The Cruelty of the Bloodless bullfights

In recent years, a new concept has begun gaining force in the debate about bullfighting. Originally from the USA where part of the Californian Portuguese community reinvented it about 20 years ago, the term bloodless bullfighting, which was translated later to Spanish as cruel-less bullfight (corrida incruenta), is often heard today in the public forums where the anti-bullfighting movement has already managed to put the debate about Tauromachy (bullfighting in Geek; word often used by the scholars who study it) in the political sphere. But this anti-intuitive concept is much older, and much more contradictory, than it seems at first glance. It is worth to analyse it in detail.

1. The endless search for 'uncruelty'

The dynamics of the label 'cruelty' associated with bullfighting is integral to the bullfighting debate and as old as tauromachy itself. The fact that bullfighting spectacles are public has made the undoubtedly cruel practices of animal abuse difficult to hide, practices that advocates of animals have been showing to the general public, which is increasingly more sensitive to animal suffering, and therefore more opposed to such practices. This has forced the bullfighting industry to 'reform' its image from generation to generation, trying to modify the practices that cause a more adverse reaction from the public, and to 're-define' its activities to get rid of the 'cruelty' label. Several forms and styles of bullfighting have appeared in different countries through history trying to sell to the public an image of a tauromachy more politically correct. In Andalusia, during the 18th century, the regulation of bullfighting began, and the modern form of bullfights were created. However, in the same century, the intellectual European movement known as The Enlightenment (so named by its declared purpose of removing the darkness of humanity by means of the lights of reason) began spreading through Europe, gaining great momentum in countries such as the United Kingdom and France. This movement finally caused the banning of cruel spectacles where animals were pit to fight other animals or humans, and it spawned the animal protection movement, which in 1824 had already matured enough to see the birth of the first animal welfare organisations in the United Kingdom.

One of the first historical advances of such organizations was the passing of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835, Law that banned in England bullfights, cockfights, dogsfights and all the spectacles of animal fighting, which for centuries had dominated British society. This law undoubtedly influenced other countries, and the following year the queen of Portugal Dona

Maria II banned by Royal decree the death of the bull in public during bullfights performed in this country. The prohibition did not last long, but it was approved again in 1928. Nevertheless, this did not eliminate the cruelty of the Portuguese bullfights since the bullfighting industry kept on killing the bull privately (sometimes two or three days after the bullfight, leaving the bull injured and bleeding, suffering during all this time in isolation), replaced the traditional pica (lance) by a punishment harpoon which causes similar damage, and kept on using the banderillas (long barbed sticks with harpoons in the end), which they increased of size and therefore since then they cause more pain.
Bullfight of the Portuguese style (touradas) LACS

The next significant reform happened in the decade of 1920 when the use of protecting cloth armour in the picadores' horses was made compulsory in all the countries where Spanish style bullfighting occurred. As the death of the horse in public was common, and the animal protection movement that had begun several decades earlier began precisely as a reaction to the abuses that coaches horses were suffering, this reform, which became Law in Spain in 1928 and in Mexico two years later, was conceived with the hope to stop once and for all the effect of the Enlightenment that by then had already secured the absolute ban of all kinds of animal fights in the majority of the European countries.

Bullfight previous to the obligation of the use of armour in the horse of picadores

Nevertheless, this did not pacify the animal protection movement for which the welfare of the bulls mattered as much as welfare of horses, and the anti-bullfighting campaigns continued, keeping the 'cruelty' label firmly attached to tauromachy. We find the next 'reform' in France in the decade of the 1960s, when the so-called 'autochthonous' bullfights (Course Camargaise and Course Lanadaise), where the bulls (or cows) are not killed, joined the bullfighting industry. This type of bullfights had been performed for centuries in their not very regulated original forms, separately of the bullfighting industry, but in the 60s and 70s they were regulated, federations were formed, names were changed, and in

the end they joined the Spanish bullfighting industry, possibly as consequence of the French penal code that in 1951, after hundred years of legal debate, prohibited Spanish style bullfights, except if they are performed in areas of France where it was traditional for many years.

