Fighting Bettas

[BettaMomma]

My fish have sparred. When I have a reluctant male in a spawn, I'll drop my set aside plakat (for this purpose) in with the pair. All three are conditioned before the spawn and I moniter the entire process. They love it. LOVE IT!!

Might I ask...
How do you know they love it?

 

[BettaMomma]

Bettas don't have much choice if you dump them together with another fish.

There have been experiements done. Im sure you heard it. Two bettas a placed in a lake and have all the waters to themselves... If they "didn't want to fight" One of them could of ran away and hide in some dense plants. But they chose to fight.

Aaaah, but what size are the containers they put the fish in at fights?
Probably not the size of a lake.

 

[BettaMomma]

2 more points - then I'm not going to be visiting this topic anymore.

First off - animal fighting is animal fighting, regardless of what kind of animals they are. I don't think that putting bettas together to fight is any less wrong than dogs or whatever.

Hmm... I guess I don't have a second point.
that's it!

 

[Haiku]

First off - animal fighting is animal fighting, regardless of what kind of animals they are. I don't think that putting bettas together to fight is any less wrong than dogs or whatever.

I don't like the idea of either, but I do think there's the potential for there to be more commonly foul practices in one versus the other. Dog fighting is illegal in most places in the U.S., (I believe cock fighting is as well), so the chances of a cruel and amoral person taking part in it is much higher IMO. I am much more educated on what goes on in the dog fighting world than what goes on in betta fighting, that's why I take a much stronger stance on one versus the other. Not necessarily because I think fighting bettas is ok and fighting dogs isn't, but because I personally do not like taking a strong stance on something that I know little about. I know I don't like the idea, but that's as far as I'll go without really knowing more about it. I can knowingly say that atrocious, horrifying things happen to those dogs used in fighting and in baiting other fighters, enough to make even a strong stomach sick, but I do not know if that occurs in the fish fighting world.

I have to say, I wasn't always this cautious in deciding my stance on things, but I've had a few times when I took a stance on something without being fully educated about it and ended up looking like a fool because of it. I'm not stating anyone here is doing that, but just why I am a bit reserved in deciding how I feel on things until I know all the details from both sides of the issue.

 

[RandomWiktor]

I'd like to thank the former chicken-owner for pointing out that roosters are very capable of harming and killing each other without "attachments." Just because cock fights are enhanced by weapons, which does make it a little worse than betta fighting, it doesn't change that those 'roos have the same natural "gameness" as a betta. Would people support cockfights without the gear attached then, since the birds "want to fight?" If the only thing making cockfighting bad and betta fighting OK is the gear.... well, that's a little disturbing to me. And honestly, how would you attach something extra to a betta anyways?

I do see everyone's points with disagreeing on my stance about dog fighting, and I generally would consider it worse than betta fighting as well. However, I've worked with many fighting pit bulls, as well as their unfought, untrained offspring, so I would still have to say that these dogs, though it is bred into them, have a "natural" agression towards other dogs, and a "natural" desire to fight. But, since there are some obvious major differences, and since pit bull fighting usually results in the death of the dog, I see where you are all coming from.
However... have any of you ever witnessed, read about, etc. a professional pit bull fight? There is a huge difference between professional dog fighting and casual "street" dog fighting. Much like in organized betta fights, the dogs were purpose bred to be more agressive and are not used if they are too passive. They are trained extensively for muscle building, endurance, etc (thought part of this training involves using live bait animals, so once again that makes it a bit worse). And the fights are broken up when a dog submits, because these people put THOUSANDS of dollars into the animals and don't want them killed. Many professional dog fighters treat their dogs as well as any breeder when they're not being fought, and they will pay to treat the injuries, though its a lot of home medicating so they don't get caught.
What I've just described sounds to me very similar to what was described when talking about the level of care and comittment going into betta fights, but I'd still be against both since the animals get injured just for someone's jollies. Betta fighting is definately the lesser of the two evils, and there is much more professionalism in betta fighting than in dog fighting, but I'd still be opposed to it just on the concept alone.
Like Bettamomma said, animal fighting is animal fighting.

