to be cancelled.
> 
> Not me though, I'm undecided on my opinion of the programme...guess we'll never know how it was going to portray the fighting world...


If that's true, I find that astonishing.

Yep, I guess we can all go back to blissful ignorance now.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Sarah H said:


> This is what the film makers had to say about it:
> 
> I don't quite see how comparing it to production animals or horse racing has any relevance. Just because one thing causes _more_ deaths doesn't mean the other one isn't just as bad, or worse.
> 
> Being involved in rescue I have to say I really won't be watching this, especially knowing dogs that have been saved from fighting and baiting. Also most of the rescue people I know are very much against this film, I think there all worried that it will either glamorise dog fighting, or make light of it, both dangerous routes.


Both seem quite relevant to me. Horse racing often ends up with horses injuring themselves so badly in the event that they have to be PTS all for the sake of human enjoyment, yet races are shown on TV. As far as intensive farming is concerned, taking pork as an example, people are quite happy buying their cheap economy pork from supermarkets. What they don't seem to care about is sows stuck in farrowing crates for weeks on end unable to move and their offspring rammed into overcrowded warehouses often with their tails cut off without anaesthetic for the sake of cheap meat. It's all animal cruelty in my eyes.


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

How can people say they don't want it shown when they don't know what kind of impression it's going to give?

If it does explain how BSL is bull, how pitbulls aren't an evil breed, how badly the dogs suffer then that's a good thing surely?
Having the show not aired because people don't want to see the distressing images doesn't make the issue go away.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Haven't signed the petetion but won't be watching either. I don't wish to witness dogs being mauled to death all for entertainment purposes and think the vile scum that take part in these fights need to be torn to shreds themselves  I wonder how many of the wrong people will watch it and attempt to do the same with their own dogs?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sarah H said:


> This is what the film makers had to say about it:
> 
> I don't quite see how comparing it to production animals or horse racing has any relevance. Just because one thing causes _more_ deaths doesn't mean the other one isn't just as bad, or worse.


It's very relevant? Horse racing is legal, and big money, in this case people get dressed up and have a fun day out! Yet animals die and are seriously injured lots of them, but people defend horse racing with the same keek "horses love it" " it's what horses do"

Same could be said for Dog Fighting, yet one is legal and socially acceptable yet the other isn't, why is that? Who decides which life is worth more fine for one animal to suffer at the hands of humans but not another?

Does everyone sign a petition for Grand Nation not to be shown? Or CountryFile? Animals suffering for humans!


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> In the interests of fairness here's a link to the synopsis:
> 
> Going to the Dogs: Cutting Edge - Channel 4 - Info - Press
> 
> Not everyone who signed just automatically jumped on the bandwagon.


Just read the link above, and from what I read it doesn't sound like they're glorifying dog fighting at all, but rather hoping to raise awareness 

I also found this part interesting:


> Penny's footage reveals in detail what is involved in this hidden world and the brutal reality for the dogs from their strict and unremitting secret training regimes, through to the bloody fights. She films with people engaged in the popular pastime of pheasant shooting and speaks to academics about that and other sports, such as horse racing, which avoid the kind of hostility that dog fighting attracts. The documentary also looks at the inherent brutality that is common place in the breeding and slaughter of animals in the food industry.


It reminds me a bit of a documentary series the History Channel aired on what led to certain drugs being deemed illegal. Much of it had to do with race, societal standing and good old fashioned bigotry, not the actual danger the drug presented. 
In the same way, while dog fighting is deemed a cruel and barbaric sport, things like horse racing or shooting "sports" are seen as acceptable, yet the level of brutality, and pain and suffering inflicted upon the animals is very comparable.

Dogfighting is just as misunderstood this side of the pond. I think a lot of people think it's all like Michael Vick's set up and the dogs are all tortured in to fighting. The reality, like so many things is not that clear cut. There are "good" dog fighters and there are cruel ones. I know that sounds odd to speak of a dog fighter as "good", but to many people, setting your dog on another dog is not much different than setting your dog on a rabbit or rat. Or to hunt and hold big game. It's a very complex "sport" and to me, the more we learn about it, the better off everyone - including the dogs will be in the long run.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Meezey said:


> Yet animals die and are seriously injured lots of them


While death and injury is undeniably a regrettable part of horse-racing, it is not the aim. The aim of dog fighting is for injury to occur - for dogs to fight until one is too injured to go on, or dead.

It is not the same IMO.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> not seen an petitons banning the programmes/documentaries on
> 
> murderers
> rapists
> ...


The difference is simply that by disguising the identity of the people involved, the programme is colluding with criminal activity.

I don't think anyone would deny the existence of dog fighting, and 'ordinary people' have no influence. It's not as if it needs to be made a criminal offence; it already is one.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Burrowzig said:


> The difference is simply that by disguising the identity of the people involved, the programme is colluding with criminal activity.
> 
> I don't think anyone would deny the existence of dog fighting, and 'ordinary people' have no influence. It's not as if it needs to be made a criminal offence; it already is one.


Ah, so when the identity of all people in various documentaries is done this equates to collusion?

Dear, oh dear,

Look up

Correlation does not equal causation to begin with.

So you have never watched any tv programme where the identities of some people are occluded and heard at the end a statement to the effect of "all the footage in this film has been provided to the authorities"?

There are a lot of villages missing an idiot it appears..................


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who *investigates or researches*, as opposed to him who *asserts and thinks that he has found.*Miguel de Unamuno


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

signed and shared...


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

I think it is important to air this show as disturbing as it may be as many people aren't aware it even happens. So many people say to me when I talk about subjects on animal abuse "Nah that doesn't happen anymore"

Dogs being killed in pounds (my fiance didn't realized this happened until I told him), the trend of "trunking" where by 2 dogs are put in a trunk to fight to the death, my goodness, the amount of animal abuse that happens in the name of 'entertainment', especially underground is unreal. What happens behind closed doors in the meat industry, dairy industry and the fur industry, so much abuse gets hidden away and swept under the carpet. 

As disturbing as it is, it needs to be acknowledged so it can be brought to peoples attention and then thats how we tackle it.

As for Channel 4 'protecting' these scumbags, I'm not sure about that, but I can't imagine something was not done afterwards, perhaps we could ask the reporter (via Channel 4) and ask her what happened to these people after the show and what actions she as an individual (may or may not have taken) and what Channel 4 did as a company?

It reminds me of a conversation I had not too long ago
"Those illegal immigrants living down the road get £150,000 in benefits"
(me)"How do you know they're illegal?"
"Because the police are always round there"
"But if the police know, surely they would have sorted it out and they wouldn't be living there?"
"Yeah, but..everyone knows they're illegal"
"How do you know how much money they get?"
"...well they're all on benefits"
- Cue another colleague explaining how that figure is more than likely way out ,unrealistic and that situation isn't what you think it is-

Slightly off topic, but the same message about making assumptions.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> While death and injury is undeniably a regrettable part of horse-racing, it is not the aim. The aim of dog fighting is for injury to occur - for dogs to fight until one is too injured to go on, or dead.
> 
> It is not the same IMO.


Not necessarily. 
At least not on this side of the pond... 
There are old-school dogmen who still believe the only true test of what they call gameness is to see what a dog does when faced with another equally matched dog. Theyre looking to test for temperament, not to injure any dog.

Obviously this is in some cases. In other situations, yes, they want the dogs to fight, but the fights are called based on which dog shows more determination, not which dog does more damage, and the fights are stopped before any serious damage is done. 
This is part of the reason fighting breeds are prized for a bite and hold. They dont want a dog who will slash and rip another dog up, they want a dog who will grab, hold, and not let go, using weight and strength to overpower the other dog.
This is also why so many old school dogmen are so intolerant of a dog like a pitbull biting a human for ANY reason. These are dogs who are supposed to be okay with a handler (who probably wont be the owner) getting in the pit with the dogs and separating them during a fight.

The aim is not that the dogs injure each other, but that the dog shows tenacity and gameness no matter what. Basically a dog who wont give up. 
And certainly NEVER that the dogs kill each other. Traditionally these dogs were family dogs who would come home from a weekend fight and be expected to go work on the farm the rest of the week and sleep with the children at night. Nobody wanted to see a good dog get killed. Nor do they today. Yes, there are some total douchebags who dont care about the dogs, but even a douchebag with a good dog is not going to want their prized possession killed. Enough matches won and enough notoriety means a lot of money to be made in stud fees, and dead dogs dont breed well. And no, these guys are not the ones collecting and freezing semen.

So yeah, there is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to what a fighting dog does and how fights are run. Getting more accurate information out there could be a good thing....

On a side note, a station here ran a reality series on moonshiners. Distilling laws vary by state, and somehow it was deemed that the producers of the show had broken the law when they filmed in a state where moonshining is illegal. They had to pay hefty fines if I recall correctly. So just because you film something and air it doesnt mean its sanctioned by law.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Not necessarily.
> At least not on this side of the pond...
> There are old-school dogmen who still believe the only true test of what they call gameness is to see what a dog does when faced with another equally matched dog. Theyre looking to test for temperament, not to injure any dog.
> 
> ...


Why on earth does anyone want dogs to fight each other for any reason, just to prove that one dog is stronger or more daring than another,?
All wrong in my book,


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> not seen an petitons banning the programmes/documentaries on
> 
> murderers
> rapists
> ...


So if a camera crew went into a house and spoke to rapists raping young girls and protected their identities (IF ITS TRUE) you would not complain about it? I dont see a difference


----------



## Tarnus (Apr 5, 2011)

Scabbers said:


> So if a camera crew went into a house and spoke to rapists raping young girls and protected their identities (IF ITS TRUE) you would not complain about it? I dont see a difference


The problem you (and many others) are completely overlooking is that in order you make these documentaries you have to come to some sort of agreement with the subject which will always include protecting identities. Unless you do so you'll never make the documentary in the first place, because nobody would agree to go on camera if you were going to dob them in as soon as you finished filming.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2014)

jaycee05 said:


> Why on earth does anyone want dogs to fight each other for any reason, just to prove that one dog is stronger or more daring than another,?
> All wrong in my book,


Im not condoning dog fighting, Im just saying that most people have no idea what dog fighting really entails.

There are a lot of things people do with their dogs that I find unnecessary and yes, cruel. And since day one humans have wanted to prove their dogs superiority in one area or another - why do we have dog sports and competitions? To prove our dog is better that day than the other dogs out there.

I just find it funny (?) interesting (?) (not sure what the right word is) how high and mighty we get about something barbaric like dog fighting (often with really no clue about it or its history) and yet something with an aristocratic seal of approval like fox hunting is not seen anywhere near in the same light.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

If its true the programme won't be shown then I am glad, I have no desire to watch the filth that participate in this (or any of their supporters) or increase their street cred by giving them air time.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Not necessarily.
> At least not on this side of the pond...
> There are old-school dogmen who still believe the only true test of what they call gameness is to see what a dog does when faced with another equally matched dog. Theyre looking to test for temperament, not to injure any dog.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that insight, Ouesi. There is very little reliable information in the public domain regarding dog fighting. Unfortunately, when documentaries such as the one mentioned in this thread are scheduled, everyone seems to want to censor them, which doesn't help matters at all.

My point in the post you quoted was regarding comparisons with horse-racing and illegal dog-fighting.

I have seen directly horses injured through the racing industry. They are treated (often at great cost, if the horse is worth a fair bit), or humanely euthanased. It is not the norm to fling them in a stable without pain relief, first aid or veterinary treatment until they die.

This is in contrast to the dogs injured through dog-fighting. I have seen at least three that I know of in the last ten years. All three were presented to a vet at least 24 hours after the injuries were sustained (it was 2 days in the case of one Rottweiler which had been more or less torn to shreds), all three were in a very bad way and had been left to wait - in pain - for veterinary attention. And all three died.

I know these are only examples, but they are the examples I have seen with my own eyes and touched with my own hands. And I know which 'industry' I would rather be a part of.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Shoshannah said:


> While death and injury is undeniably a regrettable part of horse-racing, it is not the aim. The aim of dog fighting is for injury to occur - for dogs to fight until one is too injured to go on, or dead.
> 
> It is not the same IMO.


Injury and death is a HUGE part of horse racing, while it might not be the aim, the end result is often the same, different means to an end.

Grand National is pretty much the horse run until they either get injured or they die.......... Plenty start a race very few finish.

The end result of farmed animals is often a scary and painful death..

I am against all the above, but I think it's insane to ban things because we don't want to see it... Did anyone start a petition to stop the documentary about the welfare and slaughter of farm animals for meat? Does anyone petition to try and stop the National?

I think it's a tad naive to say its " glamouring " dog fighting when no one has seen it, and that if people watch it they will get ideas................ If people are going to fight dogs they are going to, the TV is not going to make them.

So while I am against the all why are some animals worthy of not living a life of fear and pain and in other industries it's fine. Shooting is fine, horses dying at the National or as a result of the National is fine, slaughtering food animals is fine ( the last documentary on that was awful truly shocking but meat consumption is just fine).

I don't plan to watch it, but I hope those who do can then give an informed opinion on it, and that it exposes some who have a romantic notion about how utterly barbaric it really is..but then again we don't really know the true facts about it because it's illegal, the dogs might get the same kind of care as race horses and be as valuable..


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> Thanks for that insight, Ouesi. There is very little reliable information in the public domain regarding dog fighting. Unfortunately, when documentaries such as the one mentioned in this thread are scheduled, everyone seems to want to censor them, which doesn't help matters at all.
> 
> My point in the post you quoted was regarding comparisons with horse-racing and illegal dog-fighting.
> 
> ...


Some dogs in the dog fighting industry are worth a lot of cash too. 
I have not been part of the dog fighting industry, but I have been on both the groom side and the veterinary side of the sport horse industry (not racing, hunter/jumpers and eventing) and I have seen the whole gamut there of good, bad, and ugly. Humans have a lot to answer for in pretty much every animal related industry. Dog fighting is just one of them.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Shoshannah said:


> Thanks for that insight, Ouesi. There is very little reliable information in the public domain regarding dog fighting. Unfortunately, when documentaries such as the one mentioned in this thread are scheduled, everyone seems to want to censor them, which doesn't help matters at all.
> 
> My point in the post you quoted was regarding comparisons with horse-racing and illegal dog-fighting.
> 
> ...


There's a distinction that you've made between an illegal activity and a socially accepted one. While both have negative animal welfare consequences, one has the benefit of being able to seek veterinary treatment. I would assume that the addition of horse racing and the food chain to the documentary is where to draw the line regarding animal welfare.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I have seen in Spain carcasses of dead" fighting dogs" left to rot in the ditch...marks on their throats are sel fexplanatory..

It is a crime in Spain..but not one that they bother too much about...
Injured dogs often face long and agonising death...


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Im not condoning dog fighting, Im just saying that most people have no idea what dog fighting really entails.
> 
> There are a lot of things people do with their dogs that I find unnecessary and yes, cruel. And since day one humans have wanted to prove their dogs superiority in one area or another - why do we have dog sports and competitions? To prove our dog is better that day than the other dogs out there.
> 
> I just find it funny (?) interesting (?) (not sure what the right word is) how high and mighty we get about something barbaric like dog fighting (often with really no clue about it or its history) and yet something with an aristocratic seal of approval like fox hunting is not seen anywhere near in the same light.


As far as i am concerned and i think most people on tnis forum fopx hunting is just as barbaric, whatever the aristocracy think, and as for Spain, even the poor dogs kept by ordinary people are treated like vermin, kept outside and thrown dry bread to eat, and when hunting dogs are finished with they are hung,and left to die,because i believe the Spanish believe animals have no soul


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I cannot find anything that says the programme is cancelled....


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2014)

jaycee05 said:


> As far as i am concerned and i think most people on tnis forum fopx hunting is just as barbaric, whatever the aristocracy think, and as for Spain, even the poor dogs kept by ordinary people are treated like vermin, kept outside and thrown dry bread to eat, and when hunting dogs are finished with they are hung,and left to die,because i believe the Spanish believe animals have no soul


A lot of people find fox hunting barbaric, yes, but a lot of people also more easily accept the reasons" for fox hunting than they would the reasons for dogfighting.

As for your comments about Spain... Uh... thats a HUGE generalization about the Spanish dont you think? I lived in Spain for most of the 80s and the Spanish keep dogs as spoiled, beloved pets just as any other western culture does. I wouldnt judge an entire people based on what one segment of the population does.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Checks and balances.. would viewing the documentary have made more people think and possibly go away from dog fighting than encouraging someone new to participate? If the answer is the first, those who signed the petition have potentially condemned more dogs to suffering. As nobody has seen the actual program how do we know? 

I remember seeing a clip of a Ku Klux Klan member on something like Jeremy Springer years ago (may be wrong about the show). It was only after being confronted about her attitudes did she actually think about things and she came back to say she'd left the KKK. Who says people and programs can't influence positively?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Tarnus said:


> The problem you (and many others) are completely overlooking is that in order you make these documentaries you have to come to some sort of agreement with the subject which will always include protecting identities. Unless you do so you'll never make the documentary in the first place, because nobody would agree to go on camera if you were going to dob them in as soon as you finished filming.