Course Camargaise LACS

Spanish style bullfighting was imported into France in 1835, when a bullfight in honour to the Empress Eugenia de Montijo (a Spanish aristocrat wife of Napolen III) was performed in Bayonne, but the label of 'cruelty' prevented the bullfighting industry from expanding to the centre and north of the country, where the effects of the Enlightenment were still strong. When, with the 1951 Law, the rejection to the death bullfights in France classed them as a crime in the majority of the country, the industry needed more than ever an image improvement, so it 'allied' itself with the autochthonous bullfights free from bad reputation by their French nature, and because by then they were not considered cruel yet. Therefore, since then, in certain municipalities of Landes and the Camargue (both regions in the south of the country) we can find both autochthonous bullfights and Spanish style bullfights in the same bullrings, for the same fans, under the same bullfighting industry. However, instead of improving the image of the industry, this 'union' ended up worsening that of the autochthonous bullfights, since the animal protectionists that until then had not paid too much attention to them, began discovering that the bulls and cows also suffered in them, despite the fact they were not killed in the end. The 'cruelty' label remained.
Course Landaise LACS

The next reform happened in the USA, in the 1980s and 90s. The Portuguese community in California wanted to organise bullfights but the supposedly 'cruelty-less' Portuguese bullfights were considered illegal in this state (and in all others) given the fact that the mistreatment that the bulls received in them was against animal protection legislation. It was in 1980 when the

Portuguese-American bullfighter Frank Borba invented a new style ( bloodless bullfighting ), similar to the Portuguese style, but replacing the banderillas and hook of punishment for equivalent in Velcro (which, theoretically, were not stabbed in the bulls flesh but stuck on a Velcro cloth placed on the animals back). A few years later, in 1999, the son of Borba, also bullfighter, developed this style into a mini North American bullfighting industry, with several permanent bullrings, bullfighting bulls farms, bullfighting schools, etc. For years bullfights of this type of bullfighting happened without the animal protection movement complaining because actually the anti-bullfighting movement had no idea that these bullfights existed (not even the Californian animal protection organisations), considering the few publicity they made. When the international bullfighting industry realised that the cruelty label, after so many years, had caused an unstoppable strong crisis in which the majority of the population of bullfighting countries were no longer interested in bullfighting, it began thinking about the North American bloodless bullfight as a possible salvation to explore as a last resource. With the support of bullfighters from other countries, the American industry began expanding into other states (Nevada, Illinois, etc.) and there is where the anti-bullfighting movement began to wake up, which led to investigations that in the end revealed that such bullfights were neither bloodless nor cruel-less, as expected.
North American bloodless bullfight, showing the velcros cloth on the bulls back LAT

And this takes us to the year 2010, when the bullfighting industry in Ecuador, harassed with a national referendum that resulted in the majority of the population of the country voting for the banning of bullfighting, uses again the desperate card of the 'cruelty-less' bullfight, this time inventing a new style, which could be called Quitos style , where the only thing that changes with regard to the Spanish style is that they do not kill the bull in public, but only privately. The expos in 2009 of the fraud of the 'bloodless bullfighting' in the USA, the commercial defeat of the attempts of expanding such industry to other states of the USA, and the rejection of this style by the most orthodox bullfighting aficionados, did not give to the Ecuadoran bullfighting industry any choice other than inventing this new style, which of course did not do anything to avoid the 'cruelty' label, especially now that the slaughter of the bull happens in private without the animal protection movement able to check it. The desperate search for the 'cruelty-less' bullfight began centuries ago and it will never end, because the bullfighting industry is looking for something that does not exist, and every generation that comes, more sensitive to animal suffering and more sophisticated in detecting it, will always see beyond what the publicists and bullfighting reformers try to sell them.

