Talk:Dog fighting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dogs (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

North America[edit]

Dog fighting is illegal in all North American countries.

Central America is part of North America and I thought Mexico didn't have any laws against dog fighting. If I thought wrong, could someone cite a source for that quote? Arthur Curry (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


This article is horribly biased.

Indeed, people should keep their personal feelings out of this article. 05:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Because of the Michael Vick case in the U.S., I think this page has had a number of first-time or irregular visitors looking for an outlet for their outrage. For now I've added the POV-section tag to the Impact section, which is where the most work is needed. Then I'll take a run at removing some of the more emotional parts of the discussion. This won't be pretty, because here in the U.S. virtually everyone agrees dogfighting is abhorrent, and so many WP newcomers won't quite understand that WP is an encyclopedia, not a sounding board. We'll need to refer them gently and repeatedly to WP:NPOV and WP:ABOUT. Dpiranha 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see the changes I've just made. I removed discussions of some specific incidents, added a few "citation-needed" tags (they should not be difficult to procure sources for), and toned down the rhetoric a lot. More rework and removal is needed but I'll let the original authors of the content make those decisions. Please remember that anecdotal evidence or individual news accounts are not WP:VERIFY material, but formal studies and statistical evidence is. Dpiranha 16:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In doing so, please keep the cultural and legal differences in various parts of the world in mind; the fact that it is illegal in the U.S. (right or wrong) fuels the connections to other illegal activities, so it is a big problem for our society here, even if it isn't elsewhere. One could draw an analogy to the impact of marijuana laws in that regard. Mark in Historic Triangle 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the way this sentence is worded: "In places where dog fighting is outlawed, its clandestine culture is believed to be directly related to other crimes and to community violence. Peripheral criminal activities that sometimes occur at a dog fight include illegal gambling, racketeering, drug trafficking, Prostitution and gang violence." It makes it sound like if it was legal then these peripheral problems would not exist. Those peripheral problems would still exist as I doubt they would give up gangs, drugs, prostitutes, etc. I have tried to make corrections on main pages, but they don't stick. I think that the 'In places where dog fighting is outlawed' part of the sentence should be removed.Mylittlezach (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point; this is an article where cultural differences are significant. I removed a few more questionable lines from the Image section (I don't know what I was thinking earlier when I left in the sweeping, citation-less generalization against all law enforcement agencies.) I also tried to tighten the paragraph on Vick which you added to earlier; the facts were fine, but it was getting a little bit lengthy. There's a separate WP article on Bad Newz Kennels for readers interested in the sordid details. Dpiranha 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, another problem: I had a look at the references used in the Impact section, such as, and they are pure advocacy sites with biased content, not any sort of legal clearinghouse as the name suggested. They're inappropriate sources for WP per WP:NPOV. I am inclined now to delete the entire Impact section (saving only the Vick reference) and have the authors start over if they wish. Thoughts? Dpiranha 13:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I would leave it alone and add. If I recall correctly, the remaining source (Michigan State University College of Law) was joined by a number of others before other editors attacked the article and worked to remove anything that was negative about dog fighting in the U.S. related to other criminal activity. Just do a Google search if you think such information is limited to the animal equivalent of "tree huggers". Most of the sources I get hits on are more related to inner city violence, drugs and gangs than focused on animal rights. Whether we start over or not in this article, to me, while I personally care very much about the humane treatment of animals, and even understand how some cultures do not even consider "humane" by the same criteria as I do, a bigger issue and the one which has fueled the new tougher federal laws in the U.S. and greatly increased law enforcement efforts here, and it would appear will continue to do so, is the link to other crimes which hurt and kill people. The murder rate in the old "Bad Newz" neighborhood has increased this year and tolerating underground criminal cultures has a lot of well-documented links to that problem. Mark in Historic Triangle 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying, but it's tangental. The issue is the bread-and-butter WP requirement of NPOV, and many of the sources cited in the section don't come close to qualifying as encyclopedic. Had someone added a section to this article listing the "benefits" of dogfighting (e.g., "it provides gainful employment for unemployed youth") and cited some pro-dogfighting website as the source, would we let it stand? I sure hope not. You're welcome (and strongly encouraged and urged) to "do a Google search" and replace the references with those from neutral news sources, or even from biased but academic sources like the Humane Society's reference library. Dpiranha 18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
An anon user replaced the line about how dogfighting was largely ignored by LEAs after it was outlawed in the U.S. Perhaps that's true, particularly in some parts of the country, but a sweeping generalization like that requires an unbiased citation to be WP-worthy. I reverted the edit and will keep an eye on the section going forward. Nothing personal, but this section has serious NPOV issues already, and that line only makes matters far worse. Dpiranha 18:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

history of dog fighting article[edit]

