I know I said I wouldn't post further on this topic, but I am too distraut to not say something more. If I end up in a brawl and have to leave the site for offending people, then so be it. For something needs to be said about this.
I would like to ask everyone who supports betta fighting if they also support "professional" dog fighting and cock fighting? After all, in the professional form of both of these "sports," the dogs or roosters are conditioned, are broken up before a kill (usually), and are treated for their injuries. And yet, both of these activities are illegal in most nations or states as it is accepted that fighting animals for betting or entertainment is cruelty. The nervous system of a fish is very similar to that of a mammal, suggesting that bettas have the same capacity for pain as a pit bull or a rooster. Why, then, would it be ok to fight fish if not mammals and birds?
I have worked with professionally fought pit bulls who were "retired" to a shelter. They absolutely have the same gameness to fight that bettas do; one actually broke the hinges on his kennel door to go after an enemy male who was double his weight. He lost the fight because he was overwhelmed by the other, but even pinned on the ground with jaws on his neck, he tried to fight. I do not call this a love of fighting, I call it an instinct exaggerated by breeding and enhanced by training. It is no different then what goes on in fighting bettas. To say that fighting dogs, cocks, or bettas are like two boxers is sheer ignorance. There are several key differences. One, while pits, bettas, and roosters all have a "desire" to fight (a term I hesitate to use as it is anthropomorphism), it is based in instict, an instict enhanced by breeding and/or training. In boxers, fighting is a concious choice, and requires training and committment that he or she has personally dedicated themselves to. Secondly, in boxing, the fighter goes in knowing the risk of his or her injury. I would say that most animals are not very capable of looking ahead into the future and realizing the consequences of their actions, so most are fighting our of pure instinct and aren't necesarily thinking of the consequences, but only of the battle. Boxers also differ from animals in that they usually decide when they've had enough and need to give up. These animals are so enslaved by their drive to fight that they would sooner die than give in most of the time, which is why a human referee is needed. And finally, the fight between animals is arranged under forced conditions, regardless of how "game" they are. A boxer chooses to step into a ring, but a betta, pit bull, and rooster are placed there with no escape, their only motivation being the subconcious knowledge of "kill, or be killed." As someone else said, wild bettas have their own established territory and would only be fighting if it was invaded by another betta. In a betta fight, they are placed together with no other option but to battle one another.
Someone else had mentioned that people fighting bettas is no different than childhood cruelty committed against insects. I do not understand how this argument improves your side, that betta fighting is acceptable. For what you have done is basically admitted that betta fighting is cruel, but it is ok because the people don't know any better? I beg to differ. Childhood cruelty to animals is born of curiosity and ignorance. Adults have a sense of right and wrong, as we've seen in many ethical discussions here. Since not every adult fights bettas, we can clearly see that some adults realize it is inhumane, and thus refrain from it. Therefore, it is not like people who do this are merely enslaved by their drive to hurt things out of child-like curiosity. Children usually do not understand the outcomes of their actions, and many get upset after a few "experiments" resulting in an animal's death and stop.
At this point, I would like to say that I am insulted by those of you insinuating that people who deliberately deliver their bettas to harm treat their animals better than myself and other fishkeepers do. I strongly doubt that these "professional betta fighters" keep their fish in the conditions that many hobbyists here do. I'm sure they keep them clean, well fed, etc. so they will be in good shape for the fight, but are you honestly suggesting that they're better keepers than we are when they DELIBERATELY allow their fish to be hurt? Shame on you! Most of the people here who have wronged their fish did so out of ignorance or having been mislead by a LFS. Are you saying deliberate cruelty at some times and good care at other times is in some way better than poor care out of simply not knowing better? Or good care with no cruelty? I really don't like that argument, and frankly I am offended by it, as I suspect many other fishkeepers would be.
And yes, I agree with those who have said that people who fight fish probably did so because they heard or read about it. While they may not have gone to the website of a professional fighter, does that change the fact that the reason they know fighting exists is because professional fighting does occur? I'm sure ametures wouldn't be fighting pit bulls right now if they hadn't heard "through the grapevine" about professional fights. I've said it before and I've said it again: saying bloodsports are acceptable under some conditions essentially says that they are acceptable under all conditions. There's no such thing as being "acceptably immoral."
So, to reiterate my points:
1) While betta fighters may take good care of their fish, they have negated all of their kindness by forcing their animals to fight, so far as I am concerned.
2) Fish can not "love" to fight; they are a primitive species with a primitive brain, and probably do not even have the capacity to derive pleasure from battle. Rather, they have a strong instinct to battle that is enhanced by training and breeding.
3) To use an animal's instinct against it for the purpose of betting in a way that causes it harm is just as immoral in fish as it is in dogs and roosters.
4) Bettas in the wild fight for territory for the purpose of survival, not for the joy of it. Thus, suggesting it is only natural for them to fight is a half-truth and a contrived justifaction for putting them in an unnatural situation where they cannot settle their differences with a few blows and a retreat. Fighting to the death every time they meet another fish would not be a good survival tactic for the species, so I would suggest that the fights we see in captivity are somewhat forced by the lack of room to escape.
5) Even if fought bettas (dogs, roosters, whatever) are treated well by professionals, condoning fighting sets a dangerous precedent that suggests it is somehow OK under certain situations, something which will encourage others to do it under less safe, less "humane" conditions.
6) Betta fighting - and all animal fighting - can not and should not be compared to boxing, as personal choice is replaced by instinct in animals, and the fighters are forced to face off at the whim of their masters.
I think that about covers it. I'm not targetting anyone in specific here, I'm just getting my opinion out in hopes of swaying people who might be on the fence on this issue. I realize both sides have compelling arguments, but I will never yeild in my opinion that cruelty is cruelty. And, yes, I know we won't be able to change what is going on over in Thailand and other countries, but it would be good to discourage it in countries like the US and the nations in Europe as it may lead to it being made illegal, something that would be a huge a triumph for the welfare of these mistreated animals.
I hope I haven't severely offended anyone in this post, but I simply can not submit and act like I think this is OK. If I angered you, I hope you understand and will agree to disagree, as I really like this forum and respect the members here. I don't want to have to leave because I end up prompting you to hate me.
