The recent proliferation of publications on human-animal relations and on animals in tourism (e.g. DeMello 2012; Fennell 2012; Franklin 1999; Markwell 2015) does not pay systematic attention to the variety of human-initiated animal fights, though some authors relate to bullfighting or cockfighting. In this chapter, I shall propose a classification of human-initiated fights, and then focus on one particular category, animal-to-animal fights.
Human-initiated fights can be divided into fights with multiple participants and binary fights (a single pair of adversaries). The former are rare and will not concern us here; the latter can be further divided into three basic categories:
I will here focus only on intra-species fights and present case studies of fights between those domestic animal species, on which the best detailed information is available: dogs, camels, buffalos and cocks. The order of presentation reflects the relative popularity of the fights and the degree of their exposure to domestic visitors and foreign tourists. The case studies are followed by a brief comparative analysis and some wider conclusions.
The following provides a description of contemporary dogfighting in the USA.
In a dogfight, two dogs are put into a square pit, which measures twelve, sixteen, or twenty feet on each side. The dogs fight until one is declared a winner. There are two handlers and one referee in the pit with the dogs. Spectators surround the pit, the sides of which are wooden and three to four feet high. The dogfight begins when the referee tells the handlers to pit their dogs, at which time the dogs are released and attack. Once the fight starts, the spectators place bets with one another on which dog will win. The dogs continue fighting until one of them makes a ‘turn,’ which is defined as turning the head and shoulders away from the opponent.
(Forsyth and Evans 1998, 203)
Dogfighting is at present a disreputable and illegal activity, condemned and stigmatised in most Western countries; but it is still clandestinely practised in some localities in the USA, the UK and Australia. Though prohibited in many non-Western countries, according to various sources it is still found in Eastern Europe (Larson 2014), some Asian countries, such as Afghanistan (Larson 2014), Pakistan (Hafeez 2014), India (Sarkar 2012), China (Wellman 2015) and the Philippines (Daugherty 2012); in South Africa (National Council of SPCAs 2016) and in some Latin American states (Larson 2014).
According to Yilmaz et al. (2015), dogfighting can be traced to the ancient Chinese and Roman civilizations. These authors claim that in the past valuable fighting dogs were exchanged as gifts between royal courts. However, modern dog fighting has its roots in the “baiting sports … first introduced to society by [European] royalty and aristocrats” (Evans, Gauthier and Forsyth 1998, 828). Once “bloodsports were officially eliminated in 1835 as Britain began to introduce animal welfare laws … bloodsports proponents turned to pitting their dogs against each other” since such fights were easier to conceal than other baiting sports (ESDAW n.d.). During the nineteenth century ”attending a dogfight came to be considered a rite of passage into manhood for wealthy young men” (Evans, et al. 1998, 828), not unlike shooting a tiger in colonial India (Cohen 2012). At that time dogfighting was a reputable activity and served “as a means of emulation [of the leisure class], in which the traits of honor and reputability … could be aspired to by the lower classes of society” (Evans et al. 1998, 828).
The interest in dogfighting in the British working classes began to rise “as the popularity of bull baiting began to wane” (Ortiz 2010, 7–8). As rural labourers flocked to the cities, they lacked the space for other bloodsports. But dogfights “could be held indoors artificial light allowing evening matches, and workers could still go to work the next day” (Russell 2007, cited in Ortiz 2010, 8). British immigrants brought fighting dogs to the USA where the “American Pit Bull Terrier (the dog of choice for dog fighting)” was eventually bred (Ortiz 2010, 9). In the USA “dogfighting was a lawful sport for a short period,” but “states began outlawing this activity in the latter half of the nineteenth century” (ibid., 10). It is now outlawed in all the states of the USA.
Contemporary dogfighting “no longer conveys the reputability it once did” in the Western world (Evans, et al. 1998, 829), but continues to thrive clandestinely among the lower classes and marginalised people. Carr (2014, 139) maintains that dogfighting is likely to be increasingly pushed to the margins and castigated by society. According to Ortiz (2010, 10–11) it constitutes “a half–billion dollar industry in the U.S.,” and is apparently “still on the rise.” Dogfighting draws support predominantly from the white working– class, and is found mostly in poorer areas of some southern states (Larson 2014), but some participants still come from the middle and upper classes (Evans et al. 1998). It is an “exclusively male sport, in which individual men can earn status within the dogfighting subculture, through the accomplishments of their dogs.” (Evans et al. 1998, 827) The “sport” is regulated by “elaborate rules … which reflect and reinforce the traditional masculine characteristics of competiveness, aggression, strength, toughness and courage” (Evans et al. 1998, 827) in the fighting dogs that are then by extension ascribed to their owners.
For the attending public, the main attraction of dogfighting is betting. Stakes are often very high. In the USA, “a single [dog]fight may involve bets in excess of $10,000, and total purses for an evening of organised dogfighting activity commonly exceeds $50,000 to $100,000 at a single venue” (Perdue and Lockwood 2014, 54). It was estimated that in the USA “at least 40,000 people engage in high-stakes dogfighting” (Ortiz 2010, 6, see also Larson 2014).
Though dogfighting is publicly condemned as repulsive or disgusting and according to Carr (2014, 139) is “likely to be increasingly pushed to the margins and castigated by society”, the large number of dogfighting videos available on the Internet, some of which were viewed 1–3 million times, indicates that there is still a fairly widespread covert interest in dogfighting. Harding ascribes its attractiveness to latent antinomian inclinations: “Dog fighting in the UK and the US can be viewed as largely a transgressive act – one that crashes traditional social norms and boundaries. It is both oppositional and … also attractive” (Harding 2014, 158). Harding speculates that
A darker analysis might suggest that those engaged in dog fighting are taking symbolic revenge on the emblem of family-oriented life, the [pet] dog. By forcing dogs to engage in barbaric acts of gladiatorial combat, they … undermine the animal’s place in society and in family life (ibid. 158).
Since “the [fighting] dog … is used to operate in an excluded world where it is forced to fight for its own survival,” (ibid., 158) it seems to represent an anthropomorphised version of excluded young men who feel that they must fight for survival. These men are, like their dogs, “puffed-up, muscular, angry, aggressive, ready to fight to win or survive, using street skills and brute force in a pit not of their own making” (ibid., 158–9). Harding concludes that “A fighting pet embodies anti establishment social norms – the anti-thesis of domesticity and conventional values” (ibid., 159).
