Talk:Blood sport

Etymology

Falc added this:

"Interestingly enough, it's origins don't refer to the prey's blood, but rather to that those who were allowed to practice it were of royal blood. Animal Rights activists have enjoyed turning the phrase to elicit emotional imagery, and so we have the colloquial use today."

Much as I'd like to believe this, I can't find any evidence. The American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster define it as "a sport involving bloodshed" [1], which doesn't give any indication that 'blood sport' was derived in any other way than the obvious. So I've removed the paragraph for the moment. --Malthusian (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I spent the better part of an hour with the Oxford English Dictionary and with a reference librarian at the main branch of a big city library and the origin of the phrase is obscure, its use in written language basically going back to the 1500's when we would expect lots of things to be mentioned first in writing. As best I was able to determine, the phrase originally referred to chase sports such as hunting (before firearms) but with increasing urbanization and the popularity of spectacles such as cockfighting in urban areas, the phrase was adapted. Certainly the phrase was expanded in Victorian times for rhetorical purposes by animal welfare activists, and the ambiguity was played with for rhetorical purposes. I think the above sentence should be removed because (a) not all "bloods" were royal anymore than all frat boys today are Greek, (b) the phrase animal rights is a modern one which is distinct from animal welfare. The rhetorical gist of the argument is (as far as I can determine) accurate, though, but words evolve and are co-opted all the time. The term "gentle" use to mean "high-born" or "regal", for example, and certainly words commonly used today such as mouse and stylus have been changed for good... Rorybowman 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Scope of the term "blood sport"

Every dictionary anyone has cited, and the explanation given of the source of the term, and modern usage, all say that the term "blood sport" extends beyond sports in which animals fight to any sport in which animal blood is shed. I shall re-jig the introduction to reflect that; if you think it should stay as it is, please provide a cite — ciphergoth 11:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The earliest written uses of the term "blood sport" refer to chase forms of hunting, not combat between animals, a later development which accompanied urbanization. - Rorybowman 16:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

...so you agree with my change? thanks! — ciphergoth 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Recreational fishing = blood sport?

The definition states: "Bloodsport or blood sport is any sport or entertainment that involves violence against animals."

Recreational fishing generally involves tricking a fish to swallow a barbed hook which then pierces the animal's body. The animal is then removed from its environment and life support systems, which it struggles against, and allowed to asphixiate; or clubbed to death with a gaff. What part of this doesn't fit the definition of blood sport? Bob98133 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe the definition is too broad. I'd say blood sports involve some sort of fight between animals, or between animals and humans, use of unnecessary violence, meaning more than is needed to just kill the animal. This is obviously true for all sorts of animal fighting, baiting, etc., which make up most of the list, and fox hunting. It says in the article that the use of the word for normal hunting is disputed. Fishing's just fishing though. Recreational fishing is not much different from commercial fishing. If you don't fish with grenades of electricity or spears, the fish is going to asphyxiate. It should be noted that fish are generally thought of as not being able to feel pain, so fishing isn't comparable to drowning deers or something. Also, I don't think anyone thinks of recreational fishing as a blood sport, probably not even animal rights groups. I'm pretty sure there's a wikipedia rule somewhere that says you can't write something in an article if no one else agrees with you. –Kloth (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points. Commercial fishing, since it is not a sport, would defintiely not fit in this group. A blood sport does not need to involve any fighting, although it could be argued that fishermen fight the fish to capture them. The fish are sure as hell fighting not to get reeled in. Not true about fish thought not to feel pain - see the fish article. As it stands, fishing fits the defintion of blood sport in this article, so I think it should stay. It would be hard to argue, whether or not you believe fish feel pain, that there is no violence involved in fishing. Were a human attacked the same way, it would certainly be considered violence. Unless you believe that violence is something that can only be directed against humans, in which case no animal sports would be included, but perhaps boxing or hockey might be.

This article [2] from a Flyfishing website states "Fishing is a blood sport - get over it." reacting to PETA's claim that it is a bloodsport, so you are incorrect that nobody thinks of fishing as a blood sport since it appears that both recreational fishermen and animal right people agree on this one. The wiki guide is that content should be referenced. If you'd like, I'll add a reference to the flyfishing article to support fishing being considered a bloodsport, and you can try to find articles that claim it isn't.

