Talk:Blood sport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Blood sport is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Removed Hunting from list of blood sports. Hunting may or may not be a sport. Often it is still required for mere survival. Ths artical definately has some one sided opinions. I came here looking for Bloodsport the movie.

Contents

[edit] History this talk page

This talk page was redirected to Talk:Blood sport (hunting) for a brief time in December 2005 to January 2006. For talk during that time (and the rationale for moving the article back here from blood sport (hunting), please see that page. I have this day created blood sport (disambiguation) and bloodsport (disambiguation) pages and moved the content of blood sport (hunting) to this page. The general rationale for this "reambiguation" is that the activity involving animals is the first historical and dominant use of the term, and that blood sports for the most part do NOT involve hunting or fishing (or sport, for that matter). - Rorybowman 14:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Hunting as a Blood Sport

Can someone clarify for me in what way hunting is a blood sport? I mean this in all seriousness. See, I can understand how trophy hunting or sport hunting or something like that might be considered a blood sport. But hunting is a more general term that also includes hunting for subsistence reasons. That doesn't even meet the definition of sport, so how can it be a blood sport? There are many parts of the world where hunting is still very much part of a subsistence lifestyle. I truly, honestly, fail to see how this can be called a blood sport.

Now, someone might want to say that that's not the kind of hunting that's refered to here. But, how is it excluded if it's not explicitly included? In my opinion, including hunting in here, without qualification, reveals a POV problem that may, in fact, be symptomatic of a larger, conceptual difficulty with the entry itself. At the very least, I propose deletion of the "hunting" entry. We might want to replace it by "trophy hunting" or "sport hunting" or, perhaps, both. Alternatively, most of the forms of hunting, such as fox hunting, hare coursing and pig sticking, are already listed so we may want to go with just that.

BTW, I've placed similar comments on the Template talk:Bloodsports page almost a week ago with no response. Comments? — Dave 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "blood sport" is almost entirely a rhetorical or political one, and in my experience almost no one who uses it has any interest in allowing for hunting of any sort. I find the rhetorical use of "blood sport" in regards to hunting almost identical to the use of "pro-life" as regards abortion. Don't waste your breath, as reason is not their point in using the term. - Rorybowman 17:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hunting is not always a sport, true, but it is sometimes a sport, and where it is a sport the description "blood sport" seems straightforwardly accurate. As you observe above, the origins of the phrase are not polemical even if that is its modern use. I'm not sure it's that loaded a phrase anyway; you'll only have a negative reaction to it if you always react negatively to the shedding of animal blood, in which case you're not going to be more pro-hunt because a different phrase is used. What would be a more accurate and less loaded umbrella term - "animal death sports"? I write as one who thoroughly enjoys his "blood food" :-) — ciphergoth 10:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
My comments were not, in any way, intended to imply disagreement with the term blood sport. I feel it's clear that sport hunting, trophy hunting, hare coursing, etc are, by definition, blood sports. You are correct that "where it [hunting] is a sport the description 'blood sport' seems straightforwardly accurate." What I'm concerned with are the cases where hunting is not a sport. I truly don't care whether or not this term or another one encourages people to be "more pro-hunt". I care about accuracy. It is simply incorrect to call hunting a blood sport and to qualify it no further which this article and the template do. It would be correct to call trophy hunting, sport hunting, etc a blood sport. Hunting is a technique, it is not, necessarily, a sport. It's a technique that can be used for sport or not. In what way do the current article and the template capture that subtlety? I suppose I could simply "be bold" and change the article to be clearer. I posted here and on the template talk page because I wanted to avoid a revert war. Notice that we took fishing out of here and the template and replaced it with sport fishing (a move, BTW, supported on the fishing and sport fishing talk pages). I'm simply extending the very same argument to hunting. I think the article, at the least, needs to be clear that hunting can be a blood sport but isn't necessarily so. The template is more problematic. There is currently no entry for sport hunting and, consequently, we could not make a change analogous to what was done for fishing. — Dave 16:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
While both sport and subsistence hunting are covered under one article, it's appropriate for the bloodsports template to link to that one article. If and when it's split into separate articles then the template can be changed to link to the right one. The article should clarify that not all hunting is sport hunting. Does that make sense? — ciphergoth 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The distinction between fishing and sport fishing exists because commercial fishing is a viable industry, at least for a short while. Currently commercial hunting is outlawed (and known as poaching), with pure subsistence hunting a very small portion of the legal hunting in the world today. - Rorybowman 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That's no surprise; thanks for the clarification. I guess someone might one day feel moved to write an article about subsistence hunting in pre-agricultural societies, but even then the main "Hunting" article should be about sport hunting, so we still wouldn't change the template. — ciphergoth 08:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would take issue with the claim that subsistence hunting is a very small portion of the legal hunting in the world. This is again an issue of semantics, but hunting for food would surely be the majority of hunting that takes place. Trophy hunting and others being the exception rather than the rule. I realize that the majority of those who are using the term Blood sport in this context have a POV and may be seeking to advance it here. I would invite them to consider for a moment the fact that from an animal rights perspective hunting for food more desirable than any form of husbandry or ranching to produce meat. Animals killed by hunters suffer a much quicker and likely less-painful death than they would face in nature. A natural death is not a pretty one. It means death from sickness or being eaten by a predator. Furthermore, hunting reduces the demand for farmed animals. Animals killed by a hunter are permitted to spend their lives in concert with their instincts rather than in conflict with them as they would if raised in a factory farm. They are then killed quickly in what is likely the best death that could be hoped for in nature. Moreover, the hunter recognizes that his meal was produced as the result of the death of an animal, not in ingnorance of it as most who purchase plastic wraped meal. Why would those who seek to advance animal welfare alienate their fellow conservationists in the hunting community by attaching the loaded lable "blood sport".--Counsel 19:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the welfare debate to concentrate on the meaning of 'bloodsport', I think that it is difficult to verify either way whether "hunting for food would surely be the majority of hunting that takes place". We should bear in mind that hunting can be for both sport and food. For example hares can be coursed and eaten and pheasants can be shot by city businessmen and sold to game dealers. MikeHobday 06:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. Are you saying that if one enjoys hunting it is a blood sport, but if it is purely utilitarian (or presumably if it is disliked) it is not? By such a rationale a farmer who enjoys being outdoors is not farming for food, but for sport. The hunters that I know generally have venison in the freezer and it is a treat to eat it. They would not starve if they did not hunt. They could buy steaks at the supermarket instead. They also very much enjoy hunting. I would maintain that they hunt for food even though they enjoy the process. Many hunts are not unsuccessful, but are still very much enjoyed. Do such activities qualify as a blood sport? It just seems grossly overinclusive to say that because some hunting is a blood sport, then all hunting is a blood sport. This would be analagous to arguing that because some dog owners fight their dogs, dog ownership is a blood sport.--Counsel 16:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure we disagree completely. I am not saying that all hunting is a blood sport - I accept that some isn't. What I am saying is that eating the prey does not prevent that hunting from being a bloodsport. Animals can be killed for both for and pleasure. In which case, the activity is both 'for food' and 'for sport'. MikeHobday 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights vs animal welfare