Now, I read about one of those lake experiements, but the one I'm thinking of sounds different because it was more than 2 bettas. They had a whole lake, but there was one big flaw to the experiment: they were all released together in the same spot in the lake. Obviously, even though a whole lake was spread out around them, they were suddenly face to face with a bunch of other bettas. Naturally, they would fight, because they had no set territory yet and were just all of a sudden tossed together. So, I don't know how the animal planet one went, but if they did the same thing, that's something to consider so far as how accurate such an experiment would be. I'd consider documentation from an established wild population to be a little more reliable...

And to all of the people who didn't torture bugs as a kids, I'm on the same boat as you ^^ I've always loved animals my whole life; I cryed when they broke the pinata at my third birthday because I thought it was a real animal (lol). I never ripped bugs apart, or poured salt on slugs, etc. etc. and was always saddened by people who did. Not to say people who did are "bad" people, as it seems to be just a phase in a child's development.

Wuv - I whole heartedly agree on the double standard of "save the pretty things." For most people, we get much more upset if a favorable animal is killed then a less appealing one. Just consider the many endangered species out there. There are endagered species of insects that are MUCH more vital to the environment than say, a panda bear, but because no one likes a bug, very few people will stand up to protect these species. And honestly, could fish be a better example? They're not cute and furry, so no one much cares if they see some dead on the filter in a store. Can you imagine going into a pet store and seeing a heap of dead puppies in the corner, or parakeets, or rabbits? ANYONE would be outraged at such a thing. And yet in every store, fish die in scores every day, in plain public view, and very few people will speak to management or consider boycotting the store. Granted, fish are a little more sensitive than some mammals and birds, but many of the stores I see dead fish in are overstocked, or have incompatible species together, or do not keep the tanks clean enough.

Overall, I think what everyone - pro or anti betta fighting - seems to agree on here is that bettas are being treated pretty rotten in the good 'ol US, Canada, and Europe even without fighting. No matter if its those crappy little betta cups, the mass production, the casual fighting by uneducated morons (which I still say is encouraged if we say any form of betta fighting is ok), or the simple ignorance at the hands of the keepers and fish suppliers, there are plenty of bettas in our own countries to be worried about!

edit: oh, and to the origional poster: don't worry; this isn't a vicious argument, its actually a very good debate with excellent points on both sides. IRE to your origional question, it is legal in the US (fish do not count as "animals" in the US, and under many conditions, neither do rodents, reptiles, amphibians, or birds, scary, eh?), I believe illegal in at least some of canada, and I have no idea about europe
edit2: I neglected to point out that dog fighting in america is very different from dog fighting in Japan, Afghanistan, and other countries where it is popular. Many dog fights internationally do not use pit bulls, which tend to inflict a lot of damage due to their superior jaw strength. The fights in other countries are usually less harmful to the animals involved, and are legal, public "sports." I'm not agreeing with it, I'm just pointing out that pit bulls aren't the only dogs being fought, and American pit bull fighting is probably the worst form of dog fighting one could think of since we often do it "for the kill" over here.

 

[wuvmybetta]

Eek! I didn't mean for this topic to get out of hand. Just wondering if it was legale and all that stuff.

It's not so bad. This is a subject that people will never have total agreement on.

 

[RandomWiktor]

Absolutely, wuv. I actually am enjoying this thread; I've found the arguments on both sides very interesting, and I ended up reading up on fighting bettas on a few sites to get a better idea of what they do. A good educational opprotunity. If nothing else, its given me some ideas on how to keep my betta boys in good condition even though they're not going to be fought.

 

[VickiPS]

I've also heard about the two betta in the giant lake. It's their natural instinct to kill or be killed. I'm sure you've all heard how if one betta defeats another, the winner's line will dominate the loser's line forever.