2. The physical and psychological torture of the 'bloodless' bullfights

The reason why all the attempts of the bullfighting industry to get rid of the cruel label always fail is because its activities are undoubtedly cruel, and this fact can easily be documented. For 'cruelty' (or absence of compassion for somebody elses suffering) to occur two elements are needed: that unnecessary suffering is cause to somebody else, and that who causes realises it but keeps on causing it although it is free to stop it. To cause deliberately suffering for sport or entertainment, repetitively, ignoring the expressions of pain of the victim, is an act of torture, independently of who is the victim, and independently if the victim survives in the end. All the bullfights that have been defined as 'cruel-less', either the Portuguese, French autochthonous, North American or from Quito, are based on torture to bulls or cows with different methods that cause them suffering, and the bullfighters are aware of it since, considering their 'profession', they must read intensely the behaviour of the animal they fight to anticipate its reactions. As nobody forces these toreadors to fight the animal (in contrast to the slaves of the classic Rome who were forced to be gladiators), this conduct can be described as cruelty, even if they do not feel any sadistic pleasure and only act cold and calculatedly for the salary they receive, or the praise they are venerated with. Such a torture can take different forms, but its effect can be seen at two levels: psychological suffering and physical suffering. The first example of psychological suffering is 'discomfort'. Our bodies are designed to look for an environment where our physiology works efficiently, and therefore we have senses that evaluate the environmental variables (such as are temperature, humidity, air chemistry, parasites, etc.), which inform us if we are in a suitable place, and if we are not the brain will create a sensation of discomfort to make us change place until it disappears. However, if this sensation does not disappear because we are unable to leave the uncomfortable environment, the brain increases its 'alert' to the point that such feeling of discomfort is transformed into suffering. The most common situation where discomfort becomes suffering, suffering becomes stress, and stress becomes physical illnesses, is captivity. All the animals used in all kinds of bullfights, even the supposedly 'bloodless' ones, begin their ordeal with the same phenomenon: the sensation of loss of freedom for the imposition of a forced captivity that can last days, and sometimes even weeks. The radical change from life in the pasture to life in metal trucks or cement cells, dark, small, narrow and stifling, which do not even allow the animal to run (which is what its instinct asks it), to return to its herd (which is what its communication expresses) or even to turn round and scratch itself because of an itch or nervousness, is a source of extreme discomfort that undoubtedly becomes SHARK suffering given its duration. In the case of the Course Landaise the effect of 'captivity' is even multiplied by the fact that the animal enters the

bullring with a rope tied around its horns to force it to be in the part of the ring the bullfighters wish, or to stop any unwanted charge on its tracks. The second example of psychological suffering is fear , and this one is caused in all kinds of bullfights, even the 'bloodless ones. Based on the fact that, to prevent the animal from getting accustomed too much to human beings and therefore not consider them a threat anymore which would prevent it from defending itself charging, which is the behaviour all bullfighters want to provoke it is raised in the pastures without much human contact, in a more natural state than the animals bred for meat (and they do not get this 'better' life simply because of generosity or to compensate for the maltreatment they are going to receive later on), this means that any human handling to the animal is going to cause to it more fear that if it happened to another animal already used to humans. The fact of separating it from its herd, which gave it protection since birth, is already going to create certain fear, but it is then put inside a dark and stifling truck to be transported to the bullring, experience that the animal has never lived and does not 'understand' either by instinct or by learning; it is then placed in dark cells with smells reminding of pain and strange threatening noises, and finally, through shouts, pushes and pricks, it is forced to run towards a suppose 'escape' to find that, in a shocking fright, it is now surrounded by yelling humans and terrifying trumpets, where it can neither flee nor shelter in any corner. Any mammal, even human beings, put in the same circumstances, would undoubtedly feel fear, since the fear is a natural emotion that has evolved in all of them to try to deal with strange situations possibly dangerous.
Lorries transporting bulls for a Course Camargaise LACS

The third example of psychological suffering is 'anxiety', which can be defined as an oppressive fear that does not disappear, caused often by uncertainty or fear of the future. This type of suffering is more common in the bullfights that are catalogued as 'cruel-less' than in the death bullfights, especially in those where the animal is not killed and it is used again later on in other bullfights, as is the case of the autochthonous French bullfights. For the discomfort and fear turning into anxiety it is necessary that the cognitive system of the animal is sufficiently complex that it can predict events, and that such predictions tell the animal that the near future is not positive. All the mammals have this capacity, since their brain is sufficiently developed to have good memory, and to use it to foresee the short term future (for example, the attack of a predator, the appearance of food or water, etc.). Bullfighting bulls, for being mammals, but also for living in herds with complex social relations, have good cognitive capacity that undoubtedly allows them to remember adverse situations they have lived in the past and to try to avoid them in the future. Therefore, bulls and cows that have already been fought, remember the bad experience they had, and if they are facing another bullfight, they know perfectly well what awaits them. This memory 'feeds' their frustration since they know that, no matter what they do,

they cannot avoid the experience, which aggravates their fear towards the category of anxiety. If the memory of a previous bullfight was positive or neutral, the result would be less fear ( becoming habituated to the experience, as is the case of the manipulation of cattle used to the human contact), but since all the bullfights are an adverse experience, their remembrance, as in the case of 'traumatizing' events, does the opposite.

