There is not such thing as a uncruel bullfight, as there is not such thing as a uncruel death penalty.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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 Napoleón 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

4. 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 bull’s flesh but stuck on a
Velcro cloth placed on the animal’s 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 velcro’s cloth on the bull’s 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 “Quito’s 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
exposé 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.

5. 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 else’s 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
©SHARK discomfort that undoubtedly becomes
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

6. 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,

7. 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

8. 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 bull’s
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

9. 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 animal’s 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 bull’s 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 écarteur) 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

10. 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 animal’s 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

11. 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 bull’s 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

12. 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
bullfighter’s spurs in a Portuguese bullfight
©LACS
As we have seen, in all the types of bullfights that have been described with the term 'cruel-
less', 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
animal’s care.

13. 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'.

14. 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 'cruel-
less', 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 bull’s 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.

15. 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 bull’s 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 bull’s 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.

16. 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'?
Bull’s 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

17. 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 sheep’s 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 sheep’s 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 “

18. 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 cruel-
less 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