There have been documentaries in the past about dog fighting rings, the journalists are under cover and those filmed eventually arrested & charged. To have a "relationship" with them whereby they agree to take part if their identities are hidden, and accordingly no criminal charges will be faced, doesn't sit right


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I'm not condoning dog fighting, I'm just saying that most people have no idea what dog fighting really entails.
> 
> There are a lot of things people do with their dogs that I find unnecessary and yes, cruel. And since day one humans have wanted to prove their dog's superiority in one area or another - why do we have dog sports and competitions? To prove our dog is better that day than the other dogs out there.


Anthropomorphising, I know, but you could say that about kids, too. We all believe our own kids are brighter/smarter/stronger than the rest of the class, but we hardly chuck _them _in the ring and get them to fight each other to "prove" they're the best on that day. As you (or someone) mentioned, there are plenty of other, much more humane dog sports in which your dog can prove you right.

And no, Ouesi, I know you're not pro-dog fighting 



> I just find it funny (?) interesting (?) (not sure what the right word is) how high and mighty we get about something "barbaric" like dog fighting (often with really no clue about it or it's history) and* yet something with an aristocratic seal of approval like fox hunting is not seen anywhere near in the same light*.


Maybe not to the aristocrats, but enough people were so appalled by fox hunting as to make it illegal. The Tories might be trying to propaganda us into accepting it and repealing the ban, but we're not all tarred with the aristocratic/Tory brush.

FWIW, if dog fighting weren't banned, I'd be all for the documentary being aired - if it was aired to expose the horror of dog fighting and to put pressure on those in power to illegalise it. What I fail to see, is the reason for the documentary in the first place. To expose something that's already illegal? Ok, but what's Joe Public going to do with the information once the documentary is aired?

And, before someone comes along and says something, I don't see the point of documentaries about murder/rape/other violent crimes, either.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> Anthropomorphising, I know, but you could say that about kids, too. We all believe our own kids are brighter/smarter/stronger than the rest of the class, but we hardly chuck _them _in the ring and get them to fight each other to "prove" they're the best on that day. As you (or someone) mentioned, there are plenty of other, much more humane dog sports in which your dog can prove you right.
> 
> And no, Ouesi, I know you're not pro-dog fighting


Not to take the thread totally off topic, but some parents out there are pretty warped when it comes to what they put their kids through. Sitting on the side-lines of any sporting event, or shows like Dance Moms and Toddlers and Tiaras are examples. A warped mindset that probably comes from the same place as the mindset that would put a beloved dog in danger to prove his prowess.



LinznMilly said:


> Maybe not to the aristocrats, but enough people were so appalled by fox hunting as to make it illegal. The Tories might be trying to propaganda us into accepting it and repealing the ban, but we're not all tarred with the aristocratic/Tory brush.
> 
> FWIW, if dog fighting weren't banned, I'd be all for the documentary being aired - if it was aired to expose the horror of dog fighting and to put pressure on those in power to illegalise it. What I fail to see, is the reason for the documentary in the first place. To expose something that's already illegal? Ok, but what's Joe Public going to do with the information once the documentary is aired?
> 
> And, before someone comes along and says something, I don't see the point of documentaries about murder/rape/other violent crimes, either.


I dont know what the motivation for making a documentary is in this case, but its certainly not unusual to make a documentary on illegal activities. The history channel and the discovery channel are full of documentaries on illegal drug use, addictions (with illegal activities filmed).

IDK... Im of the opinion that the more you know about something, the more likely you are to be able to make a difference in that area. Obviously dog fighting is not going to go away by making it illegal, so education is the next weapon in the battle. Educating not just the dog fighters but also those opposed to the sport. I have much more influence talking to dogmen if I actually know something about what Im talking about.

And like so many things the whole issue of dog fighting and those on the periphery like vets and rescue organizations is just not black & white. 
Was having lunch yesterday with a gal whos been in greyhounds for 40 years. The greyhound racing industry is another very controversial dog sport here in the States. We had a long talk about the industry and the role of rescue organizations who are involved in getting ex-racers adopted. Do these rescues end up condoning the sport by making it easier for kennels to get rid of ex-racers? Should these rescues even exist? How can someone who sees first hand the horrors of the GH racing industry continue to work with a racing kennel, knowing how those dogs are treated?

I think its far easier to see an absolute right and wrong when you look at something from afar, but figuring out how best to help the dogs becomes very complex and frankly just plain difficult when you get down there in the trenches.


----------



## Tarnus (Apr 5, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> There have been documentaries in the past about dog fighting rings, the journalists are under cover and those filmed eventually arrested & charged. To have a "relationship" with them whereby they agree to take part if their identities are hidden, and accordingly no criminal charges will be faced, doesn't sit right


It has to depend on the goal of your documentary. An undercover documentary often only shows things at face value; what goes on and give an impression of the people involved, but no depth as you have to maintain your cover and avoid detection. I imagine by agreeing to anonymity you can get closer to those involved, and get them speaking openly and candidly about the subject. Some will call it glorifying the subject (this applies to any documentary, not just this one), but for some I believe it can give an interesting insight into the subject and those who do it.

As Ouesi says, where problems exist, education can sometimes be a better preventative measure. And how can you educate without understanding the root of the problem, which is the people responsible.

I'm not saying I agree with the approach, but I can appreciate why it is done this way. If I knew WHY channel 4 were doing this I would then be in a position to pass judgement. Are they doing it to highlight awareness and provide a genuine insight? Then I don't have a problem, although it will be difficult to watch. Is it an attempt to boost ratings with a controversial documentary with no goal other than to cause shock and outrage? That would be a shame. Guess we'll never know.


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Tv producers only seem to care about viewing figures, ethics doesn't really come in to it.
Signed and shared on fb.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Well, I'll be watching it. How else will I be able to have an informed opinion on how they present their case. I hope it's not too bloody though. And considering most of this board (quite rightfully) go crazy at the mention of training by aversive methods, I hope the gangs are using reward based training to teach their dogs to fight or else we'll all be shouting at the telly. 

Looking at the hype for the programme I am not sure that it is helpful to fill peoples minds with the idea that factory farming and horse racing could be considered equally barbaric or else it will simply strengthen the case of those who fight their dogs and give them an excuse to continue. And probably encourage others to start. (Hey mum, I'm gonna teach Tyton to fight. You get cheap meat from Tescos and dad likes a flutter on the horses so whats the difference).

As for protecting identities. Yes, I've heard the 'we wouldn't get a good programme if we didn't' argument. But if you commit a crime the authorities should be informed. The dog fight trainers talk of late night sessions in disused car parks ...exchange the words 'dog fight trainers' for 'paedophiles' as most of us would probably say we shouldn't protect their identity. The law is the law.

J


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

But isnt it illegal what they have done? By filming it and not passing it to the police?

They are an accessorie to dog fighting and can be charged. 

Why are the authories not involved?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The thing is it can take a lot of work to get access to something like this. I remember seeing a photostudy someone had gotten permission to take of KKK members in their ordinary lives. They struggled with staying impartial and non-judgemental but to get access to something like that they had to. It's difficult to stomach but to show the worst groups sometimes you have to.

The police will be seeing the footage, it's being shown on tv after all. No idea if they'll hide the people's identities or not.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

If they were to film them killing a human and put it on tv that would be an accessory to murder. Dont see much difference in it. 

I hope the police do get involved


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Scabbers said:


> But isnt it illegal what they have done? By filming it and not passing it to the police?
> 
> They are an accessorie to dog fighting and can be charged.
> 
> Why are the authories not involved?


Maybe they are.  The documentary has been authorised by someone. The synapsis I posted on P3 makes it clear. What it doesn't make clear, is who authorised it, but they're hardly going to reveal that. :nonod:



Nicky10 said:


> The thing is it can take a lot of work to get access to something like this. I remember seeing a photostudy someone had gotten permission to take of KKK members in their ordinary lives. They struggled with staying impartial and non-judgemental but to get access to something like that they had to. It's difficult to stomach but to show the worst groups sometimes you have to.
> 
> The police will be seeing the footage, it's being shown on tv after all. No idea if they'll hide the people's identities or not.


Identities of the criminals involved are concealed from the camera. Again, it's in the link I posted on P3.


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

They are definitely still showing it. The person who got the email phoned them and asked why it was still being promoted and they said that they had considered the thousands of complaints but decided to air it anyway.

I don't think it is going to be promoting dog fighting, and I doubt that anyone watching will suddenly feel the urge to go out and fight dogs, but I don't like that the film makers were participating in illegal activities without then shopping the people involved. I don't care that they had to have their identities hidden in order for the programme to go ahead, they are still criminals involved in the abuse of animals and need to pay the price.

I'll probably record it and then watch it 'at my leisure' for want of a better phrase! I can then turn it off and complain if I feel the need, but I will be making my mind up after seeing it, rather than before. Though I don't think that people are necessarily overreacting by wanting it not to air, it won't be a nice programme, and I can totally understand them not wanting other people to see the results of dog fighting.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Sarah H said:


> Though I don't think that people are necessarily overreacting by wanting it not to air, it won't be a nice programme, and *I can totally understand them not wanting other people to see the results of dog fighting.*


Could anyone please explain this part to me? Honestly, I don't get it. I am actually quite annoyed that so many people who are signing the petition believe to have the right to decide what anyone else gets to watch! If you don't support the show and don't want to watch it, fair enough. If you don't want to watch it because of the upsetting images, that's fine by me too. There's plenty of other tv programmes on at that time. I respect the right of others not to want to watch it and they have the tools to do it. Change the channel, turn of the tv, go for a walk with the dog, read a book, go to bed early. But I am unhappy that others should decide that because they don't want to see it I shouldn't either. I actually want to watch it and hear the interviews with the people involved in dog fighting. I want to hear what they think of this nasty sport and why they are involved in it. I will be very annoyed if I don't get to watch it.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

That in prison and pregnant show had a woman that had been arrested because she was at a dog fight. Everyone takes part in some groups whatever age, gender or skin colour. Just because the image is of black teenage thugs or Michael Vick doesn't mean they're the only people involved.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Well i know of a group of people well known to do that esp round my area....

I have seen them on my travels........


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

ouesi said:


> A lot of people find fox hunting barbaric, yes, but a lot of people also more easily accept the reasons" for fox hunting than they would the reasons for dogfighting.
> 
> As for your comments about Spain... Uh... thats a HUGE generalization about the Spanish dont you think? I lived in Spain for most of the 80s and the Spanish keep dogs as spoiled, beloved pets just as any other western culture does. I wouldnt judge an entire people based on what one segment of the population does.


Maybe it was too much of a generalisation, but my son lives in Spain and the small dogs are pampered pets in general, its the big dogs that are mainly kept outside and treated very badly in most cases, the pounds are full of dogs that have been rescued /often escaped or sometimes left to roam if people get fed up of them
Give the Spanish babies to coo over and they love it, but animals are different, i had a Spanish friend once, until she swiped one of my cats off my coffee table, friendship over


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

shadowmare said:


> Could anyone please explain this part to me? Honestly, I don't get it. I am actually quite annoyed that so many people who are signing the petition believe to have the right to decide what anyone else gets to watch! If you don't support the show and don't want to watch it, fair enough. If you don't want to watch it because of the upsetting images, that's fine by me too. There's plenty of other tv programmes on at that time. I respect the right of others not to want to watch it and they have the tools to do it. Change the channel, turn of the tv, go for a walk with the dog, read a book, go to bed early. But I am unhappy that others should decide that because they don't want to see it I shouldn't either. I actually want to watch it and hear the interviews with the people involved in dog fighting. I want to hear what they think of this nasty sport and why they are involved in it. I will be very annoyed if I don't get to watch it.


I agree (I don't think I put my point across very well, as I said I plan on watching it and deciding for myself as I expect other people to), but having seen, first hand, the results of dog fighting, I wouldn't wish those sights on anyone


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Panorama's exposure of an international Dog Fighting ring and how a ban of the Breed some have made 'Dangerous' has failed to prove effective.

[youtube_browser]MA963En60fg[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

See for me it's morally a catch 22 situation I hate any sport that injures or hurts animals for human entertainment it makes me sick but then there are levels of many things that people find acceptable for sport and others not, blasting a bird out of the sky, caving a fishes head in, breaking rabbits necks, pushing to many horses over to high jumps resulting in injury and death, dogs running round s track while those not so good are shot illegally all the sporting events are deemed socially acceptable the suffering of the animals involved are ignored in the name of sport and are all legal..

Would it be better for the dogs if fighting was made legal? So there would be legislation, rules and proper welfare checks in place and proper vetinary treatment available? They can not seem to stop it, so would making it legal lessen the dogs suffering?

I would hate to think it would be and dog fighting disgusts me but it might protect some of the dogs :'(


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Would it be better for the dogs if fighting was made legal?
> 
> I would hate to think it would be but it might protect some of the dogs :'(


Bull fighting is legal in certain areas of the world. It only makes it more acceptable for those who wish to spectate or participate and doesn't make it any better for the animal or even protect it.:sad:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Zaros said:


> Bull fighting is legal in certain areas of the world. It only makes it more acceptable for those who wish to spectate or participate and doesn't make it any better for the animal or even protect it.:sad:


Very true Zaros I'd forgotten about bull fighting  another sport I deplore........

Jesus man really is evil..........


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2014)

Meezey said:


> See for me it's morally a catch 22 situation I hate any sport that injures or hurts animals for human entertainment it makes me sick but then there are levels of many things that people find acceptable for sport and others not, blasting a bird out of the sky, caving a fishes head in, breaking rabbits necks, pushing to many horses over to high jumps resulting in injury and death, dogs running round s track while those not so good are shot illegally all the sporting events are deemed socially acceptable the suffering of the animals involved are ignored in the name of sport and are all legal..
> 
> Would it be better for the dogs if fighting was made legal? So there would be legislation, rules and proper welfare checks in place and proper vetinary treatment available? They can not seem to stop it, so would making it legal lessen the dogs suffering?
> 
> I would hate to think it would be and dog fighting disgusts me but it might protect some of the dogs :'(


It actually hasnt been that long here that dog fighting has become illegal. 1976 I believe was when all 50 states made dogfighting illegal. Many turned to weight pull easily enough, but some old timers still believe the only true test of correct pitbull temperament is gameness and will only breed a dog who has been proven in a match. These matches are not what people typically think of as dog fights, not a spectator sport, certainly not the sensationalized blood baths you read about. Dogs are only given a few seconds with each other, separated, given a breather and then turned loose again for a few seconds, separated, and repeat. Again, notice how important it is for the dog to be completely 100% safe to handle even in a high arousal situation. These are the breeders who will argue that getting rid of this type of temperament test is in part to blame for the aggressive dogs out there who go after people.
But yes, this type of match is still very much illegal, but something some breeders are willing to risk to keep what they believe the true pitbull temperament alive.

Of course that dog fighting is illegal is the appeal for a lot of dogfighters, especially the drug/gang culture dog fighters which is arguably far more brutal and sadistic. No, I dont think legalizing dog fighting will solve the issue, personally I think its a societal issue, far more complex than any law can solve.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Like many other things.

Sex abuse and rape. Very hard to prove it. Doesnt mean you legalise it because you struggle to inforce the laws. 

Same way you dont legalise animal abuse because you cannot stop it.

The people that live around here would jump at the chance to make money on bets via dog fighting if it was made legal. 

People that wouldnt of bothered would start to bother....

Money is a great (or not so great) motivator


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Well good on the RSPCA! they are considering legal proceedings to obtain C4 dog fighting footage >>

RSPCA may seek court order to obtain dog-fighting footage | The Times

.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> Like many other things.
> 
> Sex abuse and rape. Very hard to prove it. Doesnt mean you legalise it because you struggle to inforce the laws.
> 
> ...


Again sorry I can never see what equating people's law etc towards animals? Two totally different things....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Well good on the RSPCA! they are considering legal proceedings to obtain C4 dog fighting footage >>
> 
> RSPCA may seek court order to obtain dog-fighting footage | The Times
> 
> .


Glad to hear it and I hope they are successful....

As I said I can't and won't watch it, I'm not burying my head in the sand I know what happens, I just chose not to witness it myself.

I do hope those who chose to watch it can give their informed opinion after it on what the true direction of story the doc told..


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Meezey said:


> Glad to hear it and I hope they are successful....
> 
> As I said I can't and won't watch it, I'm not burying my head in the sand I know what happens, I just chose not to witness it myself.
> 
> I do hope those who chose to watch it can give their informed opinion after it on what the true direction of story the doc told..


Exactly the way I feel Meezey. I was disturbed by the advert for the program & the impression it gave out as to the direction the documentary would take, so I wont be watching, but I will be very interested to hear opinions of members I have respect for, such as Snoringbear.