Bull tied in a lorry waiting to be fought in a Course Camargaise LACS

The fourth example of psychological suffering is 'stress'. This is really the boundary between psychological and physical suffering, since it is the effect of being in a situation of discomfort, alert, fear or distresses during sufficient time so that the natural physiological state that these situations create to 'return' the organism to its natural balance, starts generating pathological problems since such responses evolved only as emergency solutions in the short term, not for the long term states. An animal, human or not, suffers from stress when what initially was a natural reaction against 'adversity' has become a pathology, and as such it is much easier to detect clinically (with the appearance of very concrete symptoms, among them a high level of the cortisol hormone). Since the process of the bullfight is actually very long (the bullfight can lasts only about 15 minutes but the process began when the bull was 'kidnapped' from the pasture, days or weeks earlier), this undoubtedly generates stress, which even the veterinarians of the very bullfighting industry recognise. This type of suffering is even more common in case of 'bloodless' bullfights in which the bull survives the spectacle, and it is either sacrificed few days later when the stress has been accumulating (as in many Portuguese style bullfights), or goes through the same ordeal again and again in the future, even during the rest of its life (as in the autochthonous French bullfights).
Cow stressed during a Course Landaise LACS

As far as physical suffering is concerned, there is one type that is common in all the styles of the bullfighting: 'exhaustion'. So all sort of bullfighters can approach an animal and 'execute' their passes and/or twirls the animal must be weakened to reduce the risk of accident and to respond better to the 'instructions' or deceptions of the toreadors. That is not difficult, since bovines have a very high corporal mass and not very efficient mechanisms to control the excess of body temperature (they neither sweat like the equines or human beings, nor have very long tongues to eliminate heat like canids or felines), and therefore, after certain physical exercise, they become exhausted very easily and at risk of suffering hyperthermia. This can be verified simply observing their facial expressions, since there is one that indicates precisely exhaustion: the open mouth and the tongue out, while breathing intensely with the mouth (see adjacent photo of a Portuguese bullfight). From the bullfights to the Spanish style to the North American bullfights, each and every one of the bulls fought shows this expression after a few minutes of having been harassed by the bullfighters, and having run in the arena because of this harassment. In the case of the bullfights of the Portuguese style this exhaustion is more evident because the bull is forced to run even more, chasing the bullfighter who in this style is on horseback (fact shared with the Spanish rejoneo). When an animal is exhausted, since there is a great danger of collapse (and even death) if it does not rest immediately, the brain makes him feel suffering (which can even be shown as muscular pain, breathlessness, etc.), which evolutionarily is a natural mechanism to inform to an organism that it is living through an adverse situation that must be avoided urgently. The expressions of pain of exhausted athletes at the end of a marathon are a good example. The next example of physical suffering is the 'injury' or wound. There is no need to argue that injury and wounds produce pain, since we all know this fact that is understandable both evolutionarily and intuitively, and there is no need either to argue that the pain is a form of suffering. What perhaps we must explain is that in the so-called 'cruel-less' bullfights injuries are also infringed to the animals fought. In the case of the Portuguese bullfights every animal is injured by metal weapon that clearly make him bleed. It begins with the insignia which is stabbed to the bull before going out to the arena, and shows to which cattle breeder it belongs to; then the lance of punishment that the riding bullfighter stabs on the bulls back after it has been exhausted by making it chase a small flag at the end of a stick that the rider shows to the bull, while the fresh horse (they change it every few minutes so that it does

not become exhausted) is trained to always run a little faster than the bull so that it does not catch it; then there are the banderillas that the rider stabs to the bull while riding the horse (and that's why they are longer, which causes bigger injuries once in the animals flesh when it moves from side to side), and finally the weapon that the butcher uses to kill the bull at the end of the day or a few days later, in private so that the public does not see it (the physical and psychological abuse of the bull is so severe, and the memory of the event makes it so dangerous, that this bull cannot be fought again in the future and it is killed). The case of the 'Quito' bullfights is very similar, with the difference that instead of lance of punishment the pica is used (the long spear that is stabbed in the bulls back several times by the picador on horseback), and that is possible that it is the same toreador and not a professional butcher who kills to the bull with the 'verdugo' (a special sword thats garrottes to the bull when it is still standing up) in private the same day of the bullfight (which is not known since this style is new and the killing is not public and has not been documented yet).