In the USA dogfighting constitutes a clandestine subculture, or a number of sub-cultures, whose members are often engaged in other criminal activities, such as “gambling, the illegal possession of weapons or banned substances, and even prostitution” (Ortiz 2010, 6). The audience at dogfights is restricted to invitees, while the intrusion of outsiders is precluded. Most individuals attending dogfights have possessed fighting dogs in the past or will possess them in the future. Participants thus “rotate between the roles of spectator and handler” (Evans et al. 1998, 836).
Ortiz (2010) distinguishes between three types of dogfighters, or dogfighting sub-cultures in the USA, the professionals, the hobbyists and the streetfighters, which differ considerably in the level of their organisation, in the extent to which they take care of their dogs and the gruesomeness of their dogfights. The professionals are both, fighters and breeders and condition and train their dogs for the fight. They “work on a national and, sometimes, international level and fight at the highest stakes…. Fights at the professional level are the most secretive and the most lucrative.” Professional dogfights are not easily accessible: “(m)eeting a professional dogman or attending a professional’s fight usually requires a personal introduction from a current member of that dogfighting circle, and the location of a fight is usually not revealed until hours before the fight” (Ortiz 2010, 14).
In contrast to the professionals, streetfighters often “participate in impromptu fights, with traditional dogfighting rules often ignored” (Ortiz 2010, 16). They instantiate “the brutal twist that urban fights have taken” (ibid., 17). Some streetfighters engage in forms of dogfighting such as “trunking” (in which two dogs are thrown into a car’s trunk, but only one will re-emerge alive) in which the “traditional reasons for watching a dogfight – to see the display of gameness” are abandoned. Such fights, at which there are no spectators, “have little resemblance to professional dogfights,” except for the gambling (ibid., 17).
Dogfighting is more openly practised in some non-Western countries. In Pakistan, for example, though legally banned, “the enforcement authorities seem to have turned a blind eye to this deeply rooted and sickening mode of entertainment” (Hafeez 2014, np). Hence, in rural Pakistan, dogfight “tournaments are carried out unofficially via scheduled meetings by breeders, who decide dates and the venue” (Hafeez 2014, np). The fights are open to the public: “The fact that [dogfights] are illegal doesn’t curtail large numbers of people coming out to witness this appalling entertainment. The fun infused with this outing has its fair share of sadism and utter disregard for animals” (Hafeez 2014, np). Hafeez reports that “there is a high price on the dogs that win accolades for being the most menacing in the country.” However,
if the master of the losing dog [in a fight] calls the fight a quit … he will club his hound with hockey sticks, electrocute it, poison it, or simply just drown it with its legs tied. The master does this because his brittle ego has been punctured.
(Hafeez 2014, np)
Description of a contemporary camel fight in Turkey:
Wrestling matches are held between male camels of a type called Tȕlȕ, which are bred by mating a single-hump female Arabian dromedary camel … with a double-hump male Asian Bactrian camel…. One day before the wrestling contest the camels are decked out in sumptuous manner as prescribed by tradition. They are then walked through the streets accompanied by music played on drums and zurnas [a conical oboe] to Zeybek [a historical bandit community] tunes…. The area where wrestling matches are held is called, as in English, the ‘arena’ and is on flat soil surrounded by slopes, which act as [a] makeshift amphitheatre for the spectators. [At the start of the event] the cazgır [commentator] … calls out the competitors. The cazgır also reads poems praising each camel…. Within the wrestling organization there is a referee committee,
which includes a match referee, who decides the winners and losers of the contests (Aydin 2011, 56–57).
In the ring [i.e. arena], camels twist their necks and wrestle for up to 10 minutes…. Some camels are famed for signature moves, such as pinning their opponent’s head with their knees, or sweeping the foe’s legs from underneath him…. Biting ankles and forelocks is also a recognized fighting technique, although contestants are muzzled to limit injuries.
(Parkinson 2011, np)
Camel wrestling is judged in four categories. A camel can win by making the other camel retreat, by making the other camel scream, by making the other camel fall, [or] when the [other] camel’s owner takes his fighter out of the contest in order to prevent him from being hurt.
(Aydin 2011, 57)
“The award of the winner camel in the wrestle is the carpet laid on the camel after the game” (Çalişkan 2009, 127). “But often the game ends in a draw” (Aydin 2011, 57), owing to “precautions [taken] in order for camels not to be injured and worn out” (Çalişkan 2009, 124).
Camel fighting, or more correctly “wrestling,” is presently practised mainly in Western Turkey (Çalişkan 2009, 125), but is also found in Afghanistan and Pakistan (ibid., 124). The custom has allegedly a 2400-year history (Robehmed 2014). Its roots are said to be in “nomadic times, [when] camel wrestling developed among competing caravan owners” (Donlon, Donlon and Agrusa 2010, 34). But Çalişkan (2009, 124) maintains that “it is uncertain where and how camel wrestles originated.” Camel wrestling in Turkey was first reported 200 years ago, at a festival in the southwestern province of Aydın (Aydin 2011, 55). The English author Parley (1835, 85) wrote in the early nineteenth century that “(a)t particular seasons of the year, Camel fights are common in Smyrna [presently Izmir],” and quotes from the report of a traveller that “(t)he pasha of Smyrna used frequently to regale the people with these spectacles in an enclosed square before his palace” (ibid., 86).
Despite the long tradition of camel wrestling in Turkey,
the government discouraged the sport after the Turkish Republic was formed in 1923, proclaiming it backward and non-European. It was only after a military coup in 1980 that a new regime revived the art as it promoted Turkey’s pre-Islamic heritage.
(Parkinson 2011, np)
The organiser of the annual camel wrestling tournament in Selçuk district in Izmir province, the main contemporary wrestling event, maintains that “the sport is about keeping alive the bond between Turks and the animal that served their nomadic ancestors for centuries, and which he sees as an integral part of Turkish heritage.” (Aydin 2011, 55) While in the past “the lives of the camels and humans were in a symbiotic relationship,” modern transportation technology “made camels redundant for trading purposes, but camel wrestling is still an important event for the preservation of local culture” (Aydin 2011, 55). The number of camels in Turkey has declined from 118,000 in 1935, to 12,000 in 1980, 1350 in 1999 and 811 in 2005, but rose again to about 1000 in 2006, a rise attributed to “the increase in the interest in camel wrestling” (Çalişkan 2009, 126), in which about 460 camels participate (ibid., 125). Most of the present camel population was imported from neighbouring countries (Yilmaz et al. 2014, 906). With the importation of well-bred camels, the quality of wrestling has increased, but so have the prices of wrestling camels (ibid., 908).
