Dog fighting is defined as ‘an act of combat between two dogs for the entertainment and financial profit of spectators’ (Atkinson, 2008: 12). Organised dog fighting is deemed a criminal activity in the majority of developed countries. Despite this, organised dog fighting continues to occur in many developed (e.g. UK, USA, Italy, Australia, Japan) and less developed (e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan) countries (At-kinson, 2008; Harding, 2012; Kavesh, 2019). For example, dog fighting is suggested to be widespread in the USA, both currently and in the past (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), 2018; ASPCA, 2020), where previous estimates have suggested there are 40 000 active professional dog fighters (Gibson, 2005). In England and Wales, a total of 4855 complaints about organised dog fighting were made to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) between 2006 and 2015, involving 12 213 dogs and 137 prosecuted cases (Lawson, 2017). More than 9000 reports about organised dog fighting were also received by the RSPCA between 2015 and 2020 (RSPCA, 2021). Milroy et al (2018) recently conducted a survey of 264 veterinarians and 159 veterinary nurses in the UK and found that 14.4% of respondents suspected a single or multiple incidents of dog fighting in cases presented to their veterinary practices over a 1-year period. Since dog fighters do not typically bring their dogs in for veterinary treatment for fear of being reported to law enforcement (Touroo and Reisman, 2018), this figure is likely an underestimate of the actual numbers of organised dog fighting.
Despite these reports, there is a general lack of data available on the incidence of dog fighting. In part, this is because organised dog fighting's (often) illegal and ‘underground’ nature makes it difficult to quantify and study, but also because suspected cases are not always reported to authorities (Milroy et al, 2018). In addition, this topic of study is complicated by the fact that the term ‘dog fighting’ is vague and varies among countries. The term also encompasses both informal (e.g. street fighting/enthusiasts/hobbyist) and formal (e.g. professional dog fighters and organised events) dog fighting (Lawson, 2017), which have commonalities but may differ in their aetiology, motivations and outcomes.
Organised dog fights often result in serious injury and death for the dogs involved. These injuries and mortality can be sustained in the fight (e.g. bite wounds) or occur post fight from their owner (e.g. beating, shooting, drowning, hanging) because of the dog losing the fight or displaying diminished fighting performance (McEwen, 2017; Touroo and Reisman, 2018). Additionally, animal welfare concerns are frequently raised concerning the management and training methods associated with dog fighting. Dogs may have teeth extracted and/or filed down, ears cropped and tails docked (Lockwood, 2012). Neck injuries and erythema may occur due to prolonged tethering with chains or confined housing (e.g. in crates) (Touroo and Reisman, 2018). The dogs may be given drugs (e.g. steroids, antibiotics) and diet supplements and may experience prolonged and forced training (with weights) resulting in paw abrasions (Lockwood, 2012; Touroo and Reisman, 2018). These dogs often have limited socialisation and can have multiple injuries with various stages of healing (Lockwood, 2012; Miller et al, 2016; Touroo and Reisman, 2018). Pathogens such as Babesia gibsoni and haemotropic mycoplasmas are also prevalent in dogs used for dog fighting (Cannon et al, 2016). The quality of life of these dogs is often poor and dog fighting is deemed a form of physical and psychological animal abuse (i.e. deliberate harm, neglect, or misuse of animals by humans resulting in the animals suffering physically and/or emotionally (Tiplady, 2013; Touroo and Reisman, 2018). The dogs used in dog fighting can also pose a danger to people and other pets, such as those used as bait animals (Lawson, 2017; Milroy et al, 2018).
The primary purpose of dog fighting is commercial gain through gambling on the fights. For example, it has been noted that individual bets can vary from €250 to €10 000 in Italy (Worldcrunch, 2019) and be as much as $20 000–$30 000 in the USA (ASPCA, 2020). The breeding and sales of prized dogs used in fighting also provide additional forms of revenue. Despite the potential for fines and jail sentences if caught, dog fighting can be quite lucrative for criminals (it is estimated to generate €3 000 000 000 across Europe) (Worldcrunch, 2019), yet given the inherent difficulties in investigating the topic, more precise numbers are unknown (Smith, 2011).