Picador LACS

The injuries in Course Landaise may come form of pricks the cow receives (since this style uses females) to force it to move if it resists; or pricks that it receives from a stick with a metallic top to force it to run in the opposite direction where another toreador (called carteur) is waiting to jump over it; or muscular injuries that the animal can possibly suffer caused by the violent tugs of the rope that it has tied in its horns.
Stick with a metal end being stabbed on a tied cow during a Course Landaise LACS

The injuries in Course Camargaise may come from the pricks produced by the 'trident', a long pole that ends with three metallic sharp spikes, traditionally used by cattle breeders in the Camargue, and used to move animals by pain. In this type of bullfight the bull often jumps the fence that limits the arena (which is shorter than in the Spanish bullrings, to allow the toreadors to jump over them more easily, since this is part of the spectacle), which makes the use of the trident quite frequent, in order to force the bull to return to the arena. Also, accidental injuries can happen with the crochet, the metallic tool that the toreadors (called raseteurs) hold to cut the cords that the bull has tied to the base of its horns, while they are running in front of the bull avoiding its charges.

Left: Crochet. Right: trident used to poke bulls in a Course Camargaise. LACS

As far as the North American bullfights are concerned, one would expect that the use of the Velcro has completely eliminated the wounds, and the term of bloodless bullfights is justified. However, since we will see below, an undercover investigation undertaken by the animal protection movement in 2009 showed that behind the Velcro of the banderilla there is a real metal spike that stabs the back of the bull producing wounds, although the bleeding caused is absorbed by the 'black' cloth on the animals back, and therefore the public does not see it. Also, many of the bulls fought in this style cannot be used in another fight again since the bull not only is going to collaborate less in future occasions given its good memory, but it is going to be more dangerous because its experience makes it less vulnerable to the 'deceptions' of the toreador and therefore it is also going to be sacrificed after the bullfight (we do not know exactly how, since they do not do it publicly).
Metal spike under the velcro of a banderilla in a US bullfight

And we must not forget the horses, the other victims of the tauromachy. They are used in the Quito bullfights for the picadores, and in the Portuguese and North American styles for the cavalheiros. In the former, as in the Spanish bullfights, although they have cloth armour that theoretically protects them from the bulls goring, sometimes such protection is insufficient, and the bull knocks down the horse ending up goring it in the unprotected parts of the body, adding real wounds (sometimes fatal) to the terror horse endures from the moment that an invisible being since the horse has its eyes covered so it does not see it charges against it with all its force.

Bull topping over the horse of the picador LACS

In the latter, the horses also suffer accidents when the bull catches them, and since in this case they do not have any protection, such accidents can also be fatal, especially in the cases where, to give a bit more excitement to the bullfight, the horns are not covered with leather cups, as is traditional in Portugal.

Bull without covered horn goring to a horse during a Portuguese bullfight LACS

And in the cases where there are no accidents, it is often possible to observe the side of the horse bleeding, since the riders use the spurs with so much intensity to make the horse react quickly to their instructions, that these cause visible injuries.

Injuries caused to the horse by the bullfighters spurs in a Portuguese bullfight LACS

As we have seen, in all the types of bullfights that have been described with the term 'cruelless', there is psychological and physical torture that makes them intrinsically cruel, despite how they have been named.

3. The breach of the five animal welfare freedoms by the tauromachy

Nowadays, all modern animal protection laws of are based on the Five Animal Welfare Freedoms, a concept initially developed in the United Kingdom in the 80s, but adopted in the rest of the world. These freedoms define the minimal conditions in which it is possible to say that the welfare of an animal is adequate. Therefore, they are the legislative base for penalization of animal mistreatment by those in charge of animals who could not guarantee such freedoms. In particular, the five freedoms say that animals have 1. To be free from thirst and hunger 2. To be free from discomfort 3. To be free from pain, injury and disease 4. To be free to express normal behaviour 5. To be free from fear and distress If it is possible to prove that a person failed in giving some of these freedoms to an animal at his/her charge, that is equivalent to animal abuse and in the majority of modern countries such person is punished. The most advanced animal protection laws in the world go further, as far as the severity of the fines and custody sentences (often prison) and the easiness to prove such negligence. For example, the last animal protection law passed in the United Kingdom, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, allows the authorities to arrest a person only for considering that, because of the kind of care he/she gives to an animal, is likely that some of these freedoms are not going to be provided in the future, even if they are still provided in the present. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove that the animal is fed badly, it does not receive a suitable veterinary treatment, or cannot express natural behaviour, but only that, in a nearby future, it is likely that this situation will occur due to the negligent behaviour of the person responsible for the animals care.