Camel wrestling events are organised in “the winter months when camels begin to go into heat during the mating period” (Çalişkan 2009, 127–8) in about 60–70 locations (Yilmaz et al. 2014, 905). Camel wrestling remains a local affair: “(i)n spite of economic, social and cultural advantages of camel wrestling events, there have been no institutions or organizations, which are interested in or plan camel wrestles at [a] regional or national scale in Turkey” (ibid., 909). However, Donlon et al. (2010) argue that, with the increased coverage of camel wrestling in mainstream media and in travellers’ guidebooks, “these cultural performances have become another of the many threads in the tapestry of attractions Turkey offers its visitors” (ibid., 35). These authors believe that “outsider or visitor interest imbues sites [such as camel wrestling] with prestige otherwise unavailable” (ibid., 36). Hence “strong efforts are made to introduce the events to visitors and explain that the livestock are very well cared for” (ibid., 35). The authors point out that “the sites of camel wrestling function as nodes around which a variety of related traditional commercial undertakings revolve,” so “viewers may also have the opportunity to shop for local handicrafts, buy regional music, and haggle for costumes and clothing” (ibid., 37). These authors admit that contemporary camel wrestling has been modified and has undergone increased commoditisation (ibid., 37). Advertisements are even pinned on the flanks of the fighting camels, which came to serve “as commercial bill-bordage [like] the outfield fence of a base-ball’s pitch” (ibid., 36).
Though camel wrestles are popular events, betting on the camels is not a major motive for attendance. If it exists at all, it is done secretly (Vardar 2014). Çalişkan (2009, 133) calculated that in 2007–2008 more than 170,000 spectators attended wrestling events. The principal event, the Camel Wrestling Festival (Çalişkan 2010), held in the town of Selçuk close to the ruins of Ephesus (which are an important tourist destination), was reorganised by Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism in 1982 (Robehmed 2014). It is annually attended “by about 20,000 domestic and foreign tourists” (Yilmaz and Ertugrul 2014, 2003). The number of foreigners at the Festival in 2008 was estimated at close to 500 (Çalişkan 2009, 133). Though Çalişkan (2009) and other authors stress the touristic potential of the wrestles, they are still a predominantly domestic affair. Events are not yet specifically adapted for foreign visitors, and no tourist-oriented performances are on offer.
Description of a buffalo-to-buffalo fight in Tana Toraja, south Sulawesi, Indonesia:
[In a buffalo fight] the buffalo[s] almost never hurt each other. They usually just lock horns and push for a few minutes. Sometimes, despite their handlers kicking them in the rear end to try to get them angry, they graze peacefully while thousands of observers sit patiently waiting for something to happen. But occasionally there will be a really good match when the buffalos lock horns, one loses its footing in the mud, and the contest turns into horned wrestling, with the fallen buffalo straining to get back up while the other one pushes down on it with its horns…. The match ends when one buffalo runs away. Sometimes the loser just runs a few yards across the field. But sometimes the winner chases the loser … the vanquished bull keeps running until it reaches the crowds that line the edge of the field. Then the fleeing buffalo runs right into the crowd, with the pursuing buffalo right behind.
(Hicken 2012, np)
Water buffalo fights are a popular form of rural entertainment in several Asian countries, particularly China (EasyTourChina n.d.; Emerging Money 2012), Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia. The historical roots of buffalo fighting are not well known. But they are probably deep, since buffalo fighting in Asia is often related to religious customs and conducted at ceremonies, festivals and fairs. Thus, the annual buffalo fight fair in a village in Shimla district, north India, “is held to honor Hindu gods and deities” (ANI News 2013, np); while the Bo Son festival in northern Vietnam is “attached to a Water God worshipping ceremony” (Vietnam Ethnic Cultures 2011, np). Among the Tana Toraja, the buffalo fights constitute “an essential part of a large funeral” (Budiman 2013, 74) and are slaughtered after the fights (together with other buffalos) in the belief that the souls of the sacrificed buffalos will accompany the deceased’s soul to puya (land of souls or afterlife) (ibid., 71).
The Bo Son Buffalo Fighting Festival in Vietnam and the Ta’na Toraja funerals in Indonesia are the two principal examples of buffalo fighting in Asia, which constitute significant attractions for foreign tourism (though smaller buffalo fighting festivals are staged, mainly for foreign tourists, in some popular destinations, such as Koh Samui in southern Thailand (Koh Samui News 2014).
The Do Son festival, which “was recently recognized as intangible national heritage by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism” (Vietnam National Administration of Tourism 2015, np), is celebrated on the ninth day of the eighth lunar month. It is customarily preceded by a long period of preparations. Each hamlet of Bo Son village collects contributions to purchase a buffalo. Members of the hamlet scour stock markets to find a fighting buffalo with the desired features, such as
big with a broad chest, big thighs, and a strong, round neck … [a] back … curved and thick … [a] stork-neck [so that it] can bend its head effortlessly…. Its horns must be black as ebony or bow-shaped and slanted…. A good buffalo must have even teeth … big legs with furry knees [and] black, hanging genitals.
(Festivals in Vietnam n.d., np)
The buffalo “is kept alone so that it can never see other buffaloes … to restore its wildness … [Before the fights, its] nutrition is gradually raised.” (Festivals in Vietnam) During the training period “another buffalo is brought in to be its rival. People [are] beating drums or cheering to make the buffalo familiar with the festival atmosphere. The wild animal is trained to understand the best tricks for defeating its rivals” (ibid.).
Customarily, only six buffalos were permitted to fight at the festival: three from Bo Son and three from two other villages; the fights were held on a flat area in Bo Son village. However, the event was recently moved to the Bo Son Stadium in the port city of Hai Phong. The fights are preceded by a Water God worshipping ceremony and a “colorful procession [in which the] buffalos, covered with red cloth and red band around their horns, are taken to the fighting ring by 24 young men … dressed in red, [who] dance and wave flags. [Their dance is] mingled with the ebullient sound of drums and gongs, bringing a hectic atmosphere to the festival” (Vietnam-Beauty.com 2008, np).
The festival presently features “competitions among 16 buffaloes selected from qualifying rounds at ward and district levels” (Vietnam National Administration of Tourism 2012), similar to a human sports championship. In 2015, the owner of the winning buffalo won a cash prize of VND 70 million, about US$3,130 (Vietnam National Administration of Tourism 2015). However, all participating buffalos, losers as well as winners, are killed after the fights as an act of worship of the god (Vietnam National Administration of Tourism 2012).