I have created History of dog fighting and moved some the Dog fighting article to it. The Dog fighting article still have room for expansion. Elf-Masher 20:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you can provide a rough list of topics that you think this article might expand to cover; at the moment it's gotten pretty short and it's not clear where it's going to go from here if it doesn't talk about the history. Elf | Talk 01:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Expansion...the people that want to cram everything together, have never added one edit to the Dog Fighting article, they are just trolls...forget about them... (removing barely veiled threat. Elf | Talk) Elf-Masher 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

which template?[edit]

Weirdly, I don't think this entry should have the Template:Baiting on it. Instead, I think it should have the Template:Bloodsports on it. Baiting is using a dog to harry a different animal into fighting. This is a bloodsport, setting two dogs at each other. You don't need to harry the dogs, since they're trained to be mean. Agree or disagree?--Mike Selinker 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the definition of bait (dogs) it is the correct +cat SirIsaacBrock 10:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Are extra dogs used to harry the dogs that will fight? Not in my understanding.--Mike Selinker 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop acting foolish SirIsaacBrock 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Pit Bull lobby POV[edit]

Even though it is illegal, dog fighting still occurs across the globe, often in connection with drug dealers and other criminals. The dogs used and bred for this contribute to the negative image of pit bulls. Before even telling us that Pit Bulls are used in dog fighting, we learn that the breed's image suffers as a consequence of this. The Pit Bull lobby strikes again! 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the pit bull is the preferred dog in dog fighting and that is what most people think of when they think of dog fighting.Bokatoh 00:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The preferred dog varies depending on which part of the world we are talking about. The antipit bull lobby carries too much weight in this article as does the US version. Take a look on Youtube and see dogs used in Afghanistan for example, nothing like a pit-bull! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerboy06 (talkcontribs) 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Vick Allegations[edit]

I am removing them, they have no place in the introductory paragraph, or the entire article for that matter Tiki2099 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A mention is reasonable. Gingermint (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


There needs to a section on criticism of dog fighting. Yes, we've mentioned that it's illegal, but we need to explain why. A few quotations from animal-cruelty officials would be nice. Funnyhat 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

we need to be neutral. i dont see any part of the article that says dogs fights is good. if you're going to part a part about the criticism you must put a part where you talk about the positive.Wikid00d88 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


This section is pretty opionated. The sentence, "Those who keep dogs for fighting purposes have no regard for the law, so outlawing their dog's breed just encourages them to find another breed suitable for fighting or to keep their dog out of the public eye." isn't factual at all, it's pure opinion.

While it's easy to see where the writer's opinions lie, it's a pretty factual sentence. By definition, if you BREAK a law, you have no REGARD to it. Say I smoke marijuana regularly. I would therefore have no regard for drug laws. See the logical connection? I certainly hope you are in no way defending the living scum who partake in this abominable practice; if you are, then you are a *** idiot. James 02:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You can add {{{Fact}}} at the end of paragraphs you want a citation or reference, just don't go overboard with it. PianoKeys 20:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The comment leaps to the conclusion that because someone has little respect for dog fighting laws, they don't respect laws in general. There may well be a connection, but that should be sourced. Also, your comment borders on an ad hominem, which is a big no-no on wikipedia. Rdore 01:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Split article for US?[edit]