Evidence of organised dog fighting can be identified through types and patterns of injuries which differ from those seen in spontaneous dog-on-dog fights (Intarapanich et al, 2017; Touroo and Reisman, 2018). Dogs that are injured in organised dog fighting tend to have a series of healed wounds and substantial scarring — often evident on their front legs, head or muzzle (Miller et al, 2016). They frequently have multiple injuries such as puncture wounds or tearing injuries on their forelimbs, chest, neck, head and muzzle, and may have damage to their abdomen, groin or rump if they displayed submissive postures during the fight (Intarapanich et al, 2017; Miles, 2017). Guidance to help veterinary professionals spot signs of dog fighting is available in industry publications (Miles, 2017), research articles (Intarapanich et al, 2017), and resources providing guidance for the veterinary community (Arkow et al, 2011; League Against Cruel Sports, 2017), although it is worth noting that suspected cases of dog fighting may not always be reported to local authorities by veterinary practices for several reasons including concern about breaching client confidentiality and lack of certainty of suspicion (Milroy et al, 2018). The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Codes of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses (RCVS, 2021a) and Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS, 2021b) state that veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons ‘…must not disclose information about a client or the client's animals to a third party, unless the client gives permission or animal welfare or the public interest may be compromised.’ The code of conduct makes it clear that while the duty of confidentiality is important, it is not absolute and disclosure of information can be justified by concerns about animal welfare, the wider public interest or the law (RCVS, 2021a; 2021b). Concerns about dog fighting are legal and animal welfare concerns, and reporting them is warranted. However, there are still limitations inherent in detecting and preventing dog fighting and new strategies are needed.
As with many underground activities, social media is felt likely to play a critical role in promoting organised dog fighting. VICE News, for example, recently highlighted the fact that dog fighting was occurring through online streaming in Italy (VICE, 2020), and BBC News (2019) noted that online resources (e.g. Gumtree) are being used to buy bait pets for the purposes of training fighting dogs. In the current article, the authors present the results of a brief review of video content on three main social media platforms — YouTube, Instagram and Facebook — looking for evidence of the occurrence and/or promotion of organised dog fighting.
Methods
A content review of videos on three social media platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Instagram) was conducted between the 1 and 18 September 2020. These social media platforms were used because of their popularity and widespread use (Instagram: greater than 1 billion active users; YouTube and Facebook: greater than 2 billion active users (YouTube, 2020a; Statista, 2020)). These platforms also provide community standards and guidelines which prohibit the posting of footage of organised dog fighting (Instagram, 2018; Facebook, 2020; YouTube, 2020a). The search terms used were ‘dog fight’, ‘dog fights’ and ‘dog fighting’. These terms were used in an attempt to capture videos related to organised dog fighting.
Videos were excluded if they were documentaries or reports on the negative aspects of dog fighting. Videos were also excluded if they appeared to be unintended dog fights (e.g. dog-dog aggression that appeared to be non-organised. For instance, if owners were trying to break up the fight, no spectators were present, or the fight occurred in a seemingly unplanned manner).
The videos which were suggestive of organised dog fighting were categorised into four key categories: fight with physical contact (e.g. a fight was recorded as being an organised dog fight if there were two dogs fighting with spectators present); intimidation (e.g. two dogs on a lead showing aggression and purposefully being placed in close proximity); promotion of dog fights (e.g. dogs being trained to fight, or described as fighting dogs and listed for sale); and hypothetical ‘match ups’ (e.g. comparisons of the fighting ability of different breeds).
These categories were developed based on descriptions of organised dog fighting and its promotion in the literature (e.g. Lawson, 2017; Touroo and Reisman, 2018; Lady FreeThinker, 2019). Information collected (where available) included video information (title, author, date posted, web link), content description (e.g. two dogs fight watched by men in a field), breed description (e.g. pit bulls) and popularity of the video (number of likes/dislikes, number of views, and number of comments).
For YouTube, the number of views, likes, dislikes and comments were recorded for each video. For Facebook, the number of likes (i.e. like/love emojis), dislikes (i.e. sad/angry emojis) and comments were recorded for each video. For Instagram, the number of views and comments were recorded for each video. The information collected on the popularity of the video depended on what was available on the social media platform.
