a bloody fighting

[wollastoni]

I rather agree with Simon on this one. If this fight was for scientific purpose, then why not, but I have the feeling it was just to have fun.

I have seen many rooster fights in Sulawesi. It's very popular there.
There are about 300 guys bidding around 2 roosters. It's very impressive and they shout each time their favorite makes a good attack. Such rooster worths a very high sum there.

I found it rather interesting until I saw that locals add razor blades on rooster claws. It is in fact a faked natural fight and the fight is very bloody and most of the time lethal for the loser. It's a strange feeling to see Humans having so much fun seeing animals suffering... a little bit like corrida in Spain and South West France.

[jensb]

I think bill and wollastoni are right.
It was for no scientific purpose.
If you kill a beatle in a killing jar is
something else as slaugther them each other.
I hoped that all entomology people loved
beatles. Every single one. Death or alive.
But if you let suffer you beatles this way..
That isn't normal.
And like already sad this are no naturally conditions.
In the nature the weak one can easely fly away.
I think here there were placed just against each other.

Greets

[wingedwishes]

So is it ok as long as they were separated when there was a clear winner. In the case of lifting horns, one typically gets flipped and the "fight" would be over. This would be more tolerated I think and would be less stress to the animal. Chickens, dogs, fish, etc are all fought. It is against the laws in many places and should be. Where is the line drawn though? In labs in my Botany class, we used to bet on which fly would get eaten by a plant first.

[papilio28570]

In a natural setting, there would be ample leaf litter and other detritus on the ground as opposed to a flat wooden floor. The loser would likely have been able to recover his footing instead of being helplessly trapped on its back. He may have elected to retreat or may have become the winner.

Not much of a fan of blood sports here.

[bichos]

And the winner is: [glow=red,2,300]Odontolabis alces[/glow] what a beast


wwishes wrote: " one typically gets flipped and the "fight" would be over"

Many lucanids do flip their opponents sure! But there are endless mandibular forms and not all are designed and used for flipping. The series of images in this thread demonstrate just that. The winner is clearly not a tosser/flipper but rather a good example of a strong set of mandibles capable of inflicting serious harm to its opponent. Coud this be part of the reason this genus can be so common?
Other lucanid mandibles are used for digging, inducing sap flows, piercing holes in their opponents, cutting tarsae and legs, etc... Lucanid mandibles can be used in various ways, even within a single species, hence the various forms exhibited.

papilio28570 wrote: "there would be ample leaf litter and other detritus on the ground as opposed to a flat wooden floor"

The looser was on a log (natural surface) not a hardwood floor, that's just where he landed. No ammount of leaf litter or detritus could help him there.

I just see this as a great example of what a well equiped lucanid can do if given half a chance, thank you

Lastly, not all species will behave like this, as many are quite shy and seldom bite unless provoked ie. many Dorcus sp. Phalacrognathus etc

[dertodesking]

Sept 24, 2012 5:05:49 GMT -8 bichos said:

The winner is clearly not a tosser

LOL - not sure this sentence translates to other languages but I chuckled when I read this..!

Simon

[lucanidae25]

I think bill and wollastoni are right.
It was for no scientific purpose.
If you kill a beatle in a killing jar is
something else as slaugther them each other.

Killing is Killing no matter how you reasoning it. There's a reason it's call a killing jar, a killing jar is for killing. It dosen't make it any less alright than any other forms of killing. If you kill a human it dosen't matter how you do it. You are still guilty of killing. It's very hypocritical..............

But if you let suffer you beatles this way..
That isn't normal.

If you collect insects, how do you know the insects YOU baught or the insects YOU put inside the killing jar dosen't suffer? It's dosen't make it any less OK. This is like someone who eat meat and talks about animal suffering. If you don't eat the meat in the 1st place then no animals have to die............ very simple and hypocritical.