The festival has become a major tourist attraction. In 2012 it “attracted over 30,000 local people and tourists” (ibid., np). It is also “a big-money event with high-priced sponsorships, high stakes gambling and thousands of dollars in prize money” (Taipei Times 2009, np).
With increased popularity, buffalo fighting in Vietnam became commercialised. A Buffalo Fighting Stadium, with a capacity of 5000 seats, was established by a private company in a park in Ho Chi Min City (Saigon) where buffalo fights are occasionally staged on Sunday afternoons. An entrance fee is charged. The company acquired 20 strong buffalos and trained them to fight for three to six months. The company “cut the top of their animals’ horns to avoid wounds so that the buffalos can fight many times” (Saigon Tourist 2005).
Description of a cockfight in Quezon City, the Philippines:
there are four men in the ring, two of them calmly squatting, each with a cigarette between his lips and a chicken between his legs. The other two are referees. Thousands of spectators, all men, are standing and shouting, making distinctive gestures to one another … each gesture part of an intricate system of betting on the birds below. The noise is deafening. Suddenly, the squatting smokers release the birds, and the roosters approach each other at a wary angle, hackles rising … from their necks. As they explode forward with the speed and aim of heat seeking missiles, the clamor outside the ring abruptly halts. The only sound is the vibration of pounded air from hard-flapping wings. In less than a minute, it is over. The white-feathered victor sends up a triumphant crow next to the still body of its dead opponent. Losers pay up their bets in a rain of folded peso notes.
(Lawler 2014, np)
Of all the human-induced animal-to-animal fights, cockfighting is the most widespread one, found all over the globe (Forsyth 1996, 15; Lawler 2014). Even though Geertz’s (1972) celebrated paper on Bali cockfighting constitutes a landmark of modern anthropology, cockfighting has not been widely studied.
Cockfighting has deep historical roots. According to Forsyth (1996, 15) “anthropologists believe that chickens were domesticated as early as 3000 BC and that fighting them for sport also developed about the same time.” In some localities, as in Bali (Stankiewicz 2014), cockfighting still plays a ritual role, but at present it is in most instances practised as an entertainment or a “sport,” devoid of express religious significance. However, some contemporary authors, following Geertz, ascribe to cockfighting some deeper symbolic meanings. Thus Donlon (2014, 7) argues that bloodsports, particularly cockfights, “represent the symbolic approximation of humanity’s control of unregulated wild nature, and a negotiation of mortality itself, a species of sacrament.” Hawley (1993, 163) points out the multiple meanings of the cock to its owner: “the cockfighter views the bird on several levels: bird as totem, emblem of bravery, sexual potency, and perhaps symbolic sacrifice.” Donlon (2014, 8) emphasises the identification of the cocker with his cock: “(p)articipants [in cockfights] often see a kind of representative trope or surrogacy, the bird acting out a displaced episode of courage or standing in for the human being (in the way that the joust was a surrogate for actual war).” Donlon (ibid., 7) also stresses “the passionate connection between cockfighters and their birds.” However, the identification of the cockfighter with any particular cock seems to be less intensive than that of dog-, buffalo- or camel-owners with their particular fighting animals. Hawley (1993, 163) reports that he has “seen cockers with misty eyes leaving the pit cradling their limp, winged champions;” but he adds that, “however nostalgic the cocker may feel about his birds, I have never noted a theme of bird as friend or companion among mature cockfighters.” Stuart (2014) states expressly that, in the Philippines, “there is no bonding between cock and owner.” This may well be due to cockfighters handling a big number of cocks, as the fighting life of each one is usually brief.
Like dogfighting, cockfighting is perceived as an affirmation of masculinity (Hawley 1993, 159; see also Marwin 1984) and a means to establish one’s identity. Thus, a study in Hawaii concluded that cockfighting served to express a local Hawaiian identity and constituted “a positive cultural assertion that honors perpetrators’ family and histories and establishes perpetrators’ value as intelligent, trustworthy members of the local community” (Young 2016, 1159).
In the Western world, cockfighting was in the past popular among all social classes (Garcia 2015, 362). However, beginning with the first half of the nineteenth century, cockfighting was gradually outlawed, though exceptions were made for some regions, specifically in France and in Spain, where it has been an uninterrupted local tradition (Sadet 2011). The status of cockfighting varies widely in the rest of the world. It is popular and legal in several countries with a historical link to Spain, such as Mexico and Peru, while it is illegal in others, such as Costa Rica and Brazil. Cockfighting is widespread in Southeast Asia, especially in the Philippines, where it is legal and in Thailand, where it is officially regulated (Na Thalang 2015). I shall here focus on the USA and the Philippines, the two countries on which relatively abundant information is available, and which differ substantially in terms of the context in which cockfighting is practised.
In the USA, cockfighting was in the past popular among all classes, counting among its adherents even such personalities as Washington and Jefferson (Garcia 2015). However, from the 1830s onwards, cockfighting was gradually outlawed by state legislatures (ibid.). With its prohibition in 2007 in Louisiana, where it has been highly popular among the Cajun people (Donlon 2014), cockfighting became illegal in all the 50 states (but not in the US territories, such as Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). A recent federal law even prohibits transfer of cockfighting implements across state borders (Garcia 2015). However, though cockfighting has been outlawed in the USA, owning and breeding fighting cocks is permitted (Zarley 2015). There are in fact thousands of gamefowl breeders in the USA, with their own associations (Herzog 1985; Kilborn 2000; Zarley 2015); some export fighting cocks to the Philippines (Lawler 2014), where cockfighting is a legal “sport” and a “national pastime” (Yacobucci 2012).
In 1985, when cockfighting was still legal in several USA states, the number of participants in the practice has been estimated at about half a million (Herzog 1985). However, even after it had been outlawed, cockfighting continued to be clandestinely practised, furtively in some derelict urban areas, such as the Bronx (Kilborn 2000) and more widely in some rural areas of the southern states. Considering the number of cockfights busted by the police in the last few years, the practice seems to be still quite widespread, though the number of participants cannot be established.
Cockfighting has been widely condemned by American animal welfare and rights organisations, but its supporters argue that “the [urban] opponents of cockfighting did not understand the sport’s meaning in many rural areas” (Kilborn 2000, np), and point out that “devotees feel it is a legitimate form of recreation with a long and noble history” (Herzog 1985, 114).