Bob98133 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

207.255.53.2 - you miss the point of discussions. It is your turn to state on this page why you believe that fishing is not a blood sport and to state references to support your point of view. I am reverting this edit once again, since perhaps you did not understand that while a discussion is ongoing, all editors of the article have a chance to arrive at concensus, or at least express their views. I have stated one reference, from a fly fishing magazine that directly refers to fishing as a blood sport, and mentions an animal rights group which maintains that it is. Please supply references to support your change. If you simply revert this, without stating any reasons or references, you will be merely encouraging an edit war. I am not talking about MY defintion or YOUR definition - I am talking about what reasonable and reliable participants in the activities have written about fishing as a blood sport or not. Bob98133 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

fishing/hunting

These categories have been removed several times by an IP editor. Please state your reason for removal in your edit summary. In any event, fishing, hunting and recreational fishing all fit the definition of blood sports. From the lede:

Bloodsport or blood sport is any sport or entertainment that involves violence against animals. Bloodsport includes coursing or beagling, combat sports such as cockfighting, or other activities. These usually involve blood being drawn, and often result in the death of one or more animals.

Hunting and fishing are considered sports by those participating in them. Removing an animal from its natural environment with a hook through its mouth and allowing it to suffocate seems violent to me. I don't care if people do it or not, but it's violent. Both of these sports "involve blood being drawn" and result in the "death of one or more animals".

All that said, why do you keep removing these from the category? Bob98133 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the so-called sources for the statement that fishing is regarded as blood-sport by both people from inside and outside the sport, because they are insubtantial and unverified. They are no more than a collection of anonymous blog comments, obscure on-line articles from authors with no verified connection to fishing at all, or simply make no mention to fishing as blood sport whatsoever. As none come from a verified fishing supporter (such as a known online fishing magazine or a blog with a proven track of fishing-related activity), they cannot be considered sources and therefore the statement is unsupported - proper citation is still required.

(Undid revision 495825936 by All Worlds (talk)

I undid the revision by All Worlds. I think it was well meaning but I don't see their statements as supported by the citations. Blood sport is usually defined as violence against animals. I have yet to see it technically defined as specifically encompassing sports where humans are the sole participant i.e. boxing or cage fighting. Usually when boxing or cage fighting are referred to as blood sports they are alluding to these sports being like animals fighting.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/blood%20sport http://www.answers.com/topic/blood-sport

Even the citation provided by All Worlds specifically lists hunting and cockfighting as examples of blood sports. The telegraph article they use to show that British Medical Association opposes blood sports has no mention of blood sports. It is an article against MMA Cage Fighting. Which I contend is not a blood sport in the common usage.

I know that I am being bold in reverting. This is why I am explaining my position here, rather then just reverting and walking away. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert and we can discuss it here.  :)DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your position on removing the definition as used by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and related information but I find your actions at fault, limiting in knowledge and would request a more balanced understanding on all branches of knowledge of what is a blood sport within the pages of Wiki. As it is stated.....

Wikipedia's purpose is to act as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.

.......and I further understand that......

A definition (≝) is a passage that explains the meaning of a term (a word, phrase or other set of symbols), or a type of thing. The term to be defined is the definiendum. A term may have many different senses or meanings. For each such specific sense, a definiens is a cluster of words that defines that term.

.......The definition as used by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary - edited by Merriam-Webster, 2003 to define blood sport as "a sport or contest (as hunting or cockfighting) involving bloodshed" is not limiting the definition to animals. Using "as hunting or cockfighting" as examples does not limit that which is a blood sport but rather examples by animal blood sports. Any sport or contest that causes bloodshed according to this definition is a blood sport. This definition is not constricted within a few examples of one area of animal blood sports but universally understood as it is written and exampled by ABC News, Yahoo News, The Guardian, Vassar College and the University of Delaware just to mention a few.......