----------



## Frankthewonderhound (Aug 7, 2012)

The doc on the Farmer boys in '07 I think it was didn't lead to any convictions or even charges for that matter I don't think after it was aired, it took that little girl being killed in Liverpool for the uspca to raid their place and confiscate the dogs as they'd supplied her uncle with a pit

at the end of the day it's pointless getting worked up about it and a petition sadly isn't going to stop it being broadcast, it goes on, and probably always will, just don't watch it.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Found an interview with the filmmaker today:

Penny Woolcock: From pitbulls to prima donnas - Features - TV & Radio - The Independent


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

I am a bit confused by the people getting annoyed for their identity being protected.... because do you really think these people would of taken part in the program if you could of seen their faces and knew who they were? but then also surely ch4 would be legally obliged to report them to the police as they are carrying out a illegal act.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Found an interview with the filmmaker today:
> 
> Penny Woolcock: From pitbulls to prima donnas - Features - TV & Radio - The Independent


Having read that am not sure what the aim of the documentary is - appears to be about class and comparing to say horse racing and animals in the food chain. Is she saying its only thought of as repulsive because its poor people who take part?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

MrRustyRead said:


> I am a bit confused by the people getting annoyed for their identity being protected.... because do you really think these people would of taken part in the program if you could of seen their faces and knew who they were? but then also surely ch4 would be legally obliged to report them to the police as they are carrying out a illegal act.


She says in the article I posted above that she knows nothing about the identities of the people and would not be able to tell the police anything if they asked.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> She says in the article I posted above that she knows nothing about the identities of the people and would not be able to tell the police anything if they asked.


wow you would of thought they would of at least tried to get some justice


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

MrRustyRead said:


> wow you would of thought they would of at least tried to get some justice


It's not the job or responsibility of a journalist to get jjustice; that responsibility lies with the Police and the CPS. If journalists decided to go on crusades for justice and turning people over all the time they would never be trusted with a story and nothing woud ever come to light. In the long run it's better that journalists highlight issues such as this as it will put pressure on real authorities to mete out this justice people want.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

How is it the journalists responsibility to get justice? She's doing an expose not a burn them at the stake thing. Should the police want to prosecute they can probably get the unedited footage and details of filming but she has to remain impartial. Do you think they would have granted her the access she got if she was going to identify and seek prosecution? 

I do think class has something to do with it. Football is or at least was seen as the sport of lower class thugs, whereas rugby is much more violent yet more acceptable because it was traditionally more an upperclass sport. If any other sporting event had animals dying nearly every year it would be banned, yet the grand national is ok because the queen goes .


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Be that as it may they would of gone to the location where the fights took place right and THAT information should be passed onto the police shouldnt it???

Unless they were all blindfolded and thrown into the back of a van which i doubt.....


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> I do think class has something to do with it. Football is or at least was seen as the sport of lower class thugs, whereas rugby is much more violent yet more acceptable because it was traditionally more an upperclass sport. If any other sporting event had animals dying nearly every year it would be banned, yet the grand national is ok because the queen goes .


Off topic but felt the need to defend myself.

It is not the game of football that is seen as the sport of lower class thugs - it is a game for pussies that is supported by lower class thugs.

Rugby is not violent it is a full contact sport (that can incur a lot of serious injury) that originated in an upperclass arena but now supported by all walks of life.

(Guess who played prop until they were 46 years old, and if you think the mens game is violent I suggest you never watch us women play )


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Emmastace said:


> Off topic but felt the need to defend myself.
> 
> It is not the game of football that is seen as the sport of lower class thugs - it is a game for pussies that is supported by lower class thugs.
> 
> ...


Oh my school played it rather than football I've seen plenty of rugby and I agree with you on the whimp bit :lol:. Well the ones that dive to the ground screeching when someone brushes past them anyway.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Emmastace said:


> Off topic but felt the need to defend myself.
> 
> It is not the game of football that is seen as the sport of lower class thugs - it is a game for pussies that is supported by lower class thugs.
> 
> ...


Still off topic  my ex and his twin played football, semi pro at one time, and their younger brother played rugby (including for the county). Oddly the footballers got loads more injuries than the rugby player


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> It's not the job or responsibility of a journalist to get jjustice; that responsibility lies with the Police and the CPS. If journalists decided to go on crusades for justice and turning people over all the time they would never be trusted with a story and nothing woud ever come to light. In the long run it's better that journalists highlight issues such as this as it will put pressure on real authorities to mete out this justice people want.


i do hope they catch them though


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Still off topic  my ex and his twin played football, semi pro at one time, and their younger brother played rugby (including for the county). *Oddly the footballers got loads more injuries than the rugby player*


Must have been a back, they can run fast enough for far enough to get out of trouble. It's the poor forwards that have to stand and take the knocks


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

I have NEVER seen a program like this.

It should never have been aired. It should never have been made.

The dogs were fought FOR the cameras...


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

It is sick and inciting racial hated.... never seen anything like it.... what the actual ****?!!! 

Making mu complaint to C4 now 

Oh and just joined the BNP


----------



## kiara (Jun 2, 2009)

This program was really poorly made and i'm not sure if it was aired to discourage or encourage this barbaric sport! 

Some parts seemed to play it up as if its OK and some showed it as wrong.

I had to cover my eyes through some of it as they showed shooting of horses, slaughtering of pigs, rabbit being smashed on the floor!  I don't see how that is relevant  or what the actual aim of this documentary was!?!


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

kiara said:


> This program was really poorly made and i'm not sure if it was aired to discourage or encourage this barbaric sport!
> 
> Some parts seemed to play it up as if its OK and some showed it as wrong.
> 
> I had to cover my eyes through some of it as they showed shooting of horses, slaughtering of pigs, rabbit being smashed on the floor!  I don't see how that is relevant


I think they were trying to make the point that we inflict horrendous things on ALL animals but only the dog fighting is illegal. (I also think those rabbits were piglets).

It was all just very sad. The people involved just came across as very sad individuals. They think that it makes them hard but they just looked pathetic.

One positive though, anyone that thinks dog on dog aggression transfers to humans needs to watch that. Not one of those dogs showed one iota of aggression towards the humans around them even when they were mid fight.

I was actually surprised at the lack of aggression at all. I expected some kind of frenzied killing machines but it wasn't like that and that made it worse for me. I could almost understand it if it inspired an adrenaline rush in the spectator but there was nothing and that just made it all the worse somehow. Putting those dogs in the ring just came across as totally pointless.

The stupid thing is that I can see no reason whatsoever for doing it except the fact that it is illegal and the type of people that take part probably wouldn't do it if it was legitimate.

It wasn't what I expected at all.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Some people would do it if it was legal, there are pitbull people who love their dogs and see it as the same as a field trial for a gundog or a herding test for a collie.

I've not seen it yet, it's on record. Sounds like I really don't want to


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Emmastace said:


> The stupid thing is that I can see no reason whatsoever for doing it except the fact that it is illegal and the type of people that take part probably wouldn't do it if it was legitimate.


Culture and tradition also have a role. I find the idea of bullfighting barbaric but people who have grown up in certain cultures find it impossible to relate to my view as it's "normal".


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Some people would do it if it was legal, there are pitbull people who love their dogs and see it as the same as a field trial for a gundog or a herding test for a collie.
> 
> I've not seen it yet, it's on record. Sounds like I really don't want to


I could see there point if they put their dog in a pit with a bloody great bull!


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

The known dog fighters around here are all white....


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

kiara said:


> This program was really poorly made and i'm not sure if it was aired to discourage or encourage this barbaric sport!
> 
> Some parts seemed to play it up as if its OK and some showed it as wrong.
> 
> I had to cover my eyes through some of it as they showed shooting of horses, slaughtering of pigs, rabbit being smashed on the floor!  I don't see how that is relevant  or what the actual aim of this documentary was!?!


I thought the relevance was obvious. It was pointed out by both the presenter and legal expert towards the end that animal welfare laws are selective. Dog fighting is illegal but horrific standards and practices are accepted in intensively farmed animals in the food chain. Anyone eating a lifetime of intensively farmed meat is assisting and condoning animal abuse on a massive scale.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Emmastace said:


> I could see there point if they put their dog in a pit with a bloody great bull!


I wasn't justifying what they do just pointing out it's not all about look how 'ard my dog is.


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Culture and tradition also have a role. I find the idea of bullfighting barbaric but people who have grown up in certain cultures find it impossible to relate to my view as it's "normal".


Yes they showed the cultural background, I just wasn't convinced that was why they did it. It came across that they threw that in to try and justify it. The most accurate sounding reason was the psychologist type chappie (I missed his actual role) when he said the bit about the dog representing the owner, or how they saw themselves anyway. The owners were just too pussy to fight themselves and had dogs to do it to feed their own ego.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Got me thinking.... but this programme, for me, has done nothing else but to get me withdraw my donation to DDA Watch and reinforce the stereotype that blacks and asians bring their backward culture here and get away with it. 

I am getting tired of being politically correct, gypsies are more likely to steal your dog, Asiand/blacks are involved in dog fighting, upper/middle class people are more likely to to shoot/hunt.

None of it is acceptable, but there is NO justification for finding fun in animal suffering!


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

kiara said:


> I had to cover my eyes through some of it as they showed shooting of horses, slaughtering of pigs, rabbit being smashed on the floor!  I don't see how that is relevant


It was designed to provoke thought in regards to the way society views the treatment of animals which is unfortunately often less about their suffering and more to do with their species, use and the social standing of the people involved. Challenging people to think in that way often results in a very visceral reaction of anger/denial because it is very difficult to accept that something you think is OK is comparable to something that you view as absolutely wrong - because that would mean branding yourself a hypocrite and possibly a bad person.

If a pheasant reared in a tiny wire cage is shot and wounded for fun, is it's suffering not comparable to a dog that leads a relatively good life until it is wounded in a fight for fun? If people reared dogs to release into the countryside to shoot for fun would that be acceptable? If not why is it acceptable to do it to a bird? These are tricky questions that get even trickier for people when it comes to thinking about the suffering of animals used for food. It is possible to engage with them logically but because of the emotional and societal ties a lot of people are reluctant to and settle for saying x is not comparable with y.

I thought it was a good thought provoking, informative documentary. It showed the activity in it's raw, terrible state and it didn't shy from making some brave comparisons - though I can understand why those things will make people very angry. Of course I don't agree with all the views expressed in the film, I think the activity of dog fighting is absolutely wrong, but I also don't think it should be censored.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Muze said:


> Got me thinking.... but this programme, for me, has done nothing else but to get me withdraw my donation to DDA Watch and reinforce the stereotype that blacks and asians bring their backward culture here and get away with it.
> 
> I am getting tired of being politically correct, gypsies are more likely to steal your dog, Asiand/blacks are involved in dog fighting, upper/middle class people are more likely to to shoot/hunt.
> 
> None of it is acceptable, but there is NO justification for finding fun in animal suffering!


Wow all in one hour and a half . Because no one ever fought dogs here before those icky foreigners came over
https://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/background-dog-fighting

The end of bullbaiting brought dog fighting
Animal Rights Law | Bull-Baiting Debates 1800

But of course you'd have to go back to pre-Roman Britain to get any non-immigrants in the population so if you can find those records.

As I've said before it's scary how easy intelligent, educated people can be made to buy into propaganda.


----------



## bella2013 (Aug 29, 2013)

I think I understand where the programme was trying to come from but I still find it hard to watch, especially the black one that looked like she had just had pups (or been bred a lot in the past). 

I do understand where they're coming from in regards to the farmed animals as this is something that I have my views on. I think the dog fighting is seen differently as they are seen as pets and a part of the family but in some cultures they are seen as a form of entertainment same a horse racing or dog racing. 

I have my views on the fighting and I disagree with it the same as I do intensely reared animals but I think its going to happen no matter what the law is, for every one that is saved they'll just find another dog from somewhere else.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Muze said:


> Got me thinking.... but this programme, for me, has done nothing else but to get me withdraw my donation to DDA Watch and reinforce the stereotype that blacks and asians bring their backward culture here and get away with it.
> 
> I am getting tired of being politically correct, gypsies are more likely to steal your dog, Asiand/blacks are involved in dog fighting, *upper/middle class people are more likely to to shoot/hunt*.
> **upper/middle class white British people are more likely to shoot/hunt *
> ...


i guess you missed that white woman in the beginning of the programme?:001_rolleyes:


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I could only watch the first half an hour, found it too depressing and horrible.
Maybe later on they said something along the lines of 'animal abuse is bad' but it just sounded like they were glorifying it TBH. I would of preferred a more balanced view rather then just a bunch of hooded morons telling me how much dogs love fighting.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Muze said:


> Got me thinking.... but this programme, for me, has done nothing else but to get me withdraw my donation to DDA Watch and reinforce the stereotype that blacks and asians bring their backward culture here and get away with it.
> 
> I am getting tired of being politically correct, gypsies are more likely to steal your dog, Asiand/blacks are involved in dog fighting, upper/middle class people are more likely to to shoot/hunt.
> 
> None of it is acceptable, but there is NO justification for finding fun in animal suffering!


Hmmm so where in this thread have you been PC?

You have just shown you are a racist bigot as have those who liked your comments, strange how nothing said about the contents or animals suffering just your bigoted views!

One programme and you have it all labeled and joining the BNP!!! Let's not hide behind animal abuse to cover our bigotry!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Thanks to those who did have the stomach to watch it for your intelligent insight in to it, be interesting reading everyone's feelings here and else where on it as I just know it would have upset me to much to watch it.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I've made it 22 minutes just got to the upper class shooting people. The thing is they clearly care about the dogs as much as it seems to be me got 'ard dog. I want the big fawn one.

I can see why they're showing the shooting, the guy going on about dogs being man's best friend and how it's barbaric to set one animal on another and then shooting birds. Which is more acceptable because he's rich.

I don't quite get the Assyrian bit, they showed much worse things on their walls it's how we know anything they did. Impalings, flayings, taking slaves and lion hunting is the worst?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Not seen it apart from a few seconds when someone was speaking about the best ways to kill a dog.

But from comments elsewhere, can now understand why there was a petition to stop it being shown - someone in the know, involved with the making perhaps - thought it beyond the pale.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> I would of preferred a more balanced view rather then just a bunch of hooded morons telling me how much dogs love fighting.


The vast majority of people in the country are utterly against dog fighting, the reaction to this program shows that people think this is one of the most heinous things you can do in regards to animals. So did we really need someone to explain to us why dog fighting is a bad thing? What the programme tried to do was look at what dog fighters do and why they do it and also explored why society finds it so abhorrent when the suffering of other animals is accepted or positively encouraged. It wasn't done perfectly but that was the intention. Hopefully any person with a functioning brain can decide for themselves what they think and create their own balance. I highly doubt anyone watched that and thought "I used to despise dog fighting but now I've changed my mind ".


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> I don't quite get the Assyrian bit, they showed much worse things on their walls it's how we know anything they did. Impalings, flayings, taking slaves and lion hunting is the worst?


I thought it was ironic how much the shooting guy was slagging the dog fighting people yet turned around and enjoyed his shooting day out AND made a comment about how he is quite annoyed about hare coursing being illegal! :001_rolleyes: 
I think they hose the Assyrian lion hunting tradition in reference of cruelty against animals that would be done for the thrill and feeling of power. Also, the guy points out how the men were using horses during their hunting who obviously didn't want to face lions but were forced to do it by the humans. It was in relation to how dogs are put in the pit to fight each other even though they wouldn't want to do it.
I liked that the show pointed out repeatedly that the fighting dogs aren't just born to fight other dogs. It is human need for thrill, entertainment and feeling of power. Even the dog fighting people mention that dogs do it to please the owner and not because they are born inherently vicious beasts that want to tear up another dog on sight. I think the whole part about how dogs are trained physically (rather than just starved and punched/ kicked to evoke aggression) as well as chosen for breeding (no human aggression allowed) shows that dogs for dog fighting are selected and prepared in a similar fashion as dogs for any other sport (e.g. racing) that are conditioned physically and selectively bread only to suitable individuals.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Meezey said:


> Hmmm so where in this thread have you been PC?
> 
> You have just shown you are a racist bigot as have those who liked your comments, strange how nothing said about the contents or animals suffering just your bigoted views!
> 
> One programme and you have it all labeled and joining the BNP!!! Let's not hide behind animal abuse to cover our bigotry!


Hey, well Im a bigot too

*big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] Show IPA 
noun, plural big·ot·ries. 
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. * Bigotry | Define Bigotry at Dictionary.com

My beliefs and opinions stem from my upbringing, in a traditional English family, where I was taught to be kind to people, animals, and have respect for the elderly. So yeah Im bigoted against those that come here from third world countries, who live in the dark ages, and bring their despicable ways and traditions with them!