Recently, laws and enforcement efforts against dog fighting and related activities in the US have become a major items in the news. As we follow all of this, should we be considering splitting off the US portion? The only other area where my web searches on this subject get lots of hits on news articles seems to be the UK. Also, I seem to be the only editor doing recent edits along those lines. Someone else should at least be looking over that work to make sure it is NPOV, balanced, etc. Comments, anyone? Vaoverland 05:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored a large chuck of content that was simply edited out without following our WP procedures for splitting an article. I don't think we should ignore all the increased law enforcement activity going on, but it is getting to where we may wish to consider the split, IMHO. Meanwhile, I am just trying to keep our article up-to-date and accurate, using only credible sources. Vaoverland 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Please look at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to create a good looking reference instead of open ended ones using only the URL. PianoKeys 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Split - a lot of good information on US dogfighting, but it is to long and to specific, it should be moved to a new article. Call it Dogfighting in the United States. PianoKeys 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
A new article Dog fighting in the United States has been created as per above. I have chopped out a lot in this article and moved it over. Vaoverland 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dog/Animal Aggression vs. Human Aggression[edit]

I think adding a section or mentioning this topic could be helpful in providing some understanding of some of the breeds used in dog fighting (there is already an entry for this so mentioning it and then linking to it would probably be sufficient). For example, why is there mention of two Rottweilers mauling a girl. Rottweilers are not typically used as fighting dogs. This breed suffers from many of the problems inherent in mastiff type breeds--bad hips, overheating, and not particularly noted for being animal aggressive. So why include that in the article, seems completely unneccesary and doesn't really go towards the issue of dog fighting.

This also goes towards the idea tha once a dog is trained to fight it is dangerous to humans. It depends on the breed. Some breeds need little or no training due to selective breeding and genetics while other breeds might need more training.Bokatoh 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Mention of Cadey-Lee Deacon/Rottweiler Reference[edit]

It had nothing to do with dog fighting as rottweilers are not typically fighting dogs, the dogs in question were guard dogs, not fighting dogs, and basically it was totally unrelated to the topic.--Bokatoh 00:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== Removed Mention Micheal Vick ==

Come on people , The Vick Statements in the introductory statements aren't appropriate

NPOV only American point of view[edit]

Hmmm this whole article has too much emphasis on Americans POV . In my country Dog Fighting is legal and has long history in out country , and we don't care what your thoughts are in the US.

~There are separate sections for different countries. There's no way to cover the legality of dogfighting in every country in the world, but if you really want to, you can add a section on the Dominican Republic, since I have no idea about the laws there. For the most part though, if you really don't care what people in the US think, then you can't expect them to care what you think either.

  • I honestly thought this first comment was a crank and was inclined to delete it, but it looks like it may have been serious. Credibility would have been lent through the use of a signature, however. Please use signatures for your comments. Thanks. Also, if you feel that strongly about it, you should add a subsection (or link to a new article) discussing Dog Fighting Outside the United States. croll 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for not deleting it , and taking me seriously. I'm going to work on that signature asap .I'm actually a Vet student, and there are seriously different points of view depending where you live ,where I come from people see their animals killed before they eat them so they don't have the same sensitivity as suburban Americans may , even though they eat more beef than anyone . I guess its just that they don't want to meet their food before they eat it .

-- 03:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Registering and getting a user ID is simple, with few details required, and it is free. You can login from almost anywhere, and communications with the rest of us is easier. Please work on content about your country and how it is handled and regarded. We need better cultural understanding all the way around. Thanks. Vaoverland 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that parts of the article are quite POV. A lot of the "Impacts upon modern society" section should be moved to the article about dog fighting in the US. From the other parts of the article alone it is clear that many of the social impacts of dogfighting are very culture dependent. Rdore 01:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for protection[edit]

Considering this is going to be a hot topic for awhile, I'd like to recommend that it be protected for at least 2 months or until the charges are dropped. If they are carried forward, then protection might be extended for the foreseeable future. --Hourick 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that I just deleted a potentially libelous comment, I'm inclined to agree though I'd be surprised if the Admins granted two months. We may just need to keep a close eye on the article. croll 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I am an admin; I request that we watch it and see. Please contact me on my talk page if it starts being more of a problem. If we can keep up without that action, obviously that would be best. We are struggling with the more specific articles, even with semi-protection. Mark. Vaoverland 09:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Societal impact, gang and criminal activities[edit]

The first three paragraphs of this newly-added section section are unsourced and should be removed if references cannot be provided. The (presently) fourth paragraph, regarding Michael Vick, does not belong under this section/