ABC News --- Cage fighting becoming the new 'blood sport' - “the new gladiator contest, as a blood sport," - Cage fighting becoming the new 'blood sport' By Hagar Cohen for Background Briefing - April 30, 2012 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-28/the-rise-and-risks-of-mixed-martial-arts/3977084

YAHOO News! ---- Bud Light Asked to End Blood Sport Sponsorship of Cage-Fighting by Alcohol Justice - http://news.yahoo.com/bud-light-asked-end-blood-sport-sponsorship-cage-221805275.html

The Guardian ---- Blood sport - While boxing struggles for its very survival, viewers are turning to an even more brutal form of entertainment. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/28/mixed-martial-arts-ultimate-fighting

Vassar College ---- Origins: A Brief History of the Games - It seems that the terms "blood sport" and "electioneering" would be fitting for the munera by historical purpose. For the funeral games, the blood sport aspect was represented by the gladiators who spilled blood for the sake of others http://faculty.vassar.edu/jolott/old_courses/republic1998/games/origins.html

University of Delaware - Lecture provides a window into blood sports of the Roman Empire - http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2012/nov/coleman-gladiators-111411.html

...... Thank you for your concerns and the manner in which you did this, but I would request a return of the revision.

All Worlds (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the informed and civil response. With the citations you just provided I with draw my complaint completely. I will revert my edit. Would you please include some of the above articles into the list. They provide the example of the term blood sport being applied to boxing and cage fighting that I felt the article was lacking.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I was just being lazy. I added the citation myself. The article still needs some more citations though. I will hunt for some myself, but it seem like you might have some very useful ones already.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And your efforts and our interactions are greatly appreciated with the hope that we further the purpose of Wiki and the improvement of available knowledge for all on all issues involved. Thank you. All Worlds (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Recreational fishing

I realise this has been discussed previously, but I can see no good reason for excluding "Recreational fishing" from the list. I am therefore following the WP:BB and I offer below multiple sources where recreational fishing has been classified as a blood sport. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] DrChrissy (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

My own view is that this is a WP:FRINGE position. Most of the sites there are animal rights sites, nearly all appear to be UK sites, and the idea that fishing is a blood sport seems to be confined primarily to the animal rights people in UK; the rest of the world thinks this is seriously nuts, I am not sure even PETA takes that view to much of an extreme. (Said with a smile). Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This article in itself may not represent a worldwide view of the subject and after review of the "Hunting and recreational fishing" section, if not alone, it may not be represented in a WP:NPOV representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The article as it is, seems to carry many issues from citations, broken links, outdated sources and other cleanup work even before WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV is considered and probably should be further discussed and possibly flagged as . All Worlds (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Montanabw, may I respectfully challenge your assertion that most of the sources are animal rights sites. I tried carefully to choose a spectrum of sources and my search was hardly extensive.

[11][12][13][14][15](USA)are not from obviously animal welfare or animal rights organisations - in fact, several are from anglers or angling groups. [16] is a personal account from a person who may or may not have animal welfare or animal rights tendencies.[17] is a single author (USA) which is of arguable sincerity. [18] is clearly an animal rights organisation. I concede that there is a predominance of UK sites but that is because I used Yahoo(UK) for this search. The view that recreational fishing is a 'blood sport' is held by people in many different countries and is the view of many people involved in animal welfare rather than animal rights. As to whether this is WP:FRINGE there are several other items on the list that would fall under this I believe, e.g. Fox tossing and Insect fighting.

Moreover, I do not see how Recreational fishing can be excluded given the current definition given on Blood sports.