Don't bother throwing in the race card! The British public have had enough! Now run along to your volunteer work at the Soup Kitchen!


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Ang2 said:


> Hey, well Im a bigot too
> 
> *big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
> noun, plural big·ot·ries.
> ...


I guess education system failed then? :lol:


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

shadowmare said:


> I guess education system failed then? :lol:


Totally miss the point! Where were you educated? Rolls eyes lol


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The dark ages you mean when European civilisation was in chaos and much of the knowledge of the ancient world would have been lost if only for the Arabs who kept it. When they were making huge strides in astronomy and maths? Those dark ages. Iraq is where we invented farming and writing, north Africa where that knowledge came back to Europe from. 

England has never been a homogeneous, white Germanic nation. It's a shame people can't bother to open history books once in a while. We have access at the click of a button to the greatest repository of knowledge mankind has ever assembled, use it for more than pictures of cute cats


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

Ang2 said:


> Hey, well Im a bigot too
> 
> *big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
> noun, plural big·ot·ries.
> ...


Race is not an issue. Cruelty has got nothing to do with race.

I'm not white. I come from a third world country. And I've seen more cruelty to animals here then where I come from.

If you don't believe me.. Take a look around the pound.

As for dark ages, most third world countries are more liberal than here. And your post proves my point

That's not to say **** don't happen, of course it does but don't be ignorant and think it does not happen here.

What would you say if a person said the UK was full of peodophiles? (Ps I'm not saying this just trying to make a point)

Kind to people.. Bullsh&t

I don't see you at the soup kitchen.


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

Definition of racism in English

​Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that ones own race is superior:


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

Back to subject I could not bring myself to watch it but from what I've read it would appear that it fell short of what it was trying to achieve, which is a massive pity.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

There is a VERY well known group of people living where i live who are known to dog fight but they have irish accents and are white! I had never heard of other races did it aswell. 

BUT im gobsmacked everyone is missing the point to what i saw in that show. I turned it off during the fight BECAUSE of it and nobody has mentioned it at all.

The show was not an undercover going in to secretly film a REAL dog fight!

This was staged! They told the guy filming BEFORE the fight that this is for the cameras. Those dogs were fighting there and then for the entertainment of the camera crew! Thats it! Im not going to watch a show that does that!

That show was made at the dogs expense


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Scabbers said:


> The known dog fighters around here are all white....


Aroun my area it's generally asian gangs but that's completely by the by. Talking about barbarity, the 'white' race is more prone to serial killing and all sorts of other atrocities. It's funny how people see one thing and form a bias; it's my recollection that most cruelty to animal prosecutions are brought against white, British people.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

I had never heard of that before now. Its a evil human thing to do obviously then isnt it? Not a race/colour issue


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> I had never heard of that before now. Its a evil human thing to do obviously then isnt it? Not a race/colour issue


There are no black or asian gangs here but we do have gypsies. I have never seen anything to suggest dog fighting goes on but last week 2 gypsy boys stopped at my front garden to ask if we had any scrap or did we need any work doing and they saw our EBT puppy outside with us. They asked if we were going to fight her....so, it probably is rife up here too within the gypsy community.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Scabbers said:


> There is a VERY well known group of people living where i live who are known to dog fight but they have irish accents and are white! I had never heard of other races did it aswell.
> 
> BUT im gobsmacked everyone is missing the point to what i saw in that show. I turned it off during the fight BECAUSE of it and nobody has mentioned it at all.
> 
> ...


Dog fighting seems to be primarily an inner city past time and Birmingham has a high asian/black population. I dont think its race related so much as it is do with the inner cities...it just so happens that alot of big cities are more racially diverse then other areas.

I agree with the point about the dogs fighting though. This wasnt something that was filmed with a secret camera in an undercover investigation. this was something that was glorified and proudly shown to the documentary makers. 
As such they need to be prosecuted for participating in animal abuse!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

I watched it and it was interesting to see the "barbaric" slaughter of horses, game, pigs, poultry etc (all in the name of feeding people) ie humans deliberately killing animals for their own enjoyment being compared to people pitting dogs against each other for their own enjoyment.

It did not make me change my mind about dog fighting but it will be interesting to see if it alters the mind set of anyone who does enjoy this and/or discuss the shooting, horse racing, greyhound racing, meat eating/killilng practices of a huge majority of the human race.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I watched some of this programme, not really sure what the message was though. I only watched part of it cos it was on late and I couldn't be bothered stopping up any later.

Thought it was interesting the comparison Mr Wealthy White Upper Class guy with his gun and shooting pheasant and a comparison as an exciting blood sport as is dog fighting.

My conclusion to this was babaric past times know no social barriers and some people are just sick.

One thing the pheasant shooter did say was his family used to hare course but of course this was banned and the law was the law. Dog fighting is illegal, pheasant shooting isn't.

We used to send little boys up chimneys, thought the earth was flat....but we learned. Dog fighting needs archiving aswell.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Heres the RSPCA's response to the program.

_Hideous cruelty on Going to the Dogs. We don't believe this has been shot to help bring dog fighters to justice, but to court controversy_

.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> Dog fighting seems to be primarily an inner city past time and Birmingham has a high asian/black population. I dont think its race related so much as it is do with the inner cities...it just so happens that alot of big cities are more racially diverse then other areas.
> 
> I agree with the point about the dogs fighting though. This wasnt something that was filmed with a secret camera in an undercover investigation. this was something that was glorified and proudly shown to the documentary makers.
> As such they need to be prosecuted for participating in animal abuse!


I think dog fighting is much more widespread than anybody thinks. I live in a totally rural area, vast areas of open space, nearest big town has a population of 4000 and is 7 miles away.

I still can't work out what the aim of the programme was.

I saw 3 horses shot...what has that got to do with dog fighting?

Also, what I thought was really cruel re the dogs was the black and white dog, Sniper on a treadmill being made to go faster and faster til he couldn't run any more.....and the dog owners didn't look athletic at all.

And, what disgusted me the most was a young fawn bitch being put into a pit who didn't want to fight at all, had her tail under her legs and looked very upset...so what will happen to her if she won't fight? Poor dogs


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

Animal Aid: Going to the Dogs - Channel 4

This would be the petition I would sign


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Heres the RSPCA's response to the program.
> 
> _Hideous cruelty on Going to the Dogs. We don't believe this has been shot to help bring dog fighters to justice, but to court controversy_
> 
> .


well, thats a nice strong comment by RSPCA.....the programme didn't really have any purpose, did it? Or did I miss something?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> I watched it and it was interesting to see the "barbaric" slaughter of horses, game, pigs, poultry etc (all in the name of feeding people) ie humans deliberately killing animals for their own enjoyment being compared to people pitting dogs against each other for their own enjoyment.
> 
> It did not make me change my mind about dog fighting but it will be interesting to see if it alters the mind set of anyone who does enjoy this and/or discuss the shooting, horse racing, greyhound racing, meat eating/killilng practices of a huge majority of the human race.


I saw the horses shot in what I assume to be a British slaughterhouse, for whatever reason they were shot wasn't what I was thinking....but the 3 were clean kills and more humane than them being sent from auction to auction and finally being picked up by a meat man and sent on a long and gruelling journey across the continent to be slaughtered anyway by more cruel methods than what actually happened to them.

I think killing for food is one thing and must be done as humanely as possible but killing for sport is disgusting.

I am against horse and dog racing. Horse racing is worth billions, don;t know about the financial stuff re dog racing and money talks.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

Muze said:


> Got me thinking.... but this programme, for me, has done nothing else but to get me withdraw my donation to DDA Watch and reinforce the stereotype that blacks and asians bring their backward culture here and get away with it.
> 
> I am getting tired of being politically correct, gypsies are more likely to steal your dog, *Asiand/blacks are involved* in dog fighting, upper/middle class people are more likely to to shoot/hunt.
> 
> None of it is acceptable, but there is NO justification for finding fun in animal suffering!


Wow! I just come back onto this thread and this is the first thing I see. You're not being P.C, you're making a massive sweeping assumption and being racist.

Asians and blacks (I don't like the term "blacks", "black people" sits better with me) *are*involved in dog fighting? How can you say every single black and asian person is definitely involved in dog fighting? I'm half black, my Mum is black and my Bajan grandparents are black, they don't fight dogs. I have lots of Asian friends, they don't fight dogs.

Of course in certain areas you will get people more likely to fight dogs, certain dogs and these people may fall into a certain age group, some people may be black, some white, some people may be Indian. But to say make such a statement? Ludicrous.

You just can't make statements like that.

Back on track, has the programme already been aired? Which is what I originally came to see.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> *I watched it and it was interesting to see the "barbaric" slaughter of horses, game, pigs, poultry etc (all in the name of feeding people) ie humans deliberately killing animals for their own enjoyment being compared to people pitting dogs against each other for their own enjoyment.*
> 
> It did not make me change my mind about dog fighting but it will be interesting to see if it alters the mind set of anyone who does enjoy this and/or discuss the shooting, horse racing, greyhound racing, meat eating/killilng practices of a huge majority of the human race.


That's a really interesting point..


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

If we cant get them done for illegal dog fighting for the sake of ratings then maby people ort to mention the fact that the guy pulled out an illegal gun right before the dog fight. That gun will land the monster in jail for 5 years.

Why did C4 not report the illegal gun


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> The vast majority of people in the country are utterly against dog fighting, the reaction to this program shows that people think this is one of the most heinous things you can do in regards to animals. So did we really need someone to explain to us why dog fighting is a bad thing? What the programme tried to do was look at what dog fighters do and why they do it and also explored why society finds it so abhorrent when the suffering of other animals is accepted or positively encouraged. It wasn't done perfectly but that was the intention. Hopefully any person with a functioning brain can decide for themselves what they think and create their own balance. I highly doubt anyone watched that and thought "I used to despise dog fighting but now I've changed my mind ".


The only thing I can think of re dog fighting is money and status.
an easy way to make money from fighting selling and breeding and the status from being top of the pile.


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

MerlinsMum said:


> Not seen it apart from a few seconds when someone was speaking about the best ways to kill a dog.
> 
> But from comments elsewhere, can now understand why there was a petition to stop it being shown - someone in the know, involved with the making perhaps - thought it beyond the pale.


I can't say 'to be fair' because nothing about that programme was fair but just to put that tiny bit you described above into some kind of perspective with the rest of the programme... That particular person was describing the ways some people put to sleep those dogs that are too damaged to repair. He kept using the phrase 'kill a dog' and it wasn't until the interviewer asked right at the end of the clip 'why would you want to kill a dog' and he explained that it was to put them out of suffering that it made any kind of insane sense. The methods he was describing were exactly the methods used routinely on other animals but he was saying that in his opinion they should have an overdose of anesthetic not be electrocuted or bashed over the head or shot. It was followed shortly by the clip about the dog fight that was cancelled because the dogs had been seized by police who then just killed the dogs they seized anyway. In one way he was talking about the killing of damaged dogs that were past saving and doing that humanely. The police were killing perfectly healthy dogs. I'm not defending the programme, the people involved in dog fighting, C4 or anyone else. There is no defence to forcing to dogs into a confined space to fight. Showing that against all the other things we do to animals that is wrong and in some cases worse in my opinion does not make any of it acceptable. I am just lost about what can actually be done about it.


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

Scabbers said:


> If we cant get them done for illegal dog fighting for the sake of ratings then maby people ort to mention the fact that the guy pulled out an illegal gun right before the dog fight. That gun will land the monster in jail for 5 years.
> 
> Why did C4 not report the illegal gun


We don't know it was illegal. I got the impression it was for protection in case a dog attacked a human so it may have been a stun gun. It may have been a starting pistol. It may have been a plastic toy. We don't know.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> Dog fighting seems to be primarily an inner city past time and Birmingham has a high asian/black population. I dont think its race related so much as it is do with the inner cities...it just so happens that alot of big cities are more racially diverse then other areas.
> 
> I agree with the point about the dogs fighting though. This wasnt something that was filmed with a secret camera in an undercover investigation. this was something that was glorified and proudly shown to the documentary makers.
> As such they need to be prosecuted for participating in animal abuse!


Im sorry but i live in the sticks and not a city and whitres are fighting them here. Its widespread x


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Well, thats the first time Ive ever made a complaint to a tv channel!


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

these people are sick in the head! to try and compare it to horse racing is stupid, these people take part with the intent for their dog to get harmed, i dont agree with the horse racing industry in so aspects but they dont tend to put their horse in race with the intention for it to die. the worst part so far has been watching them bolt the horses in the head.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

Muze said:


> Got me thinking.... but this programme, for me, has done nothing else but to get me withdraw my donation to DDA Watch and reinforce the stereotype that blacks and asians bring their backward culture here and get away with it.
> 
> I am getting tired of being politically correct, gypsies are more likely to steal your dog, Asiand/blacks are involved in dog fighting, upper/middle class people are more likely to to shoot/hunt.
> 
> *None of it is acceptable, but there is NO justification for finding fun in animal suffering!*


Carrying on from what smokeybear said and your reply too, what about animals who are slaughtered for food? What about things like the cheese on a pizza? The burger at the fun fair? Junk food and food that contains animal products that are enjoyed on a daily basis on fun occasions? Parties, birthdays, weddings etc etc.

We use animals for our fun and pleasure, so whilst by no means am I saying if you eat animal products you are 'as bad as dog fighter', but I can see the point being raised. I am not being a preachy Vegan (as I feed my own dogs animal products so I am no 'moral platform') I just think it makes for interesting thinking.

Sorry to have derailed the thread and from looking at the comments and the anger caused, I think I may give the documentary a miss.

ETA no sooner had I hit 'submit' my fiance sent me a message saying 'Btw I taped this for you to watch 'Gone to the dogs' ' So I think I may watch it, but preparing myself for the worst.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Emmastace said:


> We don't know it was illegal. I got the impression it was for protection in case a dog attacked a human so it may have been a stun gun. It may have been a starting pistol. It may have been a plastic toy. We don't know.


The firearm displayed was a Beretta 92F 9mm, not a stun gun. it could have been a fullscale replica as we didn't see it fired, but it was instantly recognizable as a 9mm Beretta - check the footage against the images for this firearm:

, , beretta 92f, , 9mm, - 1600x900, 9894


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

very unlikely it was a toy or replica...but I know nothing about guns


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

AJ600 said:


> Animal Aid: Going to the Dogs - Channel 4
> 
> This would be the petition I would sign


Hang on I am a bit confused. Animal Aid admit that they supplied footage that was used in the film - so they contributed to the making of it. Why didn't they report everything they knew at the time they were asked to help the film makers.

The police know who is doing it and seize dogs and destroy them, that was shown in the film.

I'm not sure what the RSPCA are supposed to do. They are useless at the best of times when it comes to your every day domestic abuse of animals. Granted they like to get involved in large scale high profile stuff but these dogs are well cared for and in peak fitness up to the point that they enter the ring and then it is a criminal matter. I can't see that if the police know about it but haven't informed the RSPCA unless the police can't see a reason for their involvement either.

I am actually a bit disgusted with Animal Aid because the way I see it they used the making of that film as a vehicle to air their own footage but did sod all to help the dogs and bleat on that everyone else should do something.


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> very unlikely it was a toy or replica...but I know nothing about guns


The point being we don't know and shouldn't make assumptions. I didn't get why that was even shown unless it was to try and say something about the people involved. All it confirmed for me was that they were pointless dregs of humanity.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

sorry but to compare it to the horse racing industry and meat industry is point blank stupid. we have legislation in place to make the execusion of meat animals as painless as possible all be it i know there are a few cases where they dont stick to this legislation. but to put your dog into a situation like a fight is point blank cruel as you are deliberately causing pain to your animal that you say you love.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Emmastace said:


> The point being we don't know and shouldn't make assumptions. I didn't get why that was even shown unless it was to try and say something about the people involved. All it confirmed for me was that they were pointless dregs of humanity.


hand guns have been illegal in this country for several years. Dog fighting is also illegal but these people really don't care if they are breaking the law or not cos they are doing exactly what they want to do.
If the man with the gun says the gun was for protection, have to assume it was real cos no dog is going to stop if it sees a replica.

Hand guns were difficult enough to obtain legally before the ban....no way does that man have a gun legally.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

MrRustyRead said:


> sorry but to compare it to the horse racing industry and meat industry is point blank stupid. *we have legislation in place to make the execusion of meat animals as painless as possible *all be it i know there are a few cases where they dont stick to this legislation. but to put your dog into a situation like a fight is point blank cruel as you are deliberately causing pain to your animal that you say you love.


Picking up from that point then. What if we put in legislation for dog fighting that had rules to make it as 'painless as possible, all be it a few cases where they don't stick to the legislation'. That way it is humane?