[Deleted]

"Killing is Killing no matter how you reasoning it. There's a reason it's call a killing jar, a killing jar is for killing. It dosen't make it any less alright than any other forms of killing. If you kill a human it dosen't matter how you do it. You are still guilty of killing. It's very hypocritical.............. "

With all due respect, this is not true. Yes, dead is dead. But I believe that all animals deserve a death with dignity. One may not know how an animal was butchered, but going out and knowingly doing the fighting thing to get a kick out of seeing suffering is wrong by my book. If a hunter kills for meat, then he is obliged to kill it humanely, not wound it so as to watch in awe as it struggles and all. A fisherman is obliged to put the fish out of its misery if he/she wishes to kill with purpose and with dignity.

Humans are killed in different ways. Defending one's home in an invasion is killing with a purpose not instigated by the homeowner. Mass murderers are murdering for the "fun of it" in their sick minds and that is not the same as a solider defending the defenseless or his country. In all three scenarios, humans were killed, but the purpose remains the issue. Killing is part of the natural world. btw----there is only one animal in the whole world that gets pleasure from killing. That (supposedly superior) animal is us Every other animal has a purpose for killing, namely eating, defending young, or to fullfill 'survial of the fittest' right to mate. Even terrible mass murderers are afforded some degree of dignity in death. Not one murderer(so far as I know) in recent times was executed the same way he/she carried their terrible crimes.

There are times when killing is meant to have a high purpose. If the mandibles 'experiment' was carried out scientifically, then fine. I saw pictures that glorified the ripping apart of an opponent which has no purpose as I see it.

Indiscriminant killing(kill to kill or kill to watch a slow death) is not the same as killing with a purpose and with dignity.

So, there you have it. Two totally different takes on life and the morals of killing. Let the readers decide. If one wants to mention hypocritical tendencies, then look at the people who claim to be 'pro-life', yet they go out and commit murder. That is hypocritical.

Respectfully,

[lucanidae25]

But I believe that all animals deserve a death with dignity

How would you define "dignity"? very personal
Killing with a high purpose dosen't make killing any less alright in my book. At the end of the day they would be still under "killing" no matter how I look at it. One killing dose make it better than the other...... this is what I having problem with, how is one better than other?

How do you expend when a cat killing for the fun of it and leaves the kills behind?

If one wants to mention hypocritical tendencies, then look at the people who claim to be 'pro-life', yet they go out and commit murder. That is hypocritical.

I don't know who you're referring to?

[Deleted]

Ok, you've made your points and I've made mine.

so..............

Let's agree to disagree on this one and return to the hobby.

[bichos]

it’s like you get people who protest against bull fighting. But straight after the protest they're off to Mcdonalds or wherever and contribute to the slaughter of cattle. What is dignity? I don't think that lining cattle up and systematically killing them without any dignity whatsoever is better than bullfighting. I see it as ruthless killing for the purpose of human consumption. Bullfighting is a little barbaric and not for everyone, sure! However, its tradition and at least the bull has an opportunity to defend itself. As slim as this chance may be... it exists. Unlike at the abattoir where there is nothing but a certain death. There is some chance to fight back and arguably some dignity for the bull also, keeping in mind that bullfighters get hurt and sometimes killed.

[wollastoni]

It's not because slaughterhouses are barbaric that we should accept barbaric events like corridas.

We must :
- eat less meat (I know it's ####ing good !...), in the West, we eat far too much meat.
- eat organic meat (for those who can afford it) to guaranty respectuous animal life conditions
- fight for more animal respect in those slaughterhouses (see the Mc Donald's supplier scandal last month).

[wingedwishes]

I love it when people anthropomorphize! Cats toy with prey appearing to enjoy the terror of the prey item, as do Killer Whales. Chimps go to war with other chimps and beat to death their own species and then eat them. There are other examples in nature as well so: Are we doing this to satiate a curiosity (morbid or not)? A case could be made that this is natural. If we are a part of nature then what we do may be natural (although offensive). The schism comes when we consider feelings and conscience which many other creatures lack. Is a whale evil for flipping a live seal out of the water over and over seeming to play "catch?" Is a human evil for fighting a dog? Since the construct of evil is wholly a human creation, then yes, a human can be considered evil by doing what the vast majority of humans considers a negative and destructive behavior. But then there was this Chimp that kept taking and killing the babies of other chimps........ Muddy water indeed.

[Khalid Fadil]

Okay, I knew stag beetle males fought... But, I didn't know they fought till both of 'em came to pieces! They never showed that on television...