The tauromachy debate is based on discussing the treatment bulls and horses used in the bullfighting industry receive, and deciding whether it is justified or not, and whether it needs modifying or be stopped altogether. Therefore, at the very least, it will be necessary to assess the five freedoms of animal welfare to find out whether or not there is animal abuse. In our case, we will do this only analysing the bullfights that have been described as 'cruel-less', and from what we have already seen in the previous chapters, not only it is clear that such bullfights are in breach of some of these freedoms, but in fact they are in breach of all of them. With regard to the first one (freedom from thirst and hunger), it is known that, before a bullfight, the animals are not feed (for a whole day or more), to avoid excessive vomiting and defecation when facing the public, and to avoid the soporific state caused by their digestion, common in many ruminants. Although such deprivation of feeding would be acceptable if recommended by a veterinarian previous to surgery, it clearly is not in the case of using to the animal in entertainment or celebration. This phenomenon also happens in the bloodless bullfights, for exactly the same reasons as in any other type of bullfight. With regard to the second one (freedom from discomfort), third (freedom from pain, injuries and disease) and fifth (freedom from fear and distress), in the previous chapter we have already showed in detail that all the types of 'cruel-less' bullfights infringe all these freedoms. With regard to the fourth one (freedom of expressing normal behaviour) the process of the bullfighting is based on using normal cattle behaviour and forcing the animals to express it in an unnatural form in the benefit of the spectacle. For example, the normal behaviour of a bullfighting bull that is being threatened is to join its herd, if the threat persists to flee running with the herd (stampede), and if he keeps on persisting and the herd cannot flee more due to geographical limitations or exhaustion, then to charge with the intention of making the attacker desist. This natural defensive behaviour is more or less the same in all the ruminants, as can be seen in wolves hunting deer, or lions hunting buffaloes. In bullfighting, on the other hand, such behaviour is 'manipulated' so that it is not expressed in natural form, but only showing the last phase, which is repeated again and again. Bullfighters separate the bull so that it cannot use the herd as protection, places it in a round bullring without exit or corners so that it cannot flee or find shelter, and it is provoked continuously to awake the last resource: the charge. And then the cape (or the bullfighter in the case of the autochthonous French bullfights) is withdrawn at the last moment so that the defensive charge, which in the nature would only be repeated a couple of times once physical contact has been established, keeps on repeating because it has not been 'completed'. Therefore, the tauromachy not only prevents the normal behaviour of the bull, but it manipulates it until it appears as an unnatural behaviour (the continued charging, necessary for the 'spectacle'). Also, the bullfighting bull breeders, theoretically, control the reproduction of their animals to generate bulls that charge more normal (to became more brave), which in itself is an attempt of genetic control of the behaviour that forces to the bull to behave 'abnormally'.

Therefore, due to genetics or captive conditions, due to handling or maltreatment, in the case of bullfights in the Spanish style and also in all those styles that have been described as 'cruelless', the bullfighting industry, in charge of the well-being of its animals, is in breach of the five animal welfare freedoms, and it is therefore also guilty of animal abuse, as in the case of any person convicted for animal abuse. The only difference is that in nine countries in the world legal 'exceptions' have been created so that those involved in animal abuse on behalf of the tauromachy could not be charged with the same animal protection laws that the rest of the population must obey.

4. The 'deception' of the North American bullfights

When the bullfighting industry began expanding their North American style bullfights beyond California, animal protection organisations began investigating in more detail this type of 'bloodless' bullfights. The result was revealing, but not surprising. In two separate investigations, one in a bullfight in Artesia on 23rd of May of 2009 and other one in Thornton one week later, the organisation Animal Cruelty Investigations (ACI), based on Los Angeles, discovered that the banderilhas that in theory only should end in a tip of Velcro that would stick to the cloth of the same material placed on the bulls back, had in fact a real metallic sharp spike hidden underneath.

Metallic spike found under the Velcro at the end of the banderilha used in 'bloodless' bullfights in California ACI

When the bulls were examined by an animal welfare officer (approved by the State of California to inspect activities of this sort), he discovered that indeed the bull had punctures under the cloth and it was bleeding. The agent in Artesia confiscated the banderilhas and stopped the event, but the agents in Thornton were less lucky because when they did the same, together with local police officers, they were attacked by the bullfighting aficionados.

From this 'revelation', the advance of the 'bloodless' bullfights across America was stopped and many of the bullfights that had been programmed in other states were cancelled. The investigations continue, since now that the animal protection movement in the USA is aware of the existence of these bullfights, undoubtedly there will be more.