From my point of view. It doesnt matter if the animal is being hurt for sport, food, fun - it's all point blank cruel. There is no 'right' or 'humane' way to let an animal suffer. Just because we, as a society don't necessarily 'love' pigs in the same way we do a cat or a dog, it doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

Scabbers said:


> The firearm displayed was a Beretta 92F 9mm, not a stun gun. it could have been a fullscale replica as we didn't see it fired, but it was instantly recognizable as a 9mm Beretta - check the footage against the images for this firearm:
> 
> , , beretta 92f, , 9mm, - 1600x900, 9894


I can't think of any circumstance where I would need to recognize a firearm and I can't think of any reason to watch that programme again just to find out whether your knowledge of firearms is correct. Even more so because I would still be in the position where I don't know whether it was a replica or not. 
If the police know who these people are then they probably know about any weapons and will have their own reasons for what they are or aren't doing about it.

In the great scheme of things I would be a lot less worried about someone having a firearm to protect themselves and others from potential harm at an illegal dog fight than someone who had the same firearm for other reasons.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Pupcakes said:


> Picking up from that point then. What if we put in legislation for dog fighting that had rules to make it as 'painless as possible, all be it a few cases where they don't stick to the legislation'. That way it is humane?
> 
> From my point of view. It doesnt matter if the animal is being hurt for sport, food, fun - it's all point blank cruel. There is no 'right' or 'humane' way to let an animal suffer. Just because we, as a society don't necessarily 'love' pigs in the same way we do a cat or a dog, it doesn't mean it's right.


no because fighting is wrong, all be it getting 2 pigs to fight, 2 chickens to fight etc and there is no humane way to do it.

people need to push for higher legislation to ban things like battery hens etc, i agree a lot of it isnt humane but personally i can not see the meat industry being stopped as if they were to put a ban on it what would happen to the mass of animals we have within the industry atm?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

MrRustyRead said:


> sorry but to compare it to the horse racing industry and meat industry is point blank stupid. we have legislation in place to make the execusion of meat animals as painless as possible all be it i know there are a few cases where they dont stick to this legislation. but to put your dog into a situation like a fight is point blank cruel as you are deliberately causing pain to your animal that you say you love.


You missed the point. We have legislation which allows animals to be raised in overcrowded conditions, without bedding and no access to the outdoors and natural light. It's not just the killing, it's the horrific life they lead all for the sake of cheap food and human enjoyment of it.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Yes i agree but the law wont. If he was to get locked up for dog fighting he is looking at a slap on the wrist with 12 weeks inside. For having an illegal gun its 5 years.

And it never crossed my mind the gun was there as protection to people against the dogs. 

I took it they were going to shoot a dog with it should it be fatally wounded. 

Either way its sick and should never have been aired. Full stop isnt it.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> You missed the point. We have legislation which allows animals to be raised in overcrowded conditions, without bedding and no access to the outdoors and natural light. It's not just the killing, it's the horrific life they lead all for the sake of cheap food and human enjoyment of it.


mentioned that in my last post 

This is the exact reason i myself only buy high welfare meat and so do all of my family, but unfortunately there are still people who dont realise what cruelty is involved in their cheap eggs and cheap meat. things need to change, its just not acceptable to have such cruelty anymore


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

MrRustyRead said:


> mentioned that in my last post
> 
> This is the exact reason i myself only buy high welfare meat and so do all of my family, but unfortunately there are still people who dont realise what cruelty is involved in their cheap eggs and cheap meat. things need to change, its just not acceptable to have such cruelty anymore


Yes, we must of typed at the same time  I'm the same with animal produce, too.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

MrRustyRead said:


> no because fighting is wrong, all be it getting 2 pigs to fight, 2 chickens to fight etc and there is no humane way to do it.
> 
> people need to push for higher legislation to ban things like battery hens etc, i agree a lot of it isnt humane but personally i can not see the meat industry being stopped as if they were to put a ban on it what would happen to the mass of animals we have within the industry atm?


From my point of view, in my dream world, no animals would be killed and slaughtered, I agree with you when you say the 'meat' industry (I dislike the term 'meat' as it is a product of a living being who was once 'someone', but this is me waffling) will not be stopped, but I believe Snoringbear summed up what I was trying to say without wittering on!

And in regards to the animals we have at the moment? I'm not going to pretend I know the exact amount of animals living and where they would go, but all I know is, if the industry stopped breeding all these animals for the sole purpose of food, they would not take over the world as some people, not yourself, have said to me! I suppose they would be killed and production would be stopped? I think some people believe that the animals used in the industry are natural, born free, animals and the industry is 'keeping the numbers down and the balance of man to human ratio in balance'.

But this is me taking this thread way off track, apologies OP.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Yes, we must of typed at the same time  I'm the same with animal produce, too.


great minds think alike 



Pupcakes said:


> From my point of view, in my dream world, no animals would be killed and slaughtered, I agree with you when you say the 'meat' industry (I dislike the term 'meat' as it is a product of a living being who was once 'someone', but this is me waffling) will not be stopped, but I believe Snoringbear summed up what I was trying to say without wittering on!
> 
> And in regards to the animals we have at the moment? I'm not going to pretend I know the exact amount of animals living and where they would go, but all I know is, if the industry stopped breeding all these animals for the sole purpose of food, they would not take over the world as some people, not yourself, have said to me! I suppose they would be killed and production would be stopped? I think some people believe that the animals used in the industry are natural, born free, animals and the industry is 'keeping the numbers down and the balance of man to human ratio in balance'.
> 
> But this is me taking this thread way off track, apologies OP.


trust me ive considered going veggie but with my issues with food it isnt possible for me to do so.


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

MrRustyRead said:


> mentioned that in my last post
> 
> This is the exact reason i myself only buy high welfare meat and so do all of my family, but unfortunately there are still people who dont realise what cruelty is involved in their cheap eggs and cheap meat. things need to change, its just not acceptable to have such cruelty anymore


I find it hard to believe that some people don't know what halal meat is yet the government allow it unmarked to be sold in supermarkets supplied to schools hostipitals and prisons without our knowledge david Cameron states I won't stop it as " we all need to respect other religeons' in other words he got no backbone and will not dare to offend certain people.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

MrRustyRead said:


> great minds think alike
> 
> trust me ive considered going veggie but with my issues with food it isnt possible for me to do so.


I'm not here to judge or preach. But when it comes to animal rights I can't keep my mouth shut!

If you ever want to try any Vegan recipes, some of my meals are blinkin stunnin' if I do say so myself, or if you are interested in aspect of Veganism, please feel free to PM me. I think I'll respectfully leave this thread now as it's going a touch of track.

I will watch the documentary tonight though.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

What was the purpose of the programme? Ummm to make money and to up the profile of the programme makers?

And the more controversial they try to make it, the better of course.

Did it achieve anything? No not really.

I suppose the message was if I eat meat or watch horse racing I should support dog fighting. 

Hmm  strange message but there you go. I do eat meat btw. 

And of course much was played on the fact that we all like bloodshed (hits on youtube for beheadings etc) and that animal killing is historic. Well I don't watch beheadings and historic animal abuse may be, but that doesnt mean we cant try to improve things like improving farming methods/buying responsibly from source/and criminalising abuse of dogs. 

Why didnt someone (professional) over talk the canine body language of the two dogs put into fight first? It was clear for all to see. Calming signals galore. And what did human do? Prod it (about six times). Oh we dont egg them on to fight says one of the individuals. 

I dont really see that any particularly outstanding points were made. Its a sport by people who want to look tough but are too afraid to fight themselves so use animals to do it for them. But I knew that anyway.

J


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

snoopydo said:


> I find it hard to believe that some people don't know what halal meat is yet the government allow it unmarked to be sold in supermarkets supplied to schools hostipitals and prisons without our knowledge david Cameron states I won't stop it as " we all need to respect other religeons' in other words he got no backbone and will not dare to offend certain people.


unfortunately there are people who still dont know


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> Dog fighting seems to be primarily an inner city past time and Birmingham has a high asian/black population. I dont think its race related so much as it is do with the inner cities...it just so happens that alot of big cities are more racially diverse then other areas.


Race hasn't anything to do with it, she chose to film in Birmingham as she already had criminal connections there, it happens everywhere, not just in large cities, it happens in small all white rural communities. Hence why racist comments by some p me off, one programme that carefully played to stereo types has the bigots saying they joined BNP.. Seriously how narrow mined are some people. Shooting is is not just a sport of the upper classes, and dog fighting is not just a sport for the black and Asian inner city community, but then people just love to jump on any excuse to show racism...


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

MrRustyRead said:


> *sorry but to compare it to the horse racing industry and meat industry is point blank stupid.* we have legislation in place to make the execusion of meat animals as painless as possible all be it i know there are a few cases where they dont stick to this legislation. but to put your dog into a situation like a fight is point blank cruel as you are deliberately causing pain to your animal that you say you love.


This is precisely the reaction I was referring to when I said a few posts back:

" Challenging people to think in that way often results in a very visceral reaction of anger/denial because it is very difficult to accept that something you think is OK is comparable to something that you view as absolutely wrong - because that would mean branding yourself a hypocrite and possibly a bad person. "

Why is it point blank stupid? Suffering to an animal is suffering and they don't care at all for the reasons it's inflicted.

It's simply false to say that meat animals live their life as painless as possible, if that were true then they'd be free to express natural behaviour, not have restrictive anatomy and have far more acceptable levels of fear, stress and pain than they do now. But that doesn't happen because most people won't pay for it and massive demand necessitates industrial supply.

The broiler (meat) chicken imo is the most systematically abused animal in our society today. They are often too heavy to stand up most of the time, suffer chronic leg pain (along with high rates of blisters, hock burn and foot pad dermatitis), cannot express most natural behaviours, are caught and transported in a less than humane way (how do you empty a shed of 25,000 birds humanely?) and when slaughter comes around they are shackled by their legs in a way that has been clearly demonstrated to cause pain. This is legal and systematic. We rear millions of indoor intensive broilers in the UK each year and people are eating more of them than ever before.

If you asked me whether I'd like to be reincarnated as a fighting dog or a broiler chicken then without hesitation it would be the fighting dog. Why is that point blank stupid?


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

At the end of the day people have a problem with it being compared to other types of abuse because the abuse IS NOT related! 

Raising farm animals to eat is different to raising animals to be killed for pure entertainment. You can act if you dislike eating meat. You stop eating it. 

Animals raised for meat have no real intent to harm the animals. They are raised to provide enough meat for a growing population. If people dont like this fact then stop eating meat and stop reproducing and putting even more demand on a failing meat market.

And as for racing dogs and horses. I do not support, watch or bet so im doing what i can to boycott them in protest. Shooting is cruel to an extent but the animals will be eaten too.

You can hardily prevent dog fighting.The dogs are being bred and fought for pure sadistic enjoyment! We do not raise animals for meat or racing to be sadistic to them. Motivation behind the abuse MATTERS! Because the average person on the street has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I happened across the Race Horse death list they briefly displayed on the show. It's grim reading.

Race Horse Death Watch


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> This is precisely the reaction I was referring to when I said a few posts back:
> 
> " Challenging people to think in that way often results in a very visceral reaction of anger/denial because it is very difficult to accept that something you think is OK is comparable to something that you view as absolutely wrong - because that would mean branding yourself a hypocrite and possibly a bad person. "
> 
> ...


Did you miss this post?



MrRustyRead said:


> no because fighting is wrong, all be it getting 2 pigs to fight, 2 chickens to fight etc and there is no humane way to do it.
> 
> people need to push for higher legislation to ban things like battery hens etc, i agree a lot of it isnt humane but personally i can not see the meat industry being stopped as if they were to put a ban on it what would happen to the mass of animals we have within the industry atm?


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Snoringbear said:


> I happened across the Race Horse death list they briefly displayed on the show. It's grim reading.
> 
> Race Horse Death Watch


I'm stunned at the number!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> At the end of the day people have a problem with it being compared to other types of abuse because the abuse IS NOT related!
> 
> Raising farm animals to eat is different to raising animals to be killed for pure entertainment. You can act if you dislike eating meat. You stop eating it.
> 
> You can hardily prevent dog fighting.


But why is one animals suffering acceptable and another not?

So I take it you are a vegan? You can't change the meat industry by just you stopping eating meat and by products, just like those of us who hate dog fighting can't stop it by not watching it...........  Animals raised for meat often live in awful conditions and have painful long drawn out deaths, why is that okay? Greyhounds suffer awful lives and deaths if they don't make the grade.

Not one person has said why ones animals suffering for humans is acceptable but others aren't irrespective of how they suffer they suffer? Why is hunting animals okay?


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Meezey said:


> But why is one animals suffering acceptable and another not?
> 
> So I take it you are a vegan? You can't change the meat industry by just you stopping eating meat and by products, just like those of us who hate dog fighting can't stop it by not watching it...........  Animals raised for meat often live in awful conditions and have painful long drawn out deaths, why is that okay? Greyhounds suffer awful lives and deaths if they don't make the grade.
> 
> Not one person has said why ones animals suffering for humans is acceptable but others aren't irrespective of how they suffer they suffer? Why is hunting animals okay?


Im sorry but where have i said its acceptable? Please point it out to me and i will amend it immediately!

Any abuse against an animal is wrong and yes i eat meat but mine comes from a source im pleased with the way they raise and slaughter their animals.

But why are you bringing up other types of abuse? Are you trying to excuse the actions of the people fighting their dogs as thats certainly what it sounds like?

If you would like to discuss the imhuman conditions of livestock then maby open another thread?

Or shall we discuss child abuse and domestic voilence here too? Being as people are more then happy to turn a blind eye to that too.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

BessieDog said:


> I'm stunned at the number!


And that doesn't include those which are "retired" and die/get injured in training etc.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> At the end of the day people have a problem with it being compared to other types of abuse because the abuse IS NOT related!
> 
> Raising farm animals to eat is different to raising animals to be killed for pure entertainment. You can act if you dislike eating meat. You stop eating it.
> 
> ...


So if people start eating the dogs it would make it all right then?  :nono:


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Channel 4′s 'Going to the Dogs' | Animal welfare blog | RSPCA Insights

Meezy please point out where i have said what your accusing me of


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> Im sorry but where have i said its acceptable? Please point it out to me and i will amend it immediately!
> 
> Any abuse against an animal is wrong and yes i eat meat but mine comes from a source im pleased with the way they raise and slaughter their animals.
> 
> ...


Because it is relevant?

SO again why is one animal suffering okay and another isn't?


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

There is no excuse for any animal abuse but no abuse case is the same and putting themn in the same catagory is a mistake.And any case of abuse against any animal should be delt with, with a VERY heavy hand! 

You are sounding like your making excuses for the dog fighters myself....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> Channel 4′s 'Going to the Dogs' | Animal welfare blog | RSPCA Insights
> 
> Meezy please point out where i have said what your accusing me of


You have stated shooting is okay because they eat the kill and farming is okay because they eat it?

You think it's not related I think it is... Not sure why you have given me that link.. Love how people slag the RSPCA off for being useless then they are used as the "voice of animal welfare" when it suits...


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Scabbers said:


> There is no excuse for any animal abuse but no abuse case is the same and putting themn in the same catagory is a mistake.And any case of abuse against any animal should be delt with, with a VERY heavy hand!
> 
> You are sounding like your making excuses for the dog fighters myself....


Nobody, including the programme makers, is using other forms of animal abuse to attempt to justify dog fighting. It's presented as being a case of where do you draw the line? Is it acceptable in horse racing (in the link I posted earlier) that 1119 horses have met their death through injury and destruction over the past 7 years so people can enjoy horse racing? Dog fighting is wrong and illegal, but why is this level of abuse legal?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Meezey said:


> You have stated shooting is okay because they eat the kill and farming is okay because they eat it?
> 
> You think it's not related I think it is... Not sure why you have given me theat link.. Love how people slag the RSPCA off for being useless then they are used as the "voice of animal welfare" when it suits...


I did think it was ironic how a 64 year old woman was able to get access to a dog fighting ring in a matter of weeks. My question to the RSPCA would be why didn't they get there first. Probably too many wills and inheritances to contest or something.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2014)

I havent watched the actual documentary, obviously Im not in the UK for one, but also Im at a point in my life where Ive seen enough cruelty in real life, I dont need to sign up for it on screen to get the gist of what is going on.

As I read through the replies, a figment of a though keeps popping up in my head, hopefully I can articulate it coherently....

We humans have been exploiting animals since the first cavemen hit a rat over the head with a rock and ate it. We ALL exploit animals for our own pleasure, in many different capacities. I think we need to stop getting up on our high horses about how *my* treatment of animals is more honorable than *your* treatment of animals and just accept that we are all participants on some level or another. 

I think we do need to ask ourselves why we (humans in general) find exploitation in the name of food more acceptable than exploitation in the name of entertainment. Both are for pleasure. That leg of lamb is no more necessary to a first-world fat-cat than the dog fight is necessary to the inner-city thug. 

In a similar way, something like greyhound racing is also for human entertainment, and dogs suffer. So what makes dog fighting worse? Is it the degree of suffering? How do you measure an animals suffering and where do you draw the line at what is acceptable and what goes too far?