Access to cockfighting events in the USA is restricted to cockers (owners of fighting cocks) and local spectators. The participants are mostly male, though women sometimes attend the fights (Herzog 1985). Outsiders are generally not admitted. Cockfighting’s principal attraction is betting, a highly conventionalised, informal activity, based on trust. Though not enforceable by any formal sanctions, betting debts are generally promptly paid (Herzog 1985).
Herzog reports that in the rural south in the early 1980s, “for the majority of cockers the sport [was] a leisure activity rather than a source of income…. If he is lucky, a cocker will make enough money to cover expenses during the season” (Herzog 1985, 121–122). However, Forsyth (1996, 15) found a decade later that “the intrusion of large amounts of gambling money in the game is transforming cockfighting and has the potential of shattering the familiar atmosphere of the fights.”
In contrast to the USA, in the Philippines, where it has allegedly been practised even before Magellan’s visit in 1521 (Lawler 2014), cockfighting is a legal and enormously popular spectator sport of incomparable magnitude. It is practised in thousands of stadiums around the islands, the largest of which has a 20,000 seat capacity (Lawler 2014). Between 7 and 13 million roosters are allegedly killed annually in the fights (Cortez n.d.).
There are several types of cockfights in the Philippines. The simplest is the hack, a contest between two cocks, of which there may be “20 to 30 in an afternoon or evening” (Stuart 2014, np). The derby is more complex: it involves teams, who enter the event
with a team-name and a fixed ‘pot money’ amount … that becomes the prize-money for the team with the most wins. A 3-cock derby may last deep into the night … a 7- or 9-cock derby may last for days (ibid.).
While small-scale cockfighting events are ubiquitous, the hallmarks of the cockfighting calendar are a few international events. One, the semi-annual five-day World Slasher Cup, is “undoubtedly the most prestigious [derby] … regarded internationally as the ‘Olympics of Cockfighting,’ joined by the best cockfighters from here [the Philippines] and abroad.” (Philippine Daily Inquirer 2009, np) It is held in the “historic Araneta Coliseum [in Queson City] for more than 30 years” (ibid., np) and features “a five-day series of 648 matches” (Lawler 2014). Another major event is the three-day Candelaria Derby, at the Feast of Our Lady of Candles, in the Jaro district of Iloilo City on Panay island (Western Visayas), which is “known worldwide as one of the toughest derbies where the small breeders and cockfighters … meet … against the best breeders in the world” (Locara 2013, np). The event, held at the Iloilo Coliseum, is attended primarily by “local aficionados, but a large percentage … are visitors from all places in the country,” and some “foreigners led by American breeders who are out not only to compete but also to enjoy and watch the fights” (ibid., np).
In the Philippines, cockfighting is “not confined to just the poorer sections of society, it also has a huge following among the crème de la crème of Philippine society” (Philippine Travel Guide n.d., np). But the class differences do not blur. Rather, they are reflected in the quality of the classes’ respective fighting cocks: “The poorer section of society uses the native breed, low-pedigree mestizo cocks, usually for hack fights,” while the “moneyed aficionados are usually involved with expensive brood cocks of pedigree lineage bred for ‘fastest kill’ and trained for big money derby events” (Stuart 2014, np). The rich “normally import their breeds,” and “have veterinarians and trainers to build up the muscles of [their] birds” (Philippine Travel Guide n.d., np). For the rich, cockfighting is “the ‘sport of kings’ – of nerve and verve, macho and ego, and tens-of-thousands of pesos, or even millions, won or lost with a shrug.” But for the poor it is “a sport of dreams, pitting their lowly-rural-bred against a burgis [pedigree lineage bred] cock … on belief that on any day … his gamecock can win” (Stuart 2014, np).
In contrast to cockfighting in some other places, the Philippine cockfight is usually a fight to death. Owing to the long slasher, “a curved heel blade known as the tare” (Philippine Travel Guide n.d.; see Ill. in Herzog 1985, 117) fitted on the cock’s left leg, the duration of the fights is usually brief. The cockfight is said to be “very fast paced and exciting to watch” (Philippine Travel Guide n.d., np). But betting is the main source of tension in the cockfighting arena and also the principal reason for the fights’ high popularity. Hence as the Philippine Travel Guide (n.d.) points out, the betting session “is the most anticipated” stage of the match; while Stuart (2014, np) asserts that “betting is the sine qua non of sabong [cockfight]. In fact, without betting, sabong [would] be transformed into an unrecognizable namby-pamby sport.”
In the Philippines, a cockfight involves a variety of functionaries conducting the matches, among whom the “kristo” or bet-taker plays a central role (Alabanza, Gonzaga and Obligacion 1979), reflecting the centrality of betting in Filipino cockfighting. But the sheer magnitude of the “sport” has generated, and depends upon, a ramified infrastructure. Thousands of gamefowl breeders, from the Philippines and abroad, supply the cocks for the fights; the local breeders have their own associations, assembled in two national breeders’ organisations (Philippine Daily Inquirer 2009). Further, “there are more than 20 big companies engaged in the production, marketing and distribution of gamefowl feeds, feed supplement, vitamins, medication, vaccines,” and “a lot of small manufacturers producing slashers, boxes, incubators, gloves, carrying cases, folding pens, feeding cups, cords etc” for the cockfighting business (Bantay-Sabong 2008, np). Finally, there are “training schools [for cocks] specializing In fast kills” (Stuart 2014, np).
Filipino cockfighting is a potential, but ambiguous, tourist attraction: though foreign tourists seek occasionally to “catch a cockfight” (Yacobucci 2012), and some tour companies offer cockfighting tours (Smokey Tours n.d.), the “sport” as yet apparently attracts few foreigners, presumably owing to its reputation for gruesomeness (Stuart 2014). But cockfighting generates domestic tourism, while some Filipino aficionados living abroad time their home visits to be able to view major cockfight events, such as the World Slasher Cup (Philippine Daily Inquirer 2009).
The four kinds of animal-to-animal fights discussed in the preceding paragraphs, differ significantly in their legal standing and the gruesomeness and deadliness of their fights, but they nevertheless share several significant commonalities.
One, all have deep historical roots. Except for dogfights, in the past all played some religious or ritual roles. However, in most instances they have gradually been severed from their roots, became secularised activities, and in some cases underwent commercialisation.
Two, with the exception of buffalo fights, all share a similar socio-historical trajectory. They were in the past introduced or cherished by members of the higher social classes, but have gradually filtered down to the lower classes, even as their popularity in the higher ones declined. Consequently they lost their respectability and became gradually outlawed.