Re-deleting as per your (very courteous!) invitation in my Talk page, Rorybowman. I'm still not seeing what it has to do with hunting. Surely it belongs somewhere in an article on animal rights/welfare? Thanks for flagging up the discussion. — ciphergoth 10:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welfare Section

I am not sure what this section is trying to say. What "term" is is describing. Is it about the term "animal welfare" or "Blood Sport". It then says that something is fiercly denied by the "overwhelming majority", but does not say a majority of what. This section needs clean up and citations. I cannot do it as I am not sure what the point of the section is.--Counsel 00:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of things that have been referred to as blood sports

I'm converting this to "List of blood sports" because it's clear to me that it's reflecting a view that is contrary to the definition given in the article. Boxing and mixed martial arts definitely does not by design include a risk of death or wounding. Both carries the risk of serious injury (broken bones, etc.) but such risks are within any other contact sport. Pro wrestling is not even a sport. The list of examples should include only commonly-accepted examples of blood sport, not the most liberal interpretations as that would not be a neutral point of view. hateless 18:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Added Point of View flag

This article needs a serious look at the neutrality of its POV. It appears to present an entirely negative viewpoint and seriously lacks broader perspective. I will be glad to help out, but to do so would have to have some indication from the people who've worked so hard on it that they would accept changes without considering them an "editing war". Trilobitealive 23:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To demonstrate the sort of POV editing I think is needed you may look at the opening paragraph, which is a tiny bit less slanted than before ;) Trilobitealive 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC) I have another reference concerning the origin of the term itself, if anyone is interested: (link)Trilobitealive 00:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Substantial Changes

I'm making some substantial changes in the section on animal welfare. These include changing the heading to Current Issues, adding references and expanding its subheadings. I'm also considering adding a separate section on unintended consequences but haven't decided if it should go in this article or another related one.

DRAT! Sorry guys I'm a rank newby and have forgotten the four tildes yet again!Trilobitealive 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/o/Talk%7EBlood_sport_6a61.html"