__DrChrissy (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I haven't the time, energy or interest to really do anything with the article, so I'm not going to really spend further effort pestering those who do, so with this post I've said my bit. I will simply suggest that you find solid arguments for and against it (try Field and Stream or Fly Fisherman magazine for a pro-sport-fishing view). You know, NPOV and a worldwide view. Remember that freewebs and various blogs are not reliable sources.. ;-) . I have heard that the animal rights crowd in the UK will yell at and openly harass poor old men who just want to sit somewhere and quietly fish off a dock or something, if true, that seems to be bizarre behavior, unkind and quite over the top. I also understand that the fox hunting ban resulted in the deaths of thousands of foxhounds, as they had become useless. That also seems a mixed result. I think these issues in the UK reflect a resentment of the upper classes (who are the only people who can really afford to hunt or fish) by the lower classes; whereas in America, at least out west, there are no class distinctions involving who can hunt or fish, licenses are cheap and public land is abundant. I do distinguish fishing from hunting; while I support responsible hunting, I understand the "blood sport" aspect and personally have issues with things like "canned" hunts or game-wasting in a badly-done trophy hunt. I live where there are people who feed their family on game they responsibly shoot themselves. But we also have problems with slob hunters and snob hunters, neither have my approval. (Where I live, these views make me a woolly-headed, bunny-loving, tree-hugging environmentalist radical liberal lefty, by the way...grin) Montanabw^(talk) 06:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. I'm also not entirely sure about how much energy I have for this topic as I suspect it has all been talked about before, so I understand your motivation and thanks for comments on the sources I provided. May I suggest that you might have read some of the more extreme cases of British behaviour. I used to go angling when I was a kid, but stopped as I became more aware of animal welfare and ethics issues. I would never dream of shouting at old men enjoying their leisure time, but I would add to information which educates people regarding the issues so they can make their own choice. I don't doubt there are people in the UK that would shout at them, but I have never seen this happen, and I rather think this would not be limited to the UK - there are plenty of other countries in Europe with animal extremists. Regarding the fox hunting ban, there is a lot of mis-information about this. The vast majority of foxhounds survive and are now used in Drag hunting. The mis-information comes about partly because fox hunting in the UK is associated with the upper classes. The same is NOT true for modern hunting and certainly not angling which is the highest participation sport in the UK. From one liberal lefty to another....grin ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL and thanks for your thoughtful reply. If you are a vegetarian and also do not fish, I can respect that. But if you eat fish and chips, we need to talk -- SOMEONE had to catch that fish! (smile) I know some Buddhists who take the lives of all sentient beings seriously and do not swat flies, eat fish, and even hesitate to eat things like eggs if they are unsure of their origins due to the animal care issues in the industrial egg industry. I can respect a consistent world view. But if someone wearing leather shoes tells me not to eat fish, then I call bullshit! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have found that if you ask ANYONE enough questions about their use of animals, including myself, there will be hyopocrisy. I, like your Buddist friends, will seek to know the source of eggs I buy - I only buy free range eggs, but I also know that any cakes or biscuits I buy probably use eggs from hens in cages. Having worked on hen welfare science on free range farms for the past 10 years, I also know there can be huge welfare issues in these systems, something which a lot of people do not wish to admit when they are comparing them to cage systems. I also like to eat tuna and prawns. I often wonder which is the more morally dubious: Being partly responsible for the death of one tuna, or solely responsible for the death of 40 prawns in my sandwich. Oh the joys of animal welfare!__DrChrissy (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Tuna are amazing and long-lived creatures subject to overfishing and habitat destruction. If we take a concept of the zeroth rule and apply it to animals, in that causing extinction of a species is bad, then I say save the tuna and eat the prawns... and yes, "free range" isn't exactly "home on the range" -- I've seen some of that too. Montanabw^(talk) 21:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just gonna weigh in here. It seems ludicrous to call recreational fishing a "blood sport". So perhaps the problem is with the definition, which is a bit broad. It seems to me that blood sports are spectacles where the main point is combat between two animals (or humans, I suppose). Recreational fishing isn't combat; it's more comparable to hunting. And unless we're also going to include deer hunting and the like in the list (which would be required for consistency if we were to put in recreational fishing), it makes no sense to include recreational fishing. Reading the cited sources, above, I'm pretty certain this is a fringe definition. One may of course be opposed to recreational fishing on moral grounds - that is not the issue. The issue is whether recreational fishing seems to be the sort of thing which we think of when we use the term "blood sport". I would be willing to bet that for most people, it does not. Therefore, I have removed it from the list, and, further, I suggest we further specify the definition. 174.91.132.174 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)