Agent of the animal protection organisation ACI confiscating the banderilhas used in the 'bloodless' North American bullfight ACI

The possible reasons for the existence of this 'fraud' could be the following: on one hand, the idea that the banderillas would remain stuck on the Velcro, despite the continuous movement of the bulls, perhaps encountered technical problems that were attempted to be solved by the metallic spike at the banderilla end, which, by stabbing it in the bulls flesh, would keep the banderilla in position. The problem of the blood that this would spill (alerting the authorities) could have been solved making the cloth at the bulls back very thick and black, so that the spilled blood would be absorbed and not visible. On the other hand, there is the original function of the banderillas and the lance of punishment in the bullfight, which is to debilitate the bull so that other bullfighters (in case of Portugal the so-called forcados) can later handle the bull easier. Without the pain or the blood loss due to the use of the Velcro instead of the usual weapons it is possible that the task of the forcados turned out to be too difficult, and therefore the real banderillas were reintroduced hoping that nobody would notice. The main 'fraud' of the North American bullfights is not that they cause blood when they are defined as bloodless, that kill to the bulls after the bullfight when they are defined like without death, that try to be the solution of the crisis of the tauromachy when the orthodox fans detest them, or that are defined as cruel-less when the torture of the bulls has not been eliminated (since it cannot be eliminated). The most significant 'fraud' is that they are entirely based on deception from design. The deception of the bull to make him think that it is being attacked by an assiduous predator that cannot be pushed away; the deception to the authorities because of hiding the abuse made to the bulls, against the relevant legislation; the deception to the aficionados because it shows them a bullfight without the elements they want to see; the deception to the pro-bullfighting lobby that loses the 'tradition' argument to defend the tauromachy; the deception to the public because the image of a cruel-less bullfight is sold to them when actually such bullfights are full of cruelty; and the deception to the politicians because the idea sold to them that this type of bullfights is going to solve the problem of the bullfighting debate since it is going to be accepted by the animal protection movement, when clearly this is not true.

5. The increase of 'manipulations' in the 'cruel-less bullfighting

The case of the 'fraud' exposed in North American bullfights explained in the previous chapter leads to a reflection. Is it really possible to fight to a bull that has not been weakened with pain and blood loss? We already know that the history of the bullfighting debate is full of accusations of manipulation' of the bulls before they come out to the arena, to help the work of the bullfighters and to reduce their risk. For example, the use of drugs, baseline in the eyes, of sand sacks, clipping of the horns, pins in the testicles, etc. Several of these accusations are groundless and they do not make much sense since the use of the lance and the banderillas is clearly sufficient to debilitate the bull and to allow to the bullfighter to do his 'task', but some of them not only are true, but they have been admitted by the bullfighting industry itself, that has created regulations that forbid such manipulations, and has changed procedures to eliminate them. For example, the case of the 'shaving', where the tips of the horns are filed down to reduce the danger when goring. This practice, prohibited by the bullfighting regulations of the countries where the Spanish style bullfights occur, has kept happening, and occasionally there news of breeders or other bullfighting professionals fined by such infractions can be seen on the news. On the other hand, such practices are legal in Portugal, where not only the horns can be filed but also they put leather hoods on them, especially to prevent the bulls from hurting the horses, which do not have another protection. But the question that we must ask is that, if some of these modifications really happen despite of being against the regulations and the 'reputation' of the involved bullfighters, and despite the bulls are already severely weakened with the banderillas, the pica, or the lance of punishment, should not we expect that they would happen even more in those bullfights where the bull is not stabbed with these weapons? If really an element exists of coward bullfighters: who pretend being brave attacking a bull that has lost even more the capacity to defend itself sue to the 'manipulation' that has received, should not we expect that these would use even more manipulations in the bullfights classed as 'bloodless', where the bull is more 'fresh'?
Bulls horns covered in leather in a Portuguese bullfight Miguel Noronha

If the process of finding the 'uncruel' version of the tauromachy is simply a response to the bullfighting crisis with which the industry tries to improve its image, should not we expect more 'deceptions' in the supposedly bloodless bullfights, including deceptions regarding the supposed valour of the bullfighter, or to the supposed danger of the bull? The most orthodox taurophiles evoke artistic and philosophical concepts to justify the tauromachy, such as bravery , caste , honour and valour , to exalt a torture of an animal to something 'supreme' that should be considered an universal cultural heritage. Can they keep on using such arguments if they continue in the line of reforming the industry

towards the 'bloodless' bullfight, which is a much more fertile terrain for the 'deception' of the manipulation of the bull?