Or is the objection to dog fighting (as opposed to racing for example) that the intent is violence against another animal? If the objection is violence against another animal then you have to start looking at the hunting and shooting sports.

To me its a much more complicated discussion than a simple dog fighting is bad and dog fighters are evil. I think opening up the discussion to other areas of animal exploitation and suffering, and having a long, hard, objective look at our biases and justifications is worthwhile. And in the end, we hope, beneficial to these animals we all love and admire so much.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Actually i was posting that anyway to show people what they had said. That was not for you. 

I saw what you said after and replyed at the same time. 

BTW i hate hunting! If i had a say it would be banned outright with racing dogs, horse, fighting dogs, and inhumane raising of animals for meat.

Wonder when channel4 are going to start airing live sex attacks...


----------



## Tarnus (Apr 5, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> *I watched it and it was interesting to see the "barbaric" slaughter of horses, game, pigs, poultry etc (all in the name of feeding people) ie humans deliberately killing animals for their own enjoyment being compared to people pitting dogs against each other for their own enjoyment.*
> 
> It did not make me change my mind about dog fighting but it will be interesting to see if it alters the mind set of anyone who does enjoy this and/or discuss the shooting, horse racing, greyhound racing, meat eating/killilng practices of a huge majority of the human race.


I haven't watched it but I do think you've maybe used the wrong terminology here. I don't agree with saying killing animals for consumption, and making them fight are both "for enjoyment". Yes I enjoy eating meat, but I don't believe we're meant to be vegetarian, so killing animals is a necessity. It should be done humanely, but I wouldn't say it is "for enjoyment". If you want to call it that, then I would say dog fighting is for entertainment, as there is a difference between the two.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Scabbers said:


> At the end of the day people have a problem with it being compared to other types of abuse because the abuse IS NOT related!
> 
> Raising farm animals to eat is different to raising animals to be killed for pure entertainment. You can act if you dislike eating meat. You stop eating it.
> 
> ...


But these animals are raised purely to be slaughtered .... which I would have throught is intent to cause harm to them surely


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

MrRustyRead said:


> Did you miss this post?


No, I just didn't think the points were very convincing. None of your arguments explain why a comparison between two uses of animals is 'point blank stupid' rather than a valid discussion on why society finds causing the suffering of some animals abhorrent and others acceptable.



MrRustyRead said:


> no because fighting is wrong, all be it getting 2 pigs to fight, 2 chickens to fight etc and there is no humane way to do it.


So it's the fighting rather than the suffering that you object to? So if a broiler chicken suffers just as much as a fighting dog that's OK because the reason it's suffering is not 'wrong'? Some farming systems do inherently cause animals to mutilate each other - many laying hens have the (sensitive) tips of their beaks trimmed off and pheasants have rings or gags inserted into their nasal septum to prevent them cannibalising each other. Both these procedure cause pain but are done because of the way these animals are farmed.



MrRustyRead said:


> people need to push for higher legislation to ban things like battery hens etc, i agree a lot of it isnt humane but personally i can not see the meat industry being stopped as if they were to put a ban on it what would happen to the mass of animals we have within the industry atm?


Better legislation is never going to come whilst consumer demand for cheap meat increases. You cannot see the meat industry changing but it's already changed beyond recognition from what it was 100 years ago. If you'd have told someone 300 years ago that there would be any legislation at all to protect animals then you'd have been laughed at, I'm an optimist enough to think society is capable of moving away from how we treat farmed animals today. What would happen to all the farmed animals? They'd be slaughtered and breeding would be altered to meet demand - just like what happens now.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> No, I just didn't think the points were very convincing. None of your arguments explain why a comparison between two uses of animals is 'point blank stupid' rather than a valid discussion on why society finds causing the suffering of some animals abhorrent and others acceptable.
> 
> So it's the fighting rather than the suffering that you object to? So if a broiler chicken suffers just as much as a fighting dog that's OK because the reason it's suffering is not 'wrong'? Some farming systems do inherently cause animals to mutilate each other - many laying hens have the (sensitive) tips of their beaks trimmed off and pheasants have rings or gags inserted into their nasal septum to prevent them cannibalising each other. Both these procedure cause pain but are done because of the way these animals are farmed.
> 
> Better legislation is never going to come whilst consumer demand for cheap meat increases. You cannot see the meat industry changing but it's already changed beyond recognition from what it was 100 years ago. If you'd have told someone 300 years ago that there would be any legislation at all to protect animals then you'd have been laughed at, I'm an optimist enough to think society is capable of moving away from how we treat farmed animals today. What would happen to all the farmed animals? They'd be slaughtered and breeding would be altered to meet demand - just like what happens now.


urmmmmm i never said anything like what you are saying, you are taking what i posted out of context. so i shall leave you to it


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Snoringbear said:


> Nobody, including the programme makers, is using other forms of animal abuse to attempt to justify dog fighting. It's presented as being a case of where do you draw the line? Is it acceptable in horse racing (in the link I posted earlier) that 1119 horses have met their death through injury and destruction over the past 7 years so people can enjoy horse racing? Dog fighting is wrong and illegal, but why is this level of abuse legal?


I dont think any of those types of abuse is acceptable. But People are continuing to have children and put pressure on the production of animals for meat. The more animals needed to feed the populations the less room and humanity to go around for them. The solution is simple as far as that goes. Shrink the population and you shrink the demand for meat.

Hunting should be banned. Gambling should also be banned. That would hopefully stop alot for dog/horse racing and SOME dog fighting. That would help some.

But what could help dog fighting? Dog fighting is purely sadistic and a sign of a "sick" society


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2014)

Tarnus said:


> I haven't watched it but I do think you've maybe used the wrong terminology here. I don't agree with saying killing animals for consumption, and making them fight are both "for enjoyment". Yes I enjoy eating meat, but I don't believe we're meant to be vegetarian, so killing animals is a necessity. It should be done humanely, but I wouldn't say it is "for enjoyment". If you want to call it that, then I would say dog fighting is for entertainment, as there is a difference between the two.


Again it becomes a matter of degrees. Yes, humans are meant to eat meat, but not in the obscene amounts we do today. And there is no need to factory farm meat animals in the conditions we put them in to supply that meat. Some of the meat we eat IS indeed for nothing but enjoyment. Caviar, pate, lamb, veal... None of that is a necessity.

Saying humans were meant to eat meat does not excuse the conditions of the modern meat industry. Thats like a greyhound racer saying a sighthound is meant to run therefore the racing industry is okay.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Tarnus said:


> It should be done humanely, but I wouldn't say it is "for enjoyment". If you want to call it that, then I would say dog fighting is for entertainment, as there is a difference between the two.


But people eat far more meat today than they did historically. For example in 1950 a British person on average ate less than 1 kg of chicken per year, a British person today consumes an average of 25kg of chicken per year (About chickens farmed for meat | Compassion in World Farming). This suggests it's more than a necessity and is done for enjoyment making your distinction between the two pretty cloudy.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> I dont think any of those types of abuse is acceptable. But People are continuing to have children and put pressure on the production of animals for meat. The more animals needed to feed the populations the less room and humanity to go around for them. The solution is simple as far as that goes. Shrink the population and you shrink the demand for meat.
> 
> Hunting should be banned. Gambling should also be banned. That would hopefully stop alot for dog/horse racing and SOME dog fighting. That would help some.
> 
> But what could help dog fighting? Dog fighting is purely sadistic and a sign of a "sick" society


No dog fighting like all of the above is about human gain... MONEY.......... The drive behind dog fighting is like horse racing, greyhound racing etc....


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Scabbers said:


> I dont think any of those types of abuse is acceptable. But People are continuing to have children and put pressure on the production of animals for meat. The more animals needed to feed the populations the less room and humanity to go around for them. The solution is simple as far as that goes. Shrink the population and you shrink the demand for meat.


Nope, it's not that simple. Although population growth is a real factor, the people that we have on the planet now are eating more meat per head and they want it cheaper. I'd like to know your 'simple' solution for shrinking the human population, all the solutions I can think of are pretty grim.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

And that is why the programe wins....

Divides people to such an extent they cannot even agree that dog fighting is wrong.

I personally think that dog fighting is worse then other forms of abuse. Simply because they LOVE to see the dogs tearing chunks out of each other! 

I HATE other forms of animal abuse but dog fighting REALLY upsets me! 

I agree the whole country needs an animal rights over haul and to start from scratch but thats a whole different ball game!

This thread is so off topic now it might as well be closed. And thats the reason why no justice will ever come to those dogs because its like "oh but that dog or horse or chicken is suffering too"

Yes and im trying to help them too but for now i want to look and talk about dog fighting and what channel 4 has done is illegal!


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Scabbers said:


> I dont think any of those types of abuse is acceptable. But People are continuing to have children and put pressure on the production of animals for meat. The more animals needed to feed the populations the less room and humanity to go around for them. The solution is simple as far as that goes. Shrink the population and you shrink the demand for meat.
> 
> Hunting should be banned. Gambling should also be banned. That would hopefully stop alot for dog/horse racing and SOME dog fighting. That would help some.
> 
> But what could help dog fighting? Dog fighting is purely sadistic and a sign of a "sick" society


Easy. Eat less meat, or pay more for high welfare meat. As the posts below have stated we eat an excessive amount of meat today, people gorge themselves unnecessarily for enjoyment. Allowing intensive farming to meet these demands is simply making an excuse for the animal cruelty involves, because it suits people to do so. This was the point of the comparison in the programme.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Scabbers said:


> And that is why the programe wins....
> 
> Divides people to such an extent they cannot even agree that dog fighting is wrong.


erm I'm fairly sure that nobody here disagrees that dog fighting is wrong, not really sure where you got that idea...


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Snoringbear said:


> Easy. Eat less meat, or pay more for high welfare meat. As the posts below have stated we eat an excessive amount of meat today, people gorge themselves unnecessarily for enjoyment. Allowing intensive farming to meet these demands is simply making an excuse for the animal cruelty involves, because it suits people to do so. This was the point of the comparison in the programme.


I do not eat meat as an enjoyment. I eat it because i must.

Alot of people i know do not know HOW to make a veggie dinner. Or how to eat right or healthy. So how can we blame people who are being mislead into thinking eating lots of meat is good for us?

Why not blame the corporations raising the animals in poor standards and flogging it to the poor because they cannot afford to eat anything else. They are hardily being transparent about how their meat is raised are they. Showing tv adverts for nice fluffy lambs running about a field in the sun when in fact they are stuck in a muddy puddle of a field with foot rot!

And yes i have been in a suitation where i could only afford to eat poor mans sausages.

Lets all be honest if given the chance we would raise animals ourselves to eat and kill them ourselves to make sure its done correctly. But we are DENIED that with the lack of land!

There would be no need for extensive farming, and why is gambling so legal in horse racing and dog racing? Ban gambling would people still go to the races? Why are we all pointing fingers at each other when the governemnet has not banned gambling? Its hardily considered a healthy past time, especially in reccession..

I personally think the reason people find dog fighting so much worse is because you are completely helpless to stop it! At least you can ammend your own living conditions around eating meat or racing. You cannot with dog fighting. Thats what makes it so harsh.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Pupcakes said:


> Picking up from that point then. What if we put in legislation for dog fighting that had rules to make it as 'painless as possible, all be it a few cases where they don't stick to the legislation'. That way it is humane?
> 
> From my point of view. It doesnt matter if the animal is being hurt for sport, food, fun - it's all point blank cruel. There is no 'right' or 'humane' way to let an animal suffer. *Just because we, as a society don't necessarily 'love' pigs in the same way we do a cat or a dog, it doesn't mean it's right.*


The same goes for rats (sorry, it's my personal bugbear  ), many 'animal lovers' are quite happy to put down poison to give rats (often at the expense of other species) a slow & painful death, but are careful where they go to for their meat, but it's alright because they are vermin & easily anthropomorphised into a villain with an agenda (funny how we never transfer human emotions onto them when they are being tortured in the name of science)



Snoringbear said:


> I happened across the Race Horse death list they briefly displayed on the show. It's grim reading.
> 
> Race Horse Death Watch


That is just shocking, I don't like the industry anyway but I never realised just how high the 'official' (as you say, doesn't include retirees & training deaths, or those that just don't make the grade) death toll was :frown2:

I suppose it's seen as more acceptable because racing animals not usually as bloody & gory as fighting animals.

Interestingly pro racing people use the same excuses as pro fighters as justification: 'it's what they were bred for', 'they love to do it', 'without the industry they wouldn't have been born.....'


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> erm I'm fairly sure that nobody here disagrees that dog fighting is wrong, not really sure where you got that idea...


Because everyone now seems to be ignoring it and making excuses in favour of trying to shove other types of abuse under your nose. Which is exactley what the scum bags fighting their dogs were doing....

Sorry but it makes me so angry! Im not having a go at anyone btw...  Just ready to blow up!


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

I do not think dog fighting should be compared with food animals but i do however think it should be compared to bull baiting/bear baiting and bull fighting. 

Why is only one of them legal? Surely if they legalise dog fighting then bull fighting will come straight back. Then bear baiting?

And good point with rats and poison but i also dont agree with that either. 

If you cannot kill an animal without a head shot then it shouldnt be killed...


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Scabbers said:


> I do not eat meat as an enjoyment. I eat it because i must.


I'm not really sure that's true



Scabbers said:


> Alot of people i know do not know HOW to make a veggie dinner. Or how to eat right or healthy. So how can we blame people who are being mislead into thinking eating lots of meat is good for us?


Google is your friend

Again, good old Google! You are such a pal!



Scabbers said:


> Why not blame the corporations raising the animals in poor standards and flogging it to the poor because they cannot afford to eat anything else. They are hardily being transparent about how their meat is raised are they. Showing tv adverts for nice fluffy lambs running about a field in the sun when in fact they are stuck in a muddy puddle of a field with foot rot!
> .


The big corporations are at fault, granted, but they can't should 100% of the blame when so many people follow them blindly. People need to stop expecting to be nannied, get off their bottoms & do something for themselves rather than complaining from an armchair


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2014)

Scabbers said:


> Because everyone now seems to be ignoring it and making excuses in favour of trying to shove other types of abuse under your nose. Which is exactley what the scum bags fighting their dogs were doing....
> 
> Sorry but it makes me so angry! Im not having a go at anyone btw...  Just ready to blow up!


My comments were not meant to make excuses for dog fighting, but to look at the bigger picture of a culture that excuses other forms of exploitation and suffering. If we examine our biases that allow us to be okay with other forms of animal suffering, then it might give us insight that help improve the lot of ALL animals. Surely thats a good thing in the long run?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Scabbers said:


> Because everyone now seems to be ignoring it and making excuses in favour of trying to shove other types of abuse under your nose. Which is exactley what the scum bags fighting their dogs were doing....


Nobody is ignoring it, quite the opposite. The question is why we feel the abuse of dogs in this way is so horrific that it cannot even be discussed in the same breath as the similarly great pain and suffering we as a society inflict on other animals? The answer to this question is difficult and thinking about it makes people angry (it's clearly making you angry) but that doesn't mean the discussion should not be had and I personally don't think having it detracts from the revulsion we all feel about the act of dog fighting.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Oh i agree with you.

But when i had no money and all i could afford was 8 sausages a day. The protein in the sausages was worht more then a loaf of bread.

I ate like that for nearly a year. Without those sausages i prob wont be here today. 

Its not as clear cut. 

But for the most part i agree. I would say people need to CARE more! Its made too easy to ignore it. 

BUT the dog fighting lark. Most people dont want to ignore it and would like to stop it....But cant...

Thats why to me its worse


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> I do not eat meat as an enjoyment. I eat it because i must.
> 
> Alot of people i know do not know HOW to make a veggie dinner. Or how to eat right or healthy. So how can we blame people who are being mislead into thinking eating lots of meat is good for us?
> 
> ...


You don't HAVE to eat meat not in this day and age, certain countries have very little meat in their diet, it's mostly vegetarian.

We do amend our living conditions, we chose not to support Horse racing, greyhound racing ( often to the detriment of our careers), don't eat meat Veggie from I was 13) and we chose not to go shooting or hunting they are only impact we can have on those areas where animals die for humans. In dog fighting you can not watch it, or support it and people can go to prison for it, that's a hell of a lot more being done, than in legal activities.

No one is making excuses and the programme hasn't done anything, in my eyes ALL forms of human exploitation of animals should be heavily legislated and carry higher sentences, just because I have a pet dog, does not mean I think a cow, pig, rat, pheasant should be afforded any less rights, compassion than that dog..................

No one is defending the Dog Fighers, no one thinks it's okay, no one is making excuses or ignoring it, each for of abuse should be equal but it's not!!!!


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2014)

Scabbers said:


> I do not eat meat as an enjoyment. I eat it because i must.