Three, sub-cultures have formed around the various kind of fights, and generated their own codes and criteria of evaluation, by which the personal honour, respectability and even identity of their practitioners is established. The sub-cultural world views served as an underpinning for the justification of illegal animal fighting practices in marginal groups, despite the abhorrence and condemnation of the wider society.
Four, animal fighting practices are heavily gendered, in terms of the composition of their membership, the machismo of their sub-cultural values and even the gender of the fighting animals.
Five, the animals in animal-to-animal fights serve as surrogates for their owners: hence an animal’s win or loss reflects upon its owner’s social standing, masculine honour and identity. Winning animals are therefore cherished; losers may be destroyed by their owners.
Six, members of the sub-cultures breed, feed, condition and train their animals to increase their fighting ability. In some instances, such as cockfighting in the Philippines, a complex supporting industry underpins the practice.
Seven, while the various animal fights fascinate their aficionados, betting by the public is the principal factor keeping the industry alive or even expanding (except in camel wrestling). Betting is based on the sub-cultures’ code of honour, with which bettors generally comply, though it lacks any wider formal or legal support. This is a particular instance of a “paradoxical situation wherein people who compete with each other in an illegal activity must also establish their reputations for honesty and trustworthiness [for their bets to be accepted]” (Darden and Worden 1996, 211).
Eight, the legal prohibition of animal fights in virtually all Western and many non-Western countries clashed with allegedly long-established local animal fighting traditions. In some instances the conflict was resolved by the exemption of such localities from the application of the law, while in others the practice was protected by allotting it the status of a national heritage.
Nine, attendance at animal fights varies from a limited number of involved practitioners or aficionados (as in dogfighting or cockfighting in Western countries) to a huge local and domestic audience. Foreign tourists play, if at all, only a limited role in the attendance at such events or the modification of their practices. Except in very few cases, such as the Cockfighting Centre recently established in northern Thailand (Reddy n.d.), no animal fight demonstrations intended for foreign tourists have come to my attention.
The principal conclusion indicated by our case studies is that, paradoxically, the very traits which the domestication of animals by humans sought to suppress, namely their natural wildness and ferocity, have been re-cultivated for the single purpose of winning of human-induced animal-to-animal fights. While domestic animals may be treated as mere objects by their owners, and induced to fight their opponents against their own inclination, once in the arena they display an agency, expressed in aggressiveness and ferocity, generally denied them in everyday life. But even if victorious, they are rarely rewarded for their prowess, while enabling their owners to gain prestige and monetary rewards.
In contrast to human-animal fights, such as bullfighting, in human-initiated animal-to-animal fights humans compete with other humans by proxy. Animals serve as the means for their success. To increase their chances of winning, humans tend to interfere with nature, by breeding, feeding, conditioning and training their animals to increase their innate ferociousness, in order to overwhelm the animals owned by their human opponents. This tendency is the opposite of the contemporary efforts to breed less aggressive bulls for bullfighting, and to clandestinely weaken their fighting capacity, to facilitate the matador’s victory over them (Cohen 2014a, 551).
Human-initiated animal fights are arguably ethically less acceptable than bullfighting or big animal hunting. The latter contain some marks of “equal chances” (Cohen 2014a) or of a “fair play” (Cohen 2014b) in the sense that both human and animal are exposed to a degree of danger, though in both cases the chances of survival are heavily weighted against the animal (Cohen 2014a). In human-initiated animal-to-animal fights, the animals may have equal chances of survival, but their human owners, while enjoying the fruits of their victories (or suffering the shame of their defeat), are not exposed to any mortal danger. Animal-to-animal fights are thus marked by a manipulative trait: humans reviving or enhancing the natural ferociousness of an animal and turning it into an instrument for the achievement of their owners’ goals.
The savage or “uncivilised” character of animal-to-animal fights might have led to their gradual prohibition in Western, and in many non-Western countries. However, the prohibition was resisted by their practitioners, fostering the emergence of sub-cultural ideologies, particularly among the disadvantaged, marginal or minority groups of society. For these, the fights figured either as an antinomian manifestation of protest against exclusion from mainstream society (as in dogfighting), or as long-standing local traditions, to be protected from the civilising or sanitising efforts of modern governments (as in cockfighting).
Insiders of animal fighting sub-cultures either rationalise the gruesomeness of their practice, or callously disregard it. For outsiders such animal fights pose a dilemma: while repulsed by the gruesomeness of such illegal or disapproved activities, the fights might have for some an antinomian allure, not unlike a “forbidden fruit”: an Otherness at once attractive and repulsive. I suggest that attending a cockfight or a dogfight holds for such individuals a voyeuristic fascination, just as bullfights do for some tourists.
The information culled from the case studies indicates that, in contrast to the considerable (though presently declining) interest tourists have shown in Spanish bullfighting (Cohen 2014a), their attendance at animal fights, even where these are legally and openly practised, does not seem to be remarkably strong. Moreover, the moderate kinds of animal fights, such as those between camels or buffalos, seem to have been more attractive to foreign tourists than the more extreme ones, such as cockfighting (or dogfighting would be, if it were accessible). However, most reports on tourist attendance at such events seem to relate to Western tourists in non-Western settings. As the proportion of Asians and other non-Westerners in international tourism grows, the size of foreign tourist attendance at legal animal fights could substantially increase in the future. The impact of the rapidly changing demography of global tourism on animal fight events could be an interesting topic of future research.
Alabanza, M., A. Gonzaga, and F. Obligacion. 1979. “The ‘Kristo’ of the cockpit: An Unsung Phenomenon.” Philippine Journal of Psychology 12(2): 36–44.
ANI News. 2013. “Traditional Buffalo Fight Enthralls Spectators in Shimla.” November 11.
Aydin, A.F. 2011. “A Brief Introduction to the Camel Wrestling Events in Western Turkey.” Paper presented at Camel conference at SOAS, University of London, May 23–25, 2011, 55–59.
Bantay-Sabong. 2008. “Philippine gamefowl industry info.” Accessed 1 Dec 2017. http://bantay-sabong.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/philippine-gamefowl-industry-info.html.
Brandes, S. 2009. “Torophiles and Torophobes: The Politics of Bulls and Bullfighting in Contemporary Spain.” Anthropological Quarterly 82(3): 779–794.
Budiman, M. 2013. Contemporary Funeral Rites of Sa’dan Toraja: From aluk todolo to “New” Religion. Prague: Charles University in Prague.