Have you heard about Blue Star Tattoos, or how Coke will dissolve a penny in 24 hours, or how little Craig Shergold is still dying of cancer and wants everyone to keep on sending him business cards?

Hearing about a good story is a looong way from having factual evidence.

One point keeps getting overlooked in this whole specious argument that bettas are somehow "different" in their displays of territorial aggression, and this somehow means they "love" to fight. How many species of fish also display territorial aggression, and will fight and possibly kill another male if their quarters are too confined? Lots! Why, then, is there not an honourable cultural tradition of fighting other species of fish?

I suggest that the tradition of betta fighting developed simply because bettas happened to be common, easy to catch, easy to keep, close to home, and easy to replace. Development of the fighting plakat betta strain, with its exaggerated fighting instinct, was pursued because wild betta splendens aren't naturally super-aggressive. As has been pointed out quite a few times now -- in nature, animals fight to survive and establish reproductive advantage. Full stop.

Fighting plakats aren't 'natural'. Their hyper-aggression isn't 'natural', it's the product of many generations of artificial manipulation and selective breeding, and bears little resemblance to the instinctive territorial behaviours of wild species. They fight because we humans have bred and progammed them to fight, then place them in artificially-constrained situations where they have no choice but to fight. In this respect there is no difference at all between them and pit bulls or fighting cocks.

To impose nonsensical concepts like love and passion for fighting on the fish's behaviour diminishes our ability to respect and appreciate the species and its behaviour on its own merits. It is merely projecting onto the animal, the object, what is in fact the controlling humans' love and passion for fighting. If people want to defend the practice of fighting bettas, then they should at least be honest in their justification for it and allow the fish its integrity.

 

[wuvmybetta]

So could you tell me why I have to jar my boys then? Because they sure do seem to have a good rough tumble when they hit a certain age. Are you saying that it's not instinct?

I understand that they're stuck together in the confines of a tank,but even small spawns at a young age,in a huge tank, like to hold the stare of a sibling. I don't believe it to be solely based on territory. They are indeed aggressive by nature. I don't believe it to be bred into them either. The bettas mentioned on this site,maybe. But it's not something that wasn't there before they perfected the stock.

 

[RandomWiktor]

I can't speak for Vicki, but I think what she was suggesting was that while bettas have a natural instinct to fight, this instinct has definately been enhanced by breeding. Thats not to say they aren't naturally agressive out in the rice paddies, but I think it would be safe to assume that, given their long history of captive development centered around fighting for many variations of the species, those who were agressive were probably bred more as their fry would have a greater market value. I would strongly believe that breeding for temperament in bettas has occured, including agressive temperament. After all, if you fight bettas for money, are you going to breed, the fellow who is submissive and has never been in or won a fight, or your best champion who's won every match?

 

[Haiku]

What I got from Vicki's post was that it is instinct, though some species in captivity have had that instinct bred to a higher degree, but that instinct does not necessarily mean they derive enjoyment from their behavior. I would think they are reacting on their instincts for survival, in which 'only the strong' survive, so their seeming passion to fight, in my opinion, is more a strong desire to be the victor and therefore the one to survive. This is an assumed interpretation of how their instincts are driving them, not that I think you let only the strong fry survive.

edit: I posted while RW was posting, but that was also my impression.

 

[RandomWiktor]

I'm glad you posted on the pleasure aspect, because I neglected to do that while "interpreting" her post.

 

[wuvmybetta]

I can't speak for Vicki, but I think what she was suggesting was that while bettas have a natural instinct to fight, this instinct has definately been enhanced by breeding. Thats not to say they aren't naturally agressive out in the rice paddies, but I think it would be safe to assume that, given their long history of captive development centered around fighting for many variations of the species, those who were agressive were probably bred more as their fry would have a greater market value. I would strongly believe that breeding for temperament in bettas has occured, including agressive temperament. After all, if you fight bettas for money, are you going to breed, the fellow who is submissive and has never been in or won a fight, or your best champion who's won every match?