Sorry, have to get on my veggie soap box for a minute 
No human *must* eat meat. Yes, we are omnivores and meat eating is normal for humans, but not exactly necessary. A well-nourished vegetarian diet is not only possible, but many cultures throughout the world live long healthy lives never or very rarely eating meat.

As a side note, a friend of mine was not willing to give up meat, but she could not reconcile the treatment of animals in order for her to get her meat. So she now only eats meat that she is 100% sure was treated and slaughtered humanely. Which for her means only eating meat that she either hunts herself or raises and slaughters herself. Which when you think about it, is the way all of us used to get our meat. 
I admire her for this.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Give me a garden or peace of land to raise my own livestock and im more then happy to.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

How much do you spend a week on being a veggie? I seldom eat fresh fruit or veg because i cannot afford it =(

Meat sadly is cheaper.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Sorry, have to get on my veggie soap box for a minute
> No human *must* eat meat. Yes, we are omnivores and meat eating is normal for humans, but not exactly necessary. A well-nourished vegetarian diet is not only possible, but many cultures throughout the world live long healthy lives never or very rarely eating meat.
> 
> As a side note, a friend of mine was not willing to give up meat, but she could not reconcile the treatment of animals in order for her to get her meat. So she now only eats meat that she is 100% sure was treated and slaughtered humanely. Which for her means only eating meat that she either hunts herself or raises and slaughters herself. Which when you think about it, is the way all of us used to get our meat.
> I admire her for this.


I always maintain that we are designed to eat more plant based foods due to the length of our intestine & our blunter dentition, interestingly our 2 closest primate relatives are the chimp (omnivore, but still mainly plant-based with some additional insectivorous/carnivorous) & bonobo (vegetarian/frugivore).

It's only been since the advent of factory farming that meat has become considered a 'daily staple' in the human diet rather than a 'treat' & like Ouesi says, many cultures eat little or no meat


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> Oh i agree with you.
> 
> But when i had no money and all i could afford was 8 sausages a day. The protein in the sausages was worht more then a loaf of bread.
> 
> ...


We don't need to eat meat, we choose to. There is plenty protein in beans and pulses....and beans are cheaper than sausages. Cheap sauasages have very little meat content anyway and the meat they do have is questionable and very poor quality.

People don't realise how widespread dog fighting is cos they don't hear it or see it...so its not their problem. Plenty people don't like dogs anyway...so again, not their problem.

We used to have animals in circuses all the time in UK and people got it reduced and then stopped. Not sure just how far it goes now re live animals in circuses, if it is banned or not...went to Blackpool Tower circus when I was a kid, dogs, horses, tigers, lions, elephants....never thought anything was wrong and it was such a treat...then I got educated along with plenty more.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Scabbers said:


> How much do you spend a week on being a veggie? I seldom eat fresh fruit or veg because i cannot afford it =(
> 
> Meat sadly is cheaper.


I cannot believe for one minute that high welfare meat is cheaper than vegetables and fruit.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Scabbers said:


> How much do you spend a week on being a veggie? I seldom eat fresh fruit or veg because i cannot afford it =(
> 
> Meat sadly is cheaper.


Why not buy pulses/beans/grains instead of meat? Make lentil stew with vegetable suet dumplings, replace meat with mushrooms, the list goes one pretty much indefinitely


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Scabbers said:


> How much do you spend a week on being a veggie? I seldom eat fresh fruit or veg because i cannot afford it =(
> 
> Meat sadly is cheaper.


You are kidding aren't you? Meat is far more expensive and more intensive to produce.

At uni, my daughter used to buy an organic veg box that lasted her week. Add some tinned tomatoes, pasta, pulses and rice and she ate very cheaply. She didn't buy meat because she couldn't afford it.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Getting off topic here.

I personally think the pitbull ban should be lifted. All its done is ban good owners from keeping them. The horrible abusive people still own them after all.....


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2014)

Scabbers said:


> Give me a garden or peace of land to raise my own livestock and im more then happy to.


You dont need livestock. You can raise meat rabbits or chickens. They dont need a whole lot of room 

See, thats what I mean about necessity. Is it the meat that your body *needs* or is it a certain type of meat that you *want*?
In many of those third world countries someone was slating a while back, meat is very much a luxury, and big livestock even more so. You raise what you can in the space that you have, and you eat far less meat.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> How much do you spend a week on being a veggie? I seldom eat fresh fruit or veg because i cannot afford it =(
> 
> Meat sadly is cheaper.


You can live on just veg cheaply, end of the day most supermarkets drop their prices at the end of the day, places like Lidl are great for veg. Strangle being Vegetarian is a life choice for some because they can not afford meat, and what you pay on cheap sausages that hold very little nutritional value would get you fruit or veg or pulses that provide you with so much more. Easier to grow your own veg than to have live stock too..


----------



## Dogz85 (Jun 11, 2014)

signed! something needs to be done


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

this was about 5 years ago before everything turned crap and expensive. 

Im overhauling my diet as it goes now. Lost 9kg this year so far.

Trying to cut out as many unhealthy things as possible. Problem is i still have not got a clue what i should be eating. 

Anyho back to the real topic of dog fighting huh.

Does anybody else think that pitbulls should be legalised? The problem with dog fighting is they blame the victim for the abuse people inflict on them!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Meezey said:


> You can live on just veg cheaply, end of the day most supermarkets drop their prices at the end of the day, places like Lidl are great for veg. Strangle being Vegetarian is a life choice for some because they can not afford meat, and what you pay on cheap sausages that hold very little nutritional value would get you fruit or veg or pulses that provide you with so much more. *Easier to grow your own veg* than to have live stock too..


There's an idea  if you have a garden of any size, or even a balcony or sunny windowsill, you can grow things.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> this was about 5 years ago before everything turned crap and expensive.
> 
> Im overhauling my diet as it goes now. Lost 9kg this year so far.
> 
> ...


They are legal in Ireland.....


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

But the ban should be lifted here too


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> But the ban should be lifted here too


I don't believe there should be banned breeds in any country.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Meezey said:


> I don't believe there should be banned breeds in any country.


Something we agree on!


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Snoringbear said:


> I happened across the Race Horse death list they briefly displayed on the show. It's grim reading.
> 
> Race Horse Death Watch


I would think that is the tip of the ice berg.

Plenty more fit sound horses end up being slaughtered/sold at auction for nothing more than the owner got behind with a livery bill.

Others not quite fast enough...costs the same to feed a goodun as a bad un...others that won't break from the crowd...others who are stressed out and panic when being loaded into stalls...and so it goes on.

Go to any horse auction and the racehorses are there. Sometimes slaughtering them in a UK abbattoir is the kindest option.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Why doesnt the government ban gambling?


----------



## Tarnus (Apr 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Again it becomes a matter of degrees. Yes, humans are meant to eat meat, but not in the obscene amounts we do today. And there is no need to factory farm meat animals in the conditions we put them in to supply that meat. Some of the meat we eat IS indeed for nothing but enjoyment. Caviar, pate, lamb, veal... None of that is a necessity.
> 
> Saying humans were meant to eat meat does not excuse the conditions of the modern meat industry. Thats like a greyhound racer saying a sighthound is meant to run therefore the racing industry is okay.


No I agree, when I said it should be done humanely I meant the whole process, not just the killing of the animals. The same could be said of greyhound racing - if the dogs were treated well then think it would be a good sport/industry. Unfortunately we all know there are trainers/breeders out there who don't treat their racing dogs well.


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

Wow this thread is hard to follow. 

So in summary

We all agree more should be done to ban dog fighting

In terms of the meat industry, actually no including food industry because veg food has just has many consequences. We should all eat less, more sustainably and loose weight in the process sounds good to me.

On a serious note though cruelty takes many forms and just because it's socially acceptable does not make it right. And we all have voices if you don't think something is right say so. 

If you want things to change then change it. Don't moan about how one person cannot make a difference history is full of people who have done so. For example buy meat from an ethical source. Don't buy the supermarket stuff buy locally same thing with veg.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Scabbers said:


> Why doesnt the government ban gambling?


Because it makes them too much money


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

lilythepink said:


> well, thats a nice strong comment by RSPCA.....the programme didn't really have any purpose, did it? Or did I miss something?


I didn't watch it, but that is EXACTLY what the RSPCA have come out and said, the program didn't have any purpose. Channel 4′s 'Going to the Dogs' | Animal welfare blog | RSPCA Insights

*No purpose to the documentary *

_Going to the Dogs' however, did not seem to serve any such purpose. Dog fighting is already illegal, and the RSPCA and other enforcement bodies are already doing everything possible to uncover this activity and bring those involved to justice. Other than support the RSPCA's efforts, there is nothing that the public can do to stop this suffering. So we're not sure how attending and filming an illegal dogfight (which is illegal in itself), failing to share the footage or criminals identities with the RSPCA or the police and then broadcasting the fight, serves to help stop dog fighting or alleviate the suffering of the dogs in last nights show.

In the absence of a clear point being made or a cause to get behind, the documentary seemed to strive to validate its purpose by comparing dog fighting to other animal welfare issues such as farmed animal welfare and horse racing. It posed the question, if these are ok, why is dog fighting bad? However, the attempts to justify dog fights came across as nothing more than disingenuous red herrings designed only to court controversy. After all, if the film makers were genuinely concerned with the horse racing industry or poor farming practice, why not make a documentary to expose these animal welfare issues which are legal and where change could potentially come. Or did Channel 4 really believe dog fighting should be made legal again? _


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Scabbers said:


> I do not eat meat as an enjoyment. I eat it because i must.
> 
> Alot of people i know do not know HOW to make a veggie dinner. Or how to eat right or healthy. So how can we blame people who are being mislead into thinking eating lots of meat is good for us?
> 
> ...


My mum is 74. Youngest of 6 children born before we had a welfare state. Her dad kept a pen at the back of the house. he kept hens and ducks and rabbits.My mum never remembers ever eating red meat as a child, also will tell you they were all well fed and she never went hungry.The neighbours swapped potato peelings for eggs. My granddad swapped ducks and ducklings for anything and everything. They reared rabbits and swapped and sold these too.My mums oldest brother is now 84. Granny died aged 91.

My granny baked and took in washing for people.

There would be no point in keeping 1 cow for your own table....cos the last one we had slaughtered weighed in at 750kgs dead weight and that was almost 3 years ago and we still have some in the freezer.That has fed my whole family.

People would eat less meat if they did raise it and kill it themselves. When you look how much effort a hen puts into laying a simple egg a day, you value the egg more than just buying one in a box from Tesco....same goes from your own meat.

Also, a cow is a herd animal, cruel to keep 1 on its own.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I'm finishing it now just got to the fight :001_unsure: that was horriific.

The joy of being omnivores we don't have to eat meat. It doesn't take that much land to raise some chickens and maybe a few meat rabbits if you want to. Cows and sheep take a lot of land to keep a herd of course but there are other options.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> My mum is 74. Youngest of 6 children born before we had a welfare state. Her dad kept a pen at the back of the house. he kept hens and ducks and rabbits.My mum never remembers ever eating red meat as a child, also will tell you they were all well fed and she never went hungry.The neighbours swapped potato peelings for eggs. My granddad swapped ducks and ducklings for anything and everything. They reared rabbits and swapped and sold these too.My mums oldest brother is now 84. Granny died aged 91.
> 
> My granny baked and took in washing for people.
> 
> ...


I also class small animals such as rabbits and chickens as livestock. shouldnt i?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> I didn't watch it, but that is EXACTLY what the RSPCA have come out and said, the program didn't have any purpose. Channel 4′s Going to the Dogs | Animal welfare blog | RSPCA Insights
> 
> *No purpose to the documentary *
> 
> ...


TBH, their response doesn't tally with my observations of the show. Rather, it appears more to be jumping on the bandwagon of outrage and indignation, which started even before the programme was aired, in an effort to gain donations. It certainly didn't attempt to justify dog fighting by comparing them to horse racing etc, rather it was the other way round, asking why these practices are legal.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> You dont need livestock. You can raise meat *rabbits* or chickens. *They dont need a whole lot of room*
> 
> See, thats what I mean about necessity. Is it the meat that your body *needs* or is it a certain type of meat that you *want*?
> In many of those third world countries someone was slating a while back, meat is very much a luxury, and big livestock even more so. You raise what you can in the space that you have, and you eat far less meat.


I don't know the minimum for chickens, but the general minimum standard for domestic rabbits is a 6ft x 2ft hutch with a run of at least 6ft x 6ft, so technically to raise them as ethically as possible you'd need a fair bit of space, the usual cages for farmed rabbits are considered not very ethical at all


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Just finished it, they showed intensive farming and the footage was from PETA-lite sorry animal aid. I have no doubt animals are treated that way though. But they weren't justifying dog fighting with it just saying that you're a bit of a hypocrite if you eat intensively farmed meat or support horse racing when animals die horrible ways there as well. 

The killing the dog bit was at the very end and the guy said he used anaesthetic to put down dogs that got too badly hurt. He described the other methods but said you had a duty to do it humanely . This was a man who a few minutes earlier had been very upset because his dog was seized and put down under dda.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Snoringbear said:


> It certainly didn't attempt to justify dog fighting by comparing them to horse racing etc, rather it was the other way round, asking why these practices are legal.


And yet it did justify, by default. The message that I got from the programme was that if we like meat and bet on the horses we shouldn't be against dog fights. That's three quarters of the British Isles I expect.

As the RSPCA said, why not concentrate on things you can change that *are *legal (worthwhile subjects) like factory farming or have a programme about horse racing. Oh I know ...probably because the viewing figures wouldn't have been that high

J


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2014)

simplysardonic said:


> I don't know the minimum for chickens, but the general minimum standard for domestic rabbits is a 6ft x 2ft hutch with a run of at least 6ft x 6ft, so technically to raise them as ethically as possible you'd need a fair bit of space, the usual cages for farmed rabbits are considered not very ethical at all


I guess Im showing ignorance of a typical UK living space, but to me, 6 X 6 is not much space, not when you consider one head of cattle needs about 1.8 acres. But then, how many meat cows get even that? 

Right now we have one free range rooster (with hens on the way, yay!) and he has free range of 20+ acres. My very non-scientific estimate of his wanderings is about 1 acre. Though he did scare the daylights out of me the other day running out of the woods in an area further out, so maybe he roams further. 
I agree that if people kept the animals they ate they would eat less meat and waste less food in general. Its just a much more respectful process all around IMHO.

As Chief Seattle said:


> Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.


Lack of empathy - from spectating at a dog fight to mindlessly munching away at a cheap hamburger of factory-farmed frankenmeat, it all comes from seeing ourselves as separate from the web of life. We are not. And the sooner we acknowledge that and instill that sense of connection in future generations, the better.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I guess Im showing ignorance of a typical UK living space, but to me, 6 X 6 is not much space, not when you consider one head of cattle needs about 1.8 acres. But then, how many meat cows get even that?
> 
> Right now we have one free range rooster (with hens on the way, yay!) and he has free range of 20+ acres. My very non-scientific estimate of his wanderings is about 1 acre. Though he did scare the daylights out of me the other day running out of the woods in an area further out, so maybe he roams further.
> I agree that if people kept the animals they ate they would eat less meat and waste less food in general. Its just a much more respectful process all around IMHO.
> ...


My husband is a beef farmer.Our cows have always free ranged as long as weather permits...not talking about the odd wet day etc here but when the weather is so bad I wouldn't want to be outdoors in it myself.

I live in very rural North East Scotland. Plenty beef farmers in these parts too, very very few free range all year round and their cows are in a terrible state. Cows here need to be indoors in bad weather. When they are in, they get fed haylage and a bit of grain.Thats it and they are housed on straw beds.This is normal for this area. come from England but moved here 10 years ago. Before we moved, this was also how most people kept cows too.

Our govt tells us we must eat only lean meat...fat grows more on older cows. We had BSE which resulted in cattle only being eligible for the human food chain at under 30 months.Our native breeds which do well in this climate don't mature for slaughter til 48 months.The continentals became more popular. They will mature at 14 months. And, if you keep them indoors and fill them with grain, they will reach an ideal killing weight of under 500kgs at less than 14 months.
Its supply and demand, if farmers want to survive, they have to go with the flow.It doesn't matter if the quality of the meat is rubbish when all people eat is a burger or a pie.....and, how many people now know how to cook properly and get the last ounce out of every last bit....the rough with the smooth?

I remember my granny taking me for a McDonalds when it first opened in the nearest town to us. I was 7. I never thought it would take off cos it was rubbish....ask my grand children what they would like for a treat...shows how much I know.Even McDonalds coffee is yuk.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> And yet it did justify, by default. The message that I got from the programme was that if we like meat and bet on the horses we shouldn't be against dog fights. That's three quarters of the British Isles I expect.
> 
> As the RSPCA said, why not concentrate on things you can change that *are *legal (worthwhile subjects) like factory farming or have a programme about horse racing. Oh I know ...probably because the viewing figures wouldn't have been that high
> 
> J


Anyone simply out to damn it could extrapolate that conclusion, much like the RSPCA did. However, watching with an open mind, they clearly were not attempting to justify it. if anything they remained quite impartial.