Çalişkan, V. 2009. “Geography of a Hidden Cultural Heritage: Camel Wrestling in Western Anatolia.” Journal of International Social Research 2(8): 123–137.
Çalişkan, V. 2010. “Examining Cultural Tourism Attractions for Foreign Visitors: The Case of Camel Wrestling in Selçuk (Ephesus).” Turizam 14(1): 22–40.
Carr, N. 2014. Dogs in the Leisure Experience. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Cohen, E. 2012. “Tiger Tourism: From Shooting to Petting.” Tourism Recreation Research 37(3): 193–204.
Cohen, E. 2014a. “Bullfighting and Tourism.” Tourism Analysis 19(5): 545–556.
Cohen, E. 2014b. “Recreational Hunting: Ethics, Experiences and Commoditization.” Tourism Recreation Research 39(1): 3–17.
Cortez, C. n.d. “Cockfighting Craze Takes Wing: The Philippine National Betting Pastime Is Going International.” Accessed March 1, 2016. http://mangossubic.com/cock_fighting.htm.
Cowboy Lifestyle Network. n.d. “Steer Wrestling.” Accessed March 15, 2016. http://cowboylifestylenetwork.com/in-the-arena/rodeo/steer-wrestling/.
Darden, D., and S. Worden. 1996. “Marketing Deviance: The Selling of Cockfighting.” Society and Animals 4(2): 211–231.
Daugherty, P.M. 2012. “Philippines Police Bust What Could Be World’s Largest Pit Bull Fighting Ring.” Opposing Views, April 16. Accessed March 15, 2016. www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights /philippines-police-bust....
DeMello, M. 2012. Animals and Society. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Donlon, J.G. 2014. Bayou Country Bloodsport: The Culture of Cockfighting in Southern Louisiana. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Donlon, J., J.H. Donlon, and J. Agrusa. 2010. “Cultural Tourism, Camel Wrestling and the Tourism ‘bubble’ in Turkey.” Anatolia 21(1): 29–39.
Douglass, C.B. 1997. Bulls, Bullfighting and Spanish Identities. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
EasyTourChina. n.d. “Dong’s Buffalo Fighting Festival.” Accessed March 10, 2016. www.easytourchina.com/fact-v992-dong-s-buffalo-fighting-festival.
Emerging Money. 2012. “Water Buffalo Fights May Indicate Rise of the Chinese Consumer.” Nasdaq. April 30. Accessed March 20, 2016. www.nasdaq.com/article/water-buffalo-fights-may-indicate....
ESDAW. n.d. “Dog Fighting – One of the Most Serious Forms of Animal Abuse.” Accessed April 1, 2016. www.esdaw.eu/dogfighting1.html.
Evans, R., D. Gauthier, and C. Forsyth. 1998. “Dogfighting: Symbolic Expression and Validation of Masculinity.” Sex Roles 39(11–12): 825–838.
Fennell, D.A. 2012.Tourism and Animal Ethics. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Festivals in Vietnam. n.d. “Do Son’s Festival of Buffalo Fights.” Accessed April 20, 2016. http://festivals-in-vietnam.com/sons-festival-buffalo-fights/.
Forsyth, C.J. 1996. “A Pecking Disorder.” International Review of Modern Sociology 26(1): 15–25.
Forsyth, C., and R. Evans. 1998. “Dogmen: The rationalization of Deviance.” Society and Animals 3: 203–218.
Franklin, A. 1999. Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity. London: Sage.
Garcia, J. 2015. “Cockfighting.” In Sports in America from Colonial Times to the Twenty-First Century, edited by S.T. Riess, 361–363. Oxford: Routledge.
Geertz, C. 1972. “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.” Deadalus 101(1): 1–37.
Hafeez, Z. 2014. “The Bloody World of Dog Fighting: Victory or Death, There Is No Mercy!” The Express Tribune Blogs, April 28. https://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/22043/the-bloody-world-of-dog-fighting-victory-or-death-there-is-no-mercy/
Harding, S. 2014. Unleashed: The Phenomena of Status Dogs and Weapon Dogs. Bristol: Policy Press.
Hawley, F. 1993. “The Moral and Conceptual Universe of Cockfighters: Symbolism and Rationalizations.” Society and Animals 1(2): 159–168.
Herzog, H.A. 1985. “Hackfights and derbies.” Appalachian Journal 12(2): 114–126.
Hicken, A. 2012. “Tourists – Have Fun, But Take Care, at Toraja Buffalo Fights.” Jakarta Post. August 24.
Horsefund.org. 2014. “Horse Fighting Fact Sheet.” Accessed March 22, 2016. www.horsefundorg/horse-fighting-fact-sheet.php.
James, C. 2012. “See a Crocodile Wrestling Show in Thailand: Dangerous? Depends.” Examiner.com. February 27. Accessed April 10, 2016. www.examiner.com/article/see-a-crocodile-wrestling-show-thailand....
Kilborn, P.T. 2000. “In Rural Enclaves of U.S. Cockfighting Is Flourishing.” New York Times, June 5.
Koh Samui News. 2014. “Buffalo Fighting Festival: Ten Days of Fights.” Accessed March 10, 2016. http:/samuidays.com/product/buffalo-fighting-festival-10-dnej-boev-bujvolov-na-samui/.
Köhne, E., and C. Ewigleben. 2000. Gladiators and Caesars: The Power of Spectacle in Ancient Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Larson, E. 2014. “ ‘Blood Sports’: America’s Dog Fighting Industry Is Still as Strong as Ever.” Mashable.com. December 24. Accessed April 2, 2016. http//mashable.com/2014/12/24/america-dog-fighting-industry/.
Lawler, A. 2014. “Birdmen: Cockfighters Spread the Chicken Across the Globe.” Accessed April 2, 2016. www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/12/cockfighting_ and_chicken.
Locara, L. 2013. “All Set for Candelaria Derby 2013 Edition.” Iloilo Metropolitan Times, January 23.
Markwell, K. ed. 2015. Animals and Tourism: Understanding Diverse Relationships. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Marvin, G. 1994. Bullfight. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Marwin, G. 1984. “The Cockfight in Andalusia: Images of the Truly Male.” Anthropological Quarterly 57(2): 60–70.
Matejowsky, T. 2003. “Spider Wrestling and Gambling Culture in the Rural Philippines.” Philippine Studies 51(1): 147–163.
McAleer, K. 1994. Dueling: The Cult of Honor in fin-de-siécle Germany. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Meijer, F. 2005. The Gladiators. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books.
Na Thalang, J. 2015. “Fighting to Rule the Roost.” Bangkok Post, Spectrum (November 29): 10–13.