Please use a signature when adding comments as it helps keep track of who is saying what. Thanks. You're correct in that the section needs to be referenced. I'm going to put up a tag accordingly. As for the Michael Vick thing, while I'm leary of edits that could render it libelous, why doesn't it belong? If there's a seperate article, perhaps we should just include a link to that in a "See Also" section, but I don't think it's irrelevant to the article. croll 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) P.S., I just checked the animallaw reference link at the end of the section, and that seems to be the source and substantiate the assertions in the prior paragraphs about dog fighting generally (but not the Michael Vick component). If that's a valid source, I think the section can be properly wikified. croll 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Those dogs do not look very hostile to me. How about replacing it with an historical picture of a dog fight? Steve Dufour 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

PETA is hardly an unbiased source anyways. It's not clear if the dogs in the picture are actually fighting or just playing. 08:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Domestication of old fighting breeds[edit]

Coffee2theorems - thanks for adding -how to- tag. In review, it seems like this entire section could be pulled since it really has nothing to do with dogfighting, more like dog breeding. Plus the essential info re. breeding is in the preceeding section. If you agree, go ahead and remove it, or I will in a day or so. Bob98133 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

POV issue[edit]

I didn't add the POV tag, but I think it is reasonable. A lot of the issues mention in social effects section are specific to the US or at least need to be more carefully sources if they're claimed more broadly. In fact, ever more specifically I suspect they describe the US today, and aren't even representative of their effect in the US historically. Is dog fighting associated with criminal elements in places were it is legal? Is the bait animal problem something that happens in those places? I certainly think there is useful information in the section, but I also definitely agree the section is biased as it currently stands, especially towards an American-centric point of view. Rdore 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

citation needed[edit]

the bait section doesnt really need that many citations. i think its common sense.

""Bait" animals are used to test a dog's fighting instinct, and these animals are often mauled or killed in the process." (citation needed)

If you use a an animal to test to test about the killer instinct of an other animal then its likely the test animal will die. Wikid00d88 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of bait animals exists. If anyone thinks that a fighting dog trained to rip cats to shreds is going to withstand an attack from a game dog, you are just deluded. Like Ali training against me then turning up against Norton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerboy06 (talkcontribs) 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please supply some evidence that no evidence exists? Bob98133 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dog Fighting in South Africa[edit]


Nobody has mentioned anything about dog fighting in South Africa. It is a huge problem here, especially on the Cape Flats, in Cape Town. I thought you could include a section on dog fighting in South Africa, as you currently have no section for any country/region on the african continent.

Brian (talk) 17/12/2008 22:31 CAT

Hey, Brian - I added some info about South Africa, but I dind't find too many references online. If you know of more please add them. Do you know what the law is there? Seems like it's illegal by what I read. Bob98133 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Roché (talk) 7/05/2012 20:54 SAST

There are no references sited to substantiate the claim that dog fighting is widespread in South Africa. Both citations link to badly written articles by non-reputable publications about a single suburb (Cloetesville) in the whole of South Africa. I happen to live right next to this suburb and find the claims made in these articles dated and absurd. Please remove the section about South Africa until more credible sources can be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"South Africa" section in dog fighting not 100%[edit]

Hi guys

I live in Cape Town in the Western Cape (South Africa), dog fighting is an even worse problem in the Cape Flats area of Cape Town. If you visit you will find a lot of information about the laws here in South Africa about dog fighting, and also the areas where it is the worst, as well as other information which you could include in this article. The SPCA is also a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked out the web site you mentioned, but I didn't see anything about dog fighting laws. There were a couple of mentions of dogs raised for fighting, but nothing that would really be a good reference for the laws. Do you have a link directly to the government agency that made the law, or to a published version of the law itself. If I missed the info on this site, pls supply a direct link to the correct page. Thanks - this would be good info to have since this article is so focused on US now. Bob98133 (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Athletes speak out against dog fighting[edit]