Video information (title, author, date posted, web link) and description of video were collected to serve as unique identifiers for the videos and to allow cross-checking for duplicates and categorisation. These were not descriptively analysed or reported. All articles were reviewed and recorded by an individual, the coder. Cross-coding of a sample was conducted to ensure the coder was coding consistently and accurately. Descriptive statistics were performed on the data using Microsoft Excel.
Results
In total, 58 videos suggestive of organised dog fighting (YouTube (n=27; 46.6%), Instagram (n=18; 31.0%), Facebook (n=13; 22.4%) were identified across the three social media platforms.
YouTube: On YouTube, 17 videos (63.0%) were of a fight with physical contact; five (18.5%) were a hypothetical ‘match up’; four (14.8%) were the promotion of dog fights, and one (3.7%) was a video of a slide show of images of an organised dog fight. A range of breeds were involved with 14 (51.9%) videos showing pit bulls, or pit bulls and another breed (e.g. American Bully, Bull terrier, Dogo Argentino, Husky), five (18.5%) videos showing Bully Kuttas and one (3.7%) video showing a Rott-weiler and German Shepherd. The breed description was unavailable in seven (26.0%) cases. The videos ranged greatly in how often they had been viewed from two views all the way up to 5 768 416 views (mean: 682 856.0; median: 7687). The videos had a minimum of 0 likes and dislikes and a maximum of 55 000 likes (mean: 4868.4; median: 22) and 9700 dislikes (mean: 1097.9; median: 6) (Figure 1). The number of comments varied greatly between videos with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 3791 comments (mean: 319.5; median: 5).
Facebook: On Facebook, all videos (13; 100%) were of a fight with physical contact. Breed information was not stated for any of the videos. The videos had a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 2267 likes (mean: 434.8; median: 196) and a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 55 dislikes (mean: 11.5; median: 2) (Figure 2). The number of comments varied from 0 to a maximum of 45 comments (mean: 10.3; median: 3).
Instagram: On Instagram, all videos (18; 100%) were of a fight with physical contact. The breeds involved in fighting were largely stated to be pit bulls (12; 66.7%), although one (5.6%) video involved Kangal Shepherd Dogs, and breed information was not available in five (27.8%) cases. The videos had a minimum of 13 and a maximum of 11 191 views (mean: 773.6; median: 116.5). Eight (44.4%) videos had between 0 and 100 views, and seven (38.9%) videos had between 100 and 200 views. Three videos had high numbers of views (314 978 and 11 191, respectively). The number of comments varied between 0 and a maximum of three (mean: 0.6; median: 0).
Discussion
Community standards and guidelines on Instagram (2018), Facebook (2020) and YouTube (2020a) prohibit the posting of footage of organised dog fighting. For example, YouTube's violent or graphic content policies states that users should not post ‘content where there is infliction of unnecessary suffering or harm deliberately causing an animal distress’ (YouTube, 2020a). Facebook (2020) community standards advise users not to post content relating to: ‘coordinating harm and publicising crime’ and ‘staged animal vs animal fights, including acts committed by a third party’. Instagram (2018) states: ‘graphic violence is not allowed and we may remove videos or images of intense, graphic violence to make sure that Instagram stays appropriate for everyone’.
Despite these guidelines, the authors found that these social media platforms contained a number of incidents indicative of organised dog fighting, e.g. fights with physical contact, as well as a number of hypothetical ‘match-ups’ between breeds commonly used for fighting and some promotion of dog fights. Obvious titles indicating dog fights were frequently used for the videos (e.g. ‘Pitbull dog fight’ or ‘Dog fight’) and these videos often gained high numbers of views, comments and community engagement (e.g. likes/dislikes). It is worth noting that in addition to the content flagged by this brief review, footage was noted showing specific breeds of dogs used for fighting chained to tread-mills (also called carpet mills), which is a significant welfare concern (Lawson, 2017; Touroo and Reisman, 2018). While these videos do not indicate evidence of organised fighting per se, they do raise questions about the reason for this activity, and there are concerns that in at least some cases, this may be training for fights especially when the dogs have visible wound scarring or injuries.