Hardly anyone would have watched it as it coincided with the opening match of the world cup. From what I've seen, the only people wanting to watch it were either those interested in the documentary and those that wanted to gripe about it afterwards. That said, with all the noise about it now, I'm sure that will generate plenty of publicity for people to go and watch it on catch up who previously missed it, somewhat ironically.

Personally, I see dog fighting as just a legitimate subject for a documentary as either horse racing or intensive farming, both of which I'm sure have been covered previously. I find it a bit hypocritical for an ineffectual group like the RSPCA to make these criticisms tbh. Their Freedom Foods scheme is still sub-standard in welfare terms, but they are quite happy to *charge * farmers for the privilege to be part of it despite that. After all, with the RSPCA, it's all about the money.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2014)

lilythepink said:


> My husband is a beef farmer.Our cows have always free ranged as long as weather permits...not talking about the odd wet day etc here but when the weather is so bad I wouldn't want to be outdoors in it myself.
> 
> I live in very rural North East Scotland. Plenty beef farmers in these parts too, very very few free range all year round and their cows are in a terrible state. Cows here need to be indoors in bad weather. When they are in, they get fed haylage and a bit of grain.Thats it and they are housed on straw beds.This is normal for this area. come from England but moved here 10 years ago. Before we moved, this was also how most people kept cows too.
> 
> ...


Yes, the way the government has wormed its way in to the production of food animals has been hugely detrimental on this side of the pond as well. Fascinating book on the subject is The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It will also make you want to never set food anywhere near a supermarket again....


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Snoringbear said:


> Anyone simply out to damn it could extrapolate that conclusion, much like the RSPCA did. However, watching with an open mind, they clearly were not attempting to justify it. if anything they remained quite impartial.
> 
> Hardly anyone would have watched it as it coincided with the opening match of the world cup. From what I've seen, the only people wanting to watch it were either those interested in the documentary and those that wanted to gripe about it afterwards. That said, with all the noise about it now, I'm sure that will generate plenty of publicity for people to go and watch it on catch up who previously missed it, somewhat ironically.
> 
> Personally, I see dog fighting as just a legitimate subject for a documentary as either horse racing or intensive farming, both of which I'm sure have been covered previously. I find it a bit hypocritical for an ineffectual group like the RSPCA to make these criticisms tbh. Their Freedom Foods scheme is still sub-standard in welfare terms, but they are quite happy to *charge * farmers for the privilege to be part of it despite that. After all, with the RSPCA, it's all about the money.


Freedom foods scheme is a wonderful idea....but it doesn't work but instead cons people that this method of farming is best for livestock.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Im not condoning dog fighting, Im just saying that most people have no idea what dog fighting really entails.
> 
> There are a lot of things people do with their dogs that I find unnecessary and yes, cruel. And since day one humans have wanted to prove their dogs superiority in one area or another - why do we have dog sports and competitions? To prove our dog is better that day than the other dogs out there.
> 
> I just find it funny (?) interesting (?) (not sure what the right word is) how high and mighty we get about something barbaric like dog fighting (often with really no clue about it or its history) *and yet something with an aristocratic seal of approval like fox hunting is not seen anywhere near in the same light.*


For me personally, dog fighting and fox hunting are equally barbaric. I am totally and passionately opposed to both.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

lilythepink said:


> Freedom foods scheme is a wonderful idea....but it doesn't work but instead cons people that this method of farming is best for livestock.


I've not heard good things about it's implementation. I guess it's still better than Red Tractor though.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Yes, the way the government has wormed its way in to the production of food animals has been hugely detrimental on this side of the pond as well. Fascinating book on the subject is The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It will also make you want to never set food anywhere near a supermarket again....


whichever way you go, human nature always seems to settle with greed. whatever govts put into force, people will find a way to get round it, manipulate it and use it for their own ends.

We were given bull subsidies for keeping bulls. Any meat male calf. It was designed so that the small farmer could manage. It came in 3 parts, 3 lots of money, intended I think to keep the animal from calf to slaughter.We would go to the auction and up on the board would be the colour for the subs.There was green red and blue...but its such a long time ago I can't remember which order.The subs all in all for each animal was about £300The colours were in a set order so depending which were left showed how much was left to claim.

Small farmers did ok for a time but then businessmen nothing to do with farming got in on the act and huge corporations ended up owning farms and putting managers in to run them and paying them a wage.Some of these corporations were taking in millions in subs.The sooner the bull was slaughtered after subs had been claimed, the better for business.

We were classed as a small farm, we had 105 cows with calves....all free range except in winter unless it was an exceptionally mild one.


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

The point of the programme was supposed to be just about dog fighting all the other subjects in it was irrelevant to the shows purpose .


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

snoopydo said:


> The point of the programme was supposed to be just about dog fighting all the other subjects in it was irrelevant to the shows purpose .


The film had a strong focus on the societal placement of dog fighting both historically and in the present day. How this is relates to, and is sometimes in contrast to, people's opinions on the treatment of other animals is relevant.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

snoopydo said:


> The point of the programme was supposed to be just about dog fighting all the other subjects in it was irrelevant to the shows purpose .


did you watch the programme?

I watched til about 11pm. I saw pheasant, horses and dogs.....

I am still not quite sure what the programmes purpose was.

I think all other subjects were irrelevant to the programmes title. I didn't expect a dog fighting programme to be talking about any other animal or abuses, but it did.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

There was a large emphasis on the place of dog fighting and pitbulls in society. Showing dog fighting and having say the upper class hunter saying that it's all inner city thugs and barbaric then going and shooting pheasants which is seen as more acceptable. Or the number of racehorses killed every year compared to the number of dogs killed in dog fighting. If any other sporting event had animals dying nearly every year the way the grand national does people would be horrified. But it's seen as acceptable because it's the sport of the upperclass.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> There was a large emphasis on the place of dog fighting and pitbulls in society. Showing dog fighting and having say the upper class hunter saying that it's all inner city thugs and barbaric then going and shooting pheasants which is seen as more acceptable. Or the number of racehorses killed every year compared to the number of dogs killed in dog fighting. If any other sporting event had animals dying nearly every year the way the grand national does people would be horrified. But it's seen as acceptable because it's the sport of the upperclass.


How many people from inner cities ever even see a live pheasant> How would they even know what happens at a shoot?
I saw the birds dropping, I hope the ones that weren't a clean kill serves some purpose to show how horrible pheasant shooting is.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

When hunting with dogs was banned, in principle there was the alternative of drag hunting. For pheasant shooting, the alternative is clay pidgeon shooting....how do you wean off a psychopath from dog fighting....for heroin addicts there is methadone...cigarette smokes have e cigs.....how would you get them to see what they are doing to stop it?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> When hunting with dogs was banned, in principle there was the alternative of drag hunting. For pheasant shooting, the alternative is clay pidgeon shooting....how do you wean off a psychopath from dog fighting....for heroin addicts there is methadone...cigarette smokes have e cigs.....how would you get them to see what they are doing to stop it?


In some inner cities in the US there's a big push to get people doing things like agility. If part of the excitement is the dog is so eager to please and working for you, as pitbulls are it's why they're so overexploited, then show them there are other things these dogs can do.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> When hunting with dogs was banned, in principle there was the alternative of drag hunting. For pheasant shooting, the alternative is clay pidgeon shooting....how do you wean off a psychopath from dog fighting....for heroin addicts there is methadone...cigarette smokes have e cigs.....how would you get them to see what they are doing to stop it?


Get them to compete in another sport with their dogs...........


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> When hunting with dogs was banned, in principle there was the alternative of drag hunting. For pheasant shooting, the alternative is clay pidgeon shooting....how do you wean off a psychopath from dog fighting....for heroin addicts there is methadone...cigarette smokes have e cigs.....how would you get them to see what they are doing to stop it?


I've heard of some getting into other dog sports, using the same principles for building fitness and stamina but competing the dogs in weight pull, lure racing, athletic events.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

lilythepink said:


> When hunting with dogs was banned, in principle there was the alternative of drag hunting. For pheasant shooting, the alternative is clay pidgeon shooting....how do you wean off a psychopath from dog fighting....for heroin addicts there is methadone...cigarette smokes have e cigs.....how would you get them to see what they are doing to stop it?


Weight pulling, lure coursing? As well as all the other dog sports out there.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

The reason all other points of animal abuse when it comes to this tv programme are moot are simple

What channel 4 did IS ILLEGAL! 

Not talking about dog fighting as a whole. Opinion about dog fighting is irrelivant.

The simple hard thruth that people are not getting is that Channel 4 had a dog fight organised for ratings. They are an accessory to dog fighting and being involved with people with an illegal firearm.

These are crimes against dog fighting and gun law in our country. It isnt against the battery hen law, or the slaughter house law.

The more i think about it is they have intentionally well and truely put the big wooden spoon in there to stir things up to take the attention off the fact they have just aired something COMPLETELY ILLEGAL!


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Muze said:


> I've heard of some getting into other dog sports, using the same principles for building fitness and stamina but competing the dogs in weight pull, lure racing, athletic events.


This would be a very good idea. Bit like the worlds strongest man but in canine form! Something the dogs will enjoy but macho enough for the 'men'.

J


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> This would be a very good idea. Bit like the worlds strongest man but in canine form! Something the dogs will enjoy but macho enough for the 'men'.
> 
> J


You don't need a macho dog to do it :lol:





But the whole point is the dogs do it just to please their people and they enjoy it. Human ego can get in the way and make the dogs pull insane weights of course but most of the time dogs and humans have fun.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> You don't need a macho dog to do it :lol:


No, I agree ...but they would lol

J


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> No, I agree ...but they would lol
> 
> J


Well yes and what better way than to have them drag large weights. Some already do it for conditioning. Pitbulls are the king of their weight class anyway.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Scabbers said:


> The reason all other points of animal abuse when it comes to this tv programme are moot are simple
> 
> What channel 4 did IS ILLEGAL!
> 
> ...


Agreed! There should be some repercusions from this. At best C4 presented a badly made documentary that glamorised dog fighting, had no opposing views, and appeared to have no real point except to extoll the 'thrill factor' of dog fights.
At worst they are complicit with several illegal activities including instigating dog fighting and failing to report illegal firearms. As well as standing back and watching animal cruelty happen quite happily.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

There weren't any legal repercussions for anyone involved in the making of the BBC documentary on dogfighting a few years ago. I can't see this being any different.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

Because Channel 4 actually set the fight up! Or did you see any people betting on which dog would win! 

Channel 4 are responsible for those dogs injurys in that fight!


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> did you watch the programme?
> 
> I watched til about 11pm. I saw pheasant, horses and dogs.....
> 
> ...


No i couldn't what it but read all feedbacks and reports etc makes me so annoyed that the fighters were unidentified for protection purposes who was there to protect the dogs everyone involved in making this programme and showing a illegal 'sport" should face charges . it was a waste of time going into the history etc society is supposed to have evolved somewhat and there shouldbe no room or expectations in this day and age for anything to do with animal abuse .


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Scabbers said:


> Because Channel 4 actually set the fight up! Or did you see any people betting on which dog would win!
> 
> Channel 4 are responsible for those dogs injurys in that fight!


Channel 4 didn't set the fights up, the dog fighters did. All the film crew did was wait until they could attend one after asking like the bbc one.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

No pretty sure all they did was make contact with dog fighters like El Primo and wait to be contacted about a fight. Which you'd know if you watched it


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

I think the two dogs that wouldn't fight as one was so frightened was in fact totally set up for the viewing public. This was not the fight that they were waiting to hear about, this was a 'demonstration'. 

J


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

They said that was a test didn't they and they stopped the fight when she wouldn't fight. It was only supposed to be for a few minutes I think


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> They said that was a test didn't they and they stopped the fight when she wouldn't fight.


After prodding it like the bullies they are, and still getting no response from a petrified animal, yes, they stopped it. But it was set up as a demonstration fight.

J


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I think the two dogs that wouldn't fight as one was so frightened was in fact totally set up for the viewing public. This was not the fight that they were waiting to hear about, this was a 'demonstration'.
> 
> J


I thought differently. The guy seemed embarrassed that she wouldn't fight and seemed to be making excuses having previously said how formidable his dogs were. If anything it showed that pitbulls aren't preprogrammed killing machines as many people think.


----------



## essexflyer (Jun 13, 2014)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> This would be a very good idea. Bit like the worlds strongest man but in canine form! Something the dogs will enjoy but macho enough for the 'men'.
> 
> J


Actually if you tried to condition your dog for fitness and had the tools like flirt poles and treadmills to help then that would be classed as dog fight paraphernalia both by the police and rspaca. Your damned if you do, your damned if you dont. Just saying.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

At the very least they showed that even the fighting dogs are safe with people. Being able to separate them in the middle of a fight etc. I'm sure a lot of humans wouldn't react that well to someone breaking up a heated fight. I liked the middle-eastern guy at the end with the big bully type saying that he wouldn't fight his son so why would he fight his dog . But oh wait all foreigners are dog fighters .

Where those bully kuttas in the footage from Pakistan?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

They looked like Bully Kuttas to me.


----------



## Scabbers (Jul 26, 2013)

That full on dog fight WAS planned for the cameras! 

It doesnt matter how much you deny it that is what happened and i have watched it!

Those dogs in that particular fight was filmed BECAUSE there was cameras!

As pointed out they tried to get the two who refused to fight FOR the cameras!


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Snoringbear said:


> I thought differently. The guy seemed embarrassed that she wouldn't fight and seemed to be making excuses having previously said how formidable his dogs were. If anything it showed that pitbulls aren't preprogrammed killing machines as many people think.


Yes, absolutely it showed that these dogs are not programmed to fight automatically. They are *made* to fight. And I agree that he was embarased that his dog was unable to perform ...but he still poked and prodded it as it cowered and gave every calming signal it could. 

J


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Muze said:


> It is sick and inciting racial hated.... never seen anything like it.... what the actual ****?!!!
> 
> Making mu complaint to C4 now
> 
> Oh and *just joined the BNP*


Oh, that'll help. I hope that was a joke.

I didn't see the programme! I don't have a record facility and I couldn't watch it last night! Doesn't sound like it was particularly good though.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It's on 4od for anyone who wants to watch it.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> I thought differently. The guy seemed embarrassed that she wouldn't fight and seemed to be making excuses having previously said how formidable his dogs were. *If anything it showed that pitbulls aren't preprogrammed killing machines as many people think.*


That was awful & upsetting, they said they didn't abuse their dogs, but they were 



Nicky10 said:


> It's on 4od for anyone who wants to watch it.


I did, it was quite confusing, jumping around from topic to topic, adding irrelevant subject matter, never really offering any solution, mostly just trying to justify it by comparing it to other forms of animal cruelty.

Took me most of the documentary to work out that The Russian was a dog rather than some shady bloke, not helped by the distorted voices & amateur camera work.

I was hoping for something that would make people more aware rather than just an opportunity for voyeurism.

Oh & that upper class idiot blasting birds out of the sky for fun while calling for dog fighters to 'be shot' was hypocritical & pointless.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Ang2 said:


> My beliefs and opinions stem from my upbringing, in a traditional English family, where *I was taught to be kind to people*, animals, and have respect for the elderly. So yeah Im bigoted against those that come here from third world countries, who live in the dark ages, and bring their despicable ways and traditions with them!


Provided they're nice, white and middle class?

I was also brought up in a 'traditional' English family (whatever that is), and I was taught the same. I'm not a bigot, though.

If there's one thing I can't stand in this world, it's needless intolerance. There seems to be a lot of it about these days.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Shoshannah said:


> Provided they're nice, white and middle class?
> 
> I was also brought up in a 'traditional' English family (whatever that is), and I was taught the same. I'm not a bigot, though.
> 
> If there's one thing I can't stand in this world, it's needless intolerance. There seems to be a lot of it about these days.


My god I missed that post! I am truly shocked & disgusted :nonod: I am now going to find it & will be reporting it.

Shame on you!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Shoshannah said:


> Provided they're nice, white and middle class?
> 
> I was also brought up in a 'traditional' English family (whatever that is), and I was taught the same. I'm not a bigot, though.
> 
> If there's one thing I can't stand in this world, it's needless intolerance. There seems to be a lot of it about these days.


But of course . You know most of the teen chavs I see around here with bully breeds are white funny that. Sounds like Jesus said love everyone but we'll only love those that fit in our narrow definition of Christian


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> Oh, that'll help. I hope that was a joke.
> 
> I didn't see the programme! I don't have a record facility and I couldn't watch it last night! Doesn't sound like it was particularly good though.


It's called irony


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Backpedal check

Now where's the white knight and the flounce?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Muze said:


> It's called irony


Hard to tell over forum!


----------



## puppy88 (Jun 13, 2014)

embaressing..


----------