I question how relevant this section is. Of what particular value are comments from mixed martial arts athletes? Why not TV commentators, newspaper editorial writers, comedians or some other groups? I suppose one could find quotes from cock fighters or bullfighters supporting dog fighting, but again, how does that add to any knowledge of the subject. I think this whole section could be condensed down to one line like "many well-known sports figures condemn dog fighting as cruel and inhumane...." or something like that using the current refs. Please weigh in on this - if there is no objection I will make that change. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Every quote in that section is taken from a series of PSAs - that's why there's a mix of athletes and no other people. I've removed the section entirely. Fully reprinting the copy from an advertisement without any criticism or context is unlikely to meet fair use requirements. Natalie (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dog Fight in Latin America[edit]

"Dog fighting is widely practiced in much of Latin America, especially in Argentina". Dog fight is not allow in Argentina Law 2.786. And is condenm by most of the argentinean society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aryan brotherhood, etc[edit]

I see no reason for these links to be included since dog fighting is such a minor part of these groups' activities. Otherwise this will become a list of every group ever associated with dogfighting, which tells us nothing about the subject. I will remove these links unless there are objections or justifications for them being in the article. Bob98133 (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with delete that internal links from this article. Akhran (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad Working/Personal beliefs[edit]

I removed the line " the only reason the dogs stay well enough to fight is because of all the drugs they feed them " that was at the end of the sentence 'illegal nature of dogfighting in Australia means that injured dogs rarely get veterinary treatment placing the dog' s health and welfare at even greater risk" in the Australian section. The referance didnt mention it and the wording seemed very suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Dogfighting: Symbolic Expression and Validation of Masculinity Author: Rhonda Evans, Deann K. Gauthier and Craig J. Forsyth Journal: Sex Roles Publisher: Springer Netherlands ISSN: 0360-0025 (Print) 1573-2762 (Online) Issue: Volume 39, Numbers 11-12 / December, 1998 DOI 10.1023/A:1018872404355 Pages 825-838

Abstract: This study examines the issue of masculinity indogfighting. Dogfighting is an illegal gaming sport centered in the Southern United States. The data for this study were obtained via ethnographic fieldwork over a period of two years. Interviews were conducted with 31 dogmen, approximately 90% of whom werewhite males. In addition the authors attended 14 dogfights and numerous pre-fight meetings. We argue that specific elements of this sport represent symbolic attempts at attaining and maintaining honor and status, which, in the (predominantly white, male,working-class) dogfighting subculture, are equated with masculine identity. We further argue that pursuit of symbolic masculinity through dogfighting is more important to working-class men, who possess fewer alternative avenues for achieving status than do middle-class or professional men. The implications of this research for the larger culture of masculinity in the United States are also explored.

The Discourse of Dog Fighting Author: Linda Kalof and Carl Taylor Journal: Humanity & Society URL: Issue Volume 31 Number 4, 2007 Pages 319-333

Abstract: In this essay, we discuss dog fighting as a blood sport with a history embedded in the status-driven display of masculinity, power and violence. Based on published reports and interviews with those living and working in dog fighting neighborhoods, we show that the contemporary cultural knowledge of dog fighting is a discourse with multiple meanings – for those who pit dogs against each other, for the worried public, for those who are charged with law enforcement, and for the dogs themselves. We conclude with an argument that the discourse of dog fighting might best be approached from the perspective of green criminology with a focus on those who are most abused by the crime – the fighting dogs.

Marj (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Were you thinking of adding this to the article? Bob98133 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time at the moment, so just parking it here in case someone else wants to follow it up, or I get a chance later on. Marj (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Robert Kaleski, in Australian Barkers and Biters (1914) has a chapter on dog fighting which gives good insights into the thinking of the time. Marj (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Congressman wants to legalize dog fighting in the USA[edit]

Congressman King recently stated that he believes dog fighting should be legalized. His grounds are that as long as dog fighting is illegal and boxing is legal we are thereby elevating inferior animals above humans. I disagree (it is illegal to force humans to fight, boxers consent), but even so, should we discuss this proposed legalization rationale in the Article? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality and major overhaul[edit]

The quality of this article is terrible. The main problem is that most statements are unsupported by sources and many of them are either spurious or inherently unverifiable. Due to the clandestine nature of the sport in most places, it is difficult to get reliable sources, but we must still abide by wikipedia policies. Ashmoo (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I removed some of the outsourced material and redundant psychoanalysis, added a reference, and reorganized a section, but much more needs to be done, particularly as regards to NPOV balance. El Chivo 2 (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)