I see that now and I edited before you posted. And I'll agree that the fish we speak of are bred from the most aggressive. Some are just plain passive. They watch the fry from a young age and I would imagine the first one to step up and become alpha would be choice,as I would imagine the little man who thinks he'd make a better alpha would be as well. It's a chain reaction when the jarring process begins. I'm sure that not all will even be fighting stock.

I was talking about my red spawn the other night (whats new,huh?). It's such a very large spawn and this may be a bit off topic but it kinda go's with it. From the proper age I began pulling the alpha males,until I'd eventually pulled over 100. I still,at this age, have the less aggressive males living together. They're around nine months old mind you. I've never,ever had a male death in that tank. They wag against each other and flare alongside each other, but sometimes when I sneak in early in the morning before turning the lights on...I find two or three cuddled up next to each other sleeping on a plant edge. I even took a picture the other morning but I figured people would lay eggs if I posted it so I chose not to.

Every now and then one will be an ass and randomly pick on others. Since it's such a large crowd it is easy for the picked on fish to get lost,but I still pull the punky one just to keep the peace.

Now here's another interesting fact with this spawn....the males in the tank have disguised themselves as females. They have egg spots and round bellies but they're clearly males. They only appear feminine at first glance. This,I would imagine, is to keep the peace amongst themselves. I find it fascinating and quite clever.

Point is, some are definitely more aggressive than others. I'll not deny that. Just as people they have different personalities. Some are lovers,some are fighters.

After re-reading Vicki's post I see what she's saying. This again brings me to my paddy dreams though. We have no idea how close or abundant they are in the wild without having a hands on experience.

 

[KageBunshin]

OK First of all...

Fighting plakats aren't 'natural'. Their hyper-aggression isn't 'natural', it's the product of many generations of artificial manipulation and selective breeding, and bears little resemblance to the instinctive territorial behaviours of wild species.

Hmm..

1. In the rice paddies of my home country, wild caught betta spledens are as aggressive, if not more, than your captive betta splendens.

2. You can't change your offspring's agrressiveness by selective breeding. We have learned this subject in biology and gentics class and it may sound like selective breeding works, but it has very little effect on the offspring...

Heres an example:

Bobby has been taking karate all his life, he as a grandmaster black belt. He has won a lot of karate tournaments. Then Bobby met Molly and had a Son. Bobby's son is not going to inherit Bobby's karate skills. Skills that are learned are not part of your gene pool.

What you can get from selective breeding is larger more stronger bettas with tougher scales. But not "hyper-aggression."

 

[RandomWiktor]

I'm going to completely disagree with you on that, KageBunshin.

Your karate example is talking about what you said: a skill. Skill is something you develop and work on, though a natural inclination towards something involved in the skill (ie an athletic build) can be genetic.
However, there is a big difference between temperament and skill. Ask ANYONE who breeds dogs, cats, rabbits, etc: temperament is definately genetically influenced. This is why breeders of companion animals were generally avoid animals who are agressive, posessive, etc. For example, using those poor fighting pit bulls again, pit bulls from fighting lines have a remarkably different temperament than pit bulls from companion lines, regardless of their training. Pits that come from a long line of fighters selected to have an agressive temperament and determined attitude will often times be agressive dogs even if well socialized, whereas pit bulls bred for companions from gentle, good natured, friendly lines tend to have very good temperaments. This applies to any dog, and if you don't believe me, watch young, untrained german shepherds bred for guarding as opposed to young, untrained german shepherds used for say, guide dog. There is a very distinct difference in how they act, even at a young age.
Yes, training, life experiences, etc. play a huge role in how an animal behaves, but we are finding more and more than genetics also plays a significant role. So, I would say that if temperament has a partially genetic basis in other animals, it would most assuredly have a genetic basis in fish as well.