6. The tauromachy with a sheeps skin

The tauromachy not only is based on events where animals are tortured, but on public spectacles where bullfighting aficionados can bring their young children so that they can also become fans, through desensitising and tribal cohesion. Those who oppose bullfighting use powerful arguments about how violence perpetrated to the bulls ends up 'infecting' the society which tolerates tauromachy, making it a more insensitive society to the suffering of others, and therefore more at risk to becoming more violent. There are already well-known studies that relate the abuse of animals to the abuse to human beings, and there are more scholars who join the rejection of bullfighting not for animal protection reasons, but for public security reason. However, how does this induction to violence change in case of the 'bloodless' bullfights? If the torture, although modified, persists, if the worship to the 'killer' of bulls persists, if the breeding of animals to be humiliated in public spectacles persists, if the narrative of the bullfighting liturgy of dominance over the 'beast' persists, and if, finally, the 'machy' (fight) in tauromachy persists, the induction to violence is going to keep on existing. If the tauromachy covers itself with a sheeps skin, more reasons for us to be afraid of the wolf that hides behind. Beyond the apology of the violence from a purely theoretical and indirect point of view, the existence of the 'bloodless' bullfights does not prevent them from being used to reinforce the 'bloody' bullfights. The clearest case is that of the North American bullfights, which generated a mini bullfighting industry in the USA. Such industry, despite being limited by the legislation that prevents it to organise bullfights in the Spanish, Portuguese or Quito styles, has created not only bullfighting bull farms to be used in 'bloodless' bullfights, but also bullfighting schools, in which some toreadors of name have already been created. But such schools do not teach the bloodless bullfighting, but simply the traditional bullfighting, and the bullfighters formed in them have ended up killing bulls abroad, because that was the reason they signed up to the courses. It is ironic that an industry that brands itself as bloodless has schools of bull 'killers' who learn to be the most bloody that one could be. The imitation of a violent activity remains a violent activity in itself, so therefore we should not be surprised to see that those who learn the 'art' of killing declaring that they are not going to use it, end up using it where they are allowed to do so. As analogy, let's look at the case of raping (this is only an illustrative analogy, not a direct comparison). In a hypothetical world where rapists have organized themselves to perform their activities as a public spectacle, and where they have managed to do it in a particular country during so many generations that spectators have begun to confusing sexual excitement for artistic catharsis, it is perfectly possible that a 'sexomachy' could be created, with an associate industry, chairs in universities to study it, journalistic commentators specializing in it, and of course an organized opposition from human rights advocates against it. If such hypothetical society, influenced by the intellectual advances of other countries, was maturing with time till the point that the majority of the population would like to ban the sexomachy activities', it is possible that the option of the

cruel-less rape is put on the table. First limiting who can be raped, and which type of sexual acts are allowed. Then, if that does not satisfy the human rights protestors, reform even more forcing the rapists to use condoms, and only to rape victims who have had a lucky and 'luxurious' life. Perhaps that would not eliminate the debate either, so in the end, the real cruelless rape par excellence would be proposed: Not more human victims; they all are replaced with inflatable dolls. Would it really be reasonable to expect that such society should accept such 'sexomachy', even if there are already no real victims? Would not be the banning of worship to rape the only ethically acceptable solution? The imitation of cruelty remains being a cruel act, especially if the victim does not know that it was an imitation. The cruelty of the 'cruel-less' bullfights, be called Portuguese, Frenchs, North American, from Quito or any other invented, is very real as far as the bulls, cows and horses that have to endure it is concerned, but it is also real for the members of the society that tolerates them, since it prevents them from abolishing completely bullfighting, which cause social damage and helps to perpetuate violence. The majority of countries in the world chose the abolition without the need of any 'intermediate' step, because in ethical issues that imply suffering to third parties no intermediate steps are acceptable. The animal protection movement is a part of the peace movement opposed to unjustified violence, and therefore seeks the abolition of tauromachy, by law or by reconversion. In the 21st century there is no room for cruel spectacles that cause suffering to other sentient beings, and changing the name, the form or intensity of such cruelty does not give them the right to continue existing.

Jordi Casamitjana Ethologist

London, UK January 2012