Colombia’s Bullfighting Ban Is Failing the Bulls It Was Supposed to Protect

For many people around the world, Colombia’s decision to ban bullfighting was celebrated as a historic victory for animals. On paper, it appeared to represent progress toward a more compassionate future and the eventual end of a controversial practice that has generated debate for decades across Latin America and Europe.

But beneath the headlines and political celebrations, another reality has quietly unfolded — one that very few people are discussing. The sad truth is that Colombia’s bullfighting ban is failing the very animals it was supposedly designed to protect.

How Colombia’s Bullfighting Ban Is Failing Fighting Bulls and Cows

At Namigni Animal Sanctuary and through the Toro Bravo Reserve, we have been witnessing firsthand the growing consequences of a poorly planned transition that has offered no realistic or responsible protection strategy for the thousands of Spanish fighting bulls and cows connected to the bullfighting industry in Colombia.

And unless meaningful solutions are built soon, many more animals may continue to suffer the consequences.

The Forgotten Victims of the Bullfighting Ban

When discussions about banning bullfighting take place, public attention tends to focus almost entirely on the spectacle itself — the corrida, the arena, the ethics of the event, and the cultural or political debates surrounding it.

But very little attention is given to the animals outside the arena.

Spanish fighting bulls and cows are not ordinary cattle raised within conventional livestock systems. They are animals selectively bred for generations under very specific conditions tied to the bullfighting industry. Also, and importantly, they are one of the oldest breeds of cattle, and the closest to their auroch ancestors, the ancient wild bulls of Eurasia. Their management, genetics, behaviors, and environments differ significantly from commercial cattle operations.

This means that when a country abruptly dismantles the economic structure surrounding bullfighting without creating alternative protection systems for the animals themselves, the consequences can be devastating.

And that is exactly what is happening in Colombia today.

Exported to Peru and Ecuador to Continue Bullfighting

One of the most concerning consequences of Colombia’s bullfighting ban has been the growing export of Colombian fighting bulls and cows to countries where bullfighting remains active, particularly Peru and Ecuador.

Since the ban was approved by the Colombian Congress, a number of ganaderos connected to the bullfighting world have begun selling animals abroad to continue being used within the bullfighting industry there — either to be fought in arenas or incorporated into breeding operations.

Far from protecting these animals, this dynamic simply relocates the problem across borders.

In practice, many Colombian fighting bulls are now being revictimized through exportation into the very same system that the ban claimed to challenge. At the same time, this movement of animals helps reinforce and sustain bullfighting industries in neighboring countries.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: If the supposed goal was to reduce animal suffering, how can a policy be considered successful when it simply exports the animals into the same cycle elsewhere?

Slaughter and Abandonment

The situation does not end with exports.

Many fighting bulls and cows in Colombia have also been sent directly to slaughterhouses after breeders lost economic incentives to maintain them.

Without a transition plan, financial support mechanisms, or realistic alternatives for preserving these animals, some ganaderos have chosen to liquidate their herds entirely.

Others have sold animals to inexperienced cattle traders unfamiliar with the management requirements of Spanish fighting cattle. In several cases, these animals have ended up living under poor conditions, inadequate handling, nutritional deficiencies, or environments incapable of safely supporting them.

This outcome should not surprise anyone.

When laws affect entire industries involving living beings, there must be responsible transition strategies in place. Otherwise, the animals themselves become collateral damage of political decisions made without long-term planning.

A Ban Without a Protection Plan

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of Colombia’s bullfighting ban is that the country is now roughly one year away from the law fully taking effect — yet there is still no serious national protection plan for the remaining Spanish fighting bulls and cows that exist in Colombia.

No structured sanctuary initiative has been developed by the government.

No national preservation strategy exists.

No relocation or welfare framework has been implemented.

No clear census or long-term management plan has been publicly outlined.

And despite the enormous political symbolism surrounding the ban, there has been virtually no public conversation led by lawmakers about the future of these animals themselves.

This reveals a deeper problem affecting many modern animal policy debates: symbolic victories are often prioritized over practical solutions.

Real animal protection cannot end at prohibition alone.

If a society truly wants to protect animals, then bans must be accompanied by tangible, realistic, and consequential measures capable of safeguarding the animals affected by those policies.

Otherwise, the suffering simply changes form.

Colombia Risks Becoming an Example of What Not to Do

Colombia had the opportunity to become a historic international example of how a country could responsibly transition away from bullfighting while protecting both animals and vulnerable human communities connected to the industry. Instead, it risks becoming an example of what should not be done.

One of the greatest failures of the process has been the complete lack of constructive dialogue with bullfighting stakeholders.

Ganaderos, breeders, rural workers, and people economically connected to the industry have largely been demonized, politically isolated, or excluded from serious discussions about transition pathways. This approach creates resistance rather than cooperation.

At the same time, the law itself briefly references concepts such as labor reconversion for people economically dependent on bullfighting — yet no realistic or adequately funded plan appears to exist for how this reconversion will actually happen in practice.

Without economic alternatives, meaningful transition support, or inclusive dialogue, the result is social polarization and instability rather than sustainable progress.

And internationally, this matters enormously.

Officials and stakeholders in Spain, Portugal, France, and other bullfighting countries are watching Colombia closely. If Colombia’s process is perceived as chaotic, economically damaging, poorly executed, and harmful even to the animals involved, it may ultimately discourage other countries from pursuing similar transitions.

In other words, a poorly managed ban may unintentionally strengthen resistance to future reforms elsewhere.

A Different Path Was Possible

This outcome was not inevitable.

A more responsible and compassionate transition could have been built through cooperation, planning, and constructive engagement with stakeholders connected to the bullfighting world.

Rather than treating all participants as enemies, Colombia could have explored ways to involve breeders and rural communities in preserving fighting bulls and cows through alternative models linked to ecological conservation, sanctuary systems, responsible tourism, land stewardship, and educational initiatives.

Many ganaderías possess extensive natural lands and generations of expertise in managing these animals. With proper incentives and support, some of these spaces could potentially evolve into conservation-oriented or sanctuary-based projects capable of protecting fighting bulls outside the arena.

At the same time, a serious national protection strategy for the animals themselves could have been developed gradually before implementing the ban. Unfortunately, that conversation never truly happened.

Building Solutions Through the Toro Bravo Reserve

At Namigni Animal Sanctuary, we believe meaningful animal protection must involve solutions — not only prohibitions.

That is why, through the Toro Bravo Reserve, we are making a major effort to rescue, preserve, and protect Spanish fighting bulls and cows while helping create a peaceful and sustainable future beyond bullfighting.

Today, rescued fighting bulls and cows live safely under our protection in Colombia, where they are able to experience life beyond exploitation for the first time.

But our work goes beyond rescue alone.

We are also committed to engaging in constructive dialogue with people connected to the bullfighting world in hopes of building bridges rather than deepening division. We believe lasting progress requires cooperation, realistic planning, and humane transition models capable of protecting both animals and vulnerable communities.

The future of Spanish fighting bulls and cows cannot simply be ignored once political victories are declared. If these animals truly matter, then their future must matter too. And that future must include real protection, responsible transition strategies, and compassionate alternatives capable of ensuring that no bull or cow is left behind.