National Council of SPCAs. 2016. “Dog Fighting – A Real and Shocking Reality in South Africa.” NSPCA Webmaster. June 28. Accessed September 10, 2016. http://nspca.co.za/dog-fighting-real-shocking-reality-south-africa.
Ortiz, F. 2010. “Making the Dogman Heel: Recommendations for Improving the Effectiveness of Dogfighting Laws.” Stanford Journal of Animal Law and Policy 3: 1–75.
Parkinson, J. 2011. “What’s a Bigger Draw Than a Camel Fight? A Camel Beauty Contest, of Course.” The Wall Street Journal, January 22.
Parley. P. 1835. Tales of Animals. London: Thomas Tegg and Sons.
Pearson, M.N. 1984. “Recreation in Mughal India.” The International Journal of the History of Sports 1(3): 335–350.
Perdue, A., and R. Lockwood. 2014. Animal Cruelty and Freedom of Speech. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2009. “Sabong: A Sport and Industry Filipinos Can Be Proud of.” Accessed Dec 1, 2017. https://bulang.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/sabong-a-sport-and-industry-filipinos-can-be-proud-of/.
Philippines Travel Guide. n.d. “Philippines Cockfighting sabong: Cockfighting in the Philippines.” Accessed April 10, 2016. www.philipinnes-travel-guide.com/philippines-cockfighting.html.
Raffles, H. 2008. “Cricket Fighting.” In Best American Essays, edited by A. Gopnick, 128–144. New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin.
Razaq, P. 2015. “Ram Fighting Is Here Again … and the Rams are Proving Their Mettle.” Daily Times [Nigeria], September 22.
Reddy, S. n.d. “Cockfighting Centre, Thailand.” [video] Accessed April 9, 2016. http://guidemore.com/v/54275584/.
Robehmed, S. 2014. “Do the Participants of Turkey’s Annual Camel Wrestling Festival Enjoy It as Much as the Audience?” The Independent, January 16.
Sadet, G. 2011. “Les Combats de coqs dans le Nord de la France: au nom de la tradition.” Nature – ailes, January 21. Accessed April 10, 2016. www.nature-ailes.com/article-les-combats-de-coqs-dans-le-nord-de-la-france....
Saigon Tourist. 2005. “Buffalo Fights – Exciting Weekend Entertainment in HCMC.” Accessed April 5, 2016. www.saigontourist.hochimincity.gov.vn/news/detail_en.asp?id=2096.
Sarkar, J. 2012. “Latestmetro ‘sport’: Dogs in the Ring.” Times of India, June 14.
Shubert, A. 1999. Death and Money in the Afternoon: A History of the Spanish Bullfight. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smokey Tours. n.d. “Cockfighting Tour.” Accessed April 9, 2016. www.smokeytours.com/cockfighting-tour/.
Stankiewicz, M. 2014. “The Surviving Bali Cockfighting Rituals.” Jakarta Post, August 15.
Stuart, G.U. 2014. “Sabong: Cockfighting.” Philippines for the Intrepid Traveler. Accessed April 2, 2016. www.stuartxchange.com/Sabong.
Stygelar, F-A. 2014. “Horse-Fights and Cow-Fights in Norwegian Folk Tradition.” Sport und Spiel bei den Germanen Nordeuropas von der römischen Zeit bis zum Mittelalter 88: 457–464.
Suga, Y. 2006. “Chinese Cricket Fighting.” International Journal of Asian Studies 3(1): 77–93.
Taipei Times. 2009. “Trained, Loved, Eaten: Vietnam’s Buffalo Fights.” October 7.
Vardar, N. 2014. “Animal Rights Activists Urge Banning of Camel Fights.” Bianet. Accessed March 5, 2016. http://bianet.org/english/animals/161185-animal-rights-activists-urge-banning....
Vietnam Ethnic Cultures. 2011. “Buffalo Fighting Festival.” http://vietnam-culture.blogspot.com/2011/10/buffalo-fighting-festival.html.
Vietnam-Beauty.com. 2008. “Do Son Buffalo Fighting Festival – Hai Phong City Festival.” September 23. Accessed March 20, 2016. www.vietnam-beauty.com/vietnamese-culture/festivals-and-ceremonies/15-festivals....
Vietnam National Administration of Tourism. 2012. “Buffalo Fighting Festival Attracts Over 30,000 Visitors.” September 25.
Vietnam National Administration of Tourism. 2015. “Do Son Buffalo Fighting Festival Attracts Large Audiences.” September 23.
Wannamontha, T. 2011. “Brawling Beetles Crawl for It All.” Bangkok Post, Brunch (October 2): 5–7.
WBIW.com . 2015. “Hog Wrestling Events at Country Fair Target of Animal Advocates.” August 4. Accessed April 10, 2016. www.wbiw.com/local/archive/2015/08/hog-wrestling-event-at-country-fair....
Wellman, A. 2015. “Horror Photos Show Bloody Battle as Dogs Fight to Death for Vile Festival ‘Entertainment’.” Mirror, March 4.
West, P. 2008. The Enduring Seminoles: From Alligator Wrestling to Casino Gambling. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Yacobucci, I. 2012. “Cockfighting in the Philippines: Catching a Cockfight in Valencia.” Borderless Travels. February 20. Accessed December 1, 2016. http://borderlesstravels.com/gp/asia/republic-of-the-philippines/cockfighting-in-the-philippines.
Yilmaz, O., and M. Ertugrul. 2014. “Camel Wrestling Culture in Turkey.” Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Natural Sciences Sp. Issue 2: 1998–2005.
Yilmaz, O., Y. Ertȕrk, F. Cosçun, and M. Ertuğrul. 2014. “Camel Wrestling Economy in Modern Turkey.” Fifth International Scientific Agricultural Symposium ‘Agrsym 2014.’ Jahorina, Bosnia and Hezegovina, October 22–26, 2014, 905–911.
Yilmaz, O., M. Sarikaya, F. Coscun and M. Ertugrul. 2015. History of dog fighting in the world. Journal of Animal Science Advances 5(6): 1304–1305.
Young, K.M. 2016. “Criminal Behavior and Local Resistance: The Sociological Significance of the Hawaiian Cockfight.” California Law Review 104: 1159.
Zarley, B.D. 2015. “On the Edge of the Pit: Cockfighting in America.” VICE Sports, March 11. Accessed April 15, 2016. http:sports.vice.com/en_us/article/on-the-edge-of-the-pit....