These findings are disturbing and suggest that further work needs to be done by popular social media platforms and their users to ensure that harmful content, or material that encourages organised dog fighting, is not being shared on these platforms. It is also important to note that the authors conducted only a fairly cursory review of the social media platforms. Recently, the organisation Lady FreeThinker, a non-profit media organisation, conducted a more thorough review between 2018 and 2019 on the occurrence of dog fighting being promoted through Facebook. They found 2039 posts relating to dog fighting or trafficking of fighting dogs and 150 groups/pages/profiles with thousands of followers per group (Lady FreeThinker, 2019). These results suggest that the examples found in the current brief review are only a small sample of what can be found with a more thorough examination.
Given the popularity and influence of these platforms, the authors suggest that YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram must be more vigilant in their efforts to monitor, remove and report such footage to relevant authorities. Analysis of organised dog fighting videos on social media could also be used by those seeking to prevent or minimise fighting. For example, greater awareness of the subtler signs that a video is promoting organised dog fighting (e.g. two dogs on leads showing aggression when purposely placed in close proximity, hypothetical match-ups) would be beneficial in helping to educate the public and make them better able to flag and report suspicious videos. Since YouTube currently uses both automated detection (e.g. via machine learning algorithms) and human detection (e.g. via YouTube users; Trusted Flagger programme) to flag videos that violate their guidelines (YouTube, 2020b), greater education of the public regarding what signs to watch for would be of value in the detection and flagging of these videos. Table 1 indicates how problematic videos and posts can be reported on social media.
Table 1. Reporting problematic videos and posts on social media
| Social media platform | How to report problematic posts |
|---|---|
| YouTube | Sign in and select the three dots beneath the video. Select the Report option and then select your reason for reporting the video (e.g. Violent or repulsive content) and then choose the appropriate category (e.g. animal abuse) |
| Sign in and select the three dots to the right of the post. Choose Find support or Report post. Then select the reason you're reporting the post (e.g. Something else, then Animal abuse) | |
| Sign in and select the three dots in the top right of the post. Then select Report/Report inappropriate and select the appropriate category (e.g. violence or dangerous organisations then animal abuse) |
In addition, these videos could be used to educate veterinary staff regarding fight-related injuries they may see in practice. Using these videos alongside guidance on identifying signs of dog fighting (e.g. Arkow et al, 2011; League Against Cruel Sports, 2017; Miles, 2017) could help veterinary professionals to see how injury patterns correspond to injuries and behaviour seen during fights, thereby increasing their confidence in identifying and reporting victims of organised dog fighting to the relevant authorities.
Further research on this topic is clearly warranted. A thorough review of a range of social media platforms using a longer period of study and a broader range of search terms (e.g. carpet mills, pit bulls) could help to better understand the prevalence of dog fighting videos on common social media platforms. Qualitative analysis of user comments on these videos would also be useful in exploring viewers' perceptions of these videos (e.g. as per Owczarczak-Garstecka et al, 2018). In addition, research into other online platforms or different formats (e.g. live streaming) on which dog fighting and/or promotion may occur could promote the use of novel methods to deter the promotion of organised dog fighting. A combination of animal welfare scientists, veterinary surgeons and nurses, and information technology researchers are all needed to identify ways to prevent the proliferation of organised dog fighting on social media and address this important animal welfare issue.
Conclusions
The present study highlights that evidence of organised dog fighting can be found across three social media platforms, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. These videos varied in their numbers of views, comments and likes, with some videos achieving high levels of user interaction and some receiving minimal engagement (e.g. views, comments, likes). Greater vigilance by these social media platforms and their users to monitor, remove and report such footage is essential.
KEY POINTS
- Evidence of organised dog fighting was found across YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.
- These videos varied in their numbers of views (mean: YouTube: 682 856.0, Instagram: 773.6), comments (mean: YouTube: 319.5, Facebook: 10.3; Instagram: 0.6) and likes (mean: YouTube: 4868.4, Facebook: 434.8).
- Greater vigilance by social media platforms and their users to monitor, remove and report such footage is essential.