By
Stacey Wiebe -
Merced Sun-Star
A Delhi man accused of staging rooster fights pleaded not guilty Thursday to
charges of animal cruelty at his arraignment in Merced County Superior Court.
A readiness conference has been scheduled for July 14, and a trial date set
for July 22, said Deputy District Attorney Jim Swanson, who is prosecuting the
case.
After his January arrest at his Mariott Avenue home, where sheriff’s deputies
raided a cockfight, Edmundo Tapia Flores, 33, was charged with three felony
counts of animal cruelty, three misdemeanor counts of raising roosters for the
purpose of fighting, possession of fighting tools, and allowing a cockfight to
take place at his home.
Though deputies reported that a crowd in the backyard of the home fled after
their arrival, three other men face charges for being spectators at the fight.
Seven dead roosters were also discovered in a hole in the backyard as well as
a bleeding and dying rooster, and 30 roosters were located in separate crates or
tethered to barrels.
Flores was also in possession of 12 slashers, or sharp knives, which attach
to the legs of roosters and allow the birds to inflict serious, and often fatal,
wounds to each other.
Senate approves toughening cockfighting laws
By Peter
Prengaman, Associated Press Writer
SALEM - People
who stage cockfights would no longer be able to get their supply of battling
birds from Oregon under a bill the Senate passed Thursday.
The proposal,
approved 22-7, would ban the raising of roosters for cockfighting. It would also
raise the penalty for participating in cockfights from a misdemeanor to a
felony.
Having passed
both the House and Senate, House Bill 2086 now goes to Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who
is expected to sign it.
Cockfighting is
illegal in Oregon, but raising the birds to send to other states or countries is
not. Proponents say the change brings the state in line with a recent federal
law that bans the transport of the feisty fighters across state
lines.
They also say it
will cut back on shady activities often associated with cockfighting, such as
illegal gambling, drugs and guns.
"It's not a
matter of being an animal rights lover," said Sen. Margaret Carter, D-Portland,
who voted in favor Thursday. "It's a matter of the dark side of this stuff
coming through."
For years, animal
rights' activists have pushed for Oregon to close the loophole in its
cockfighting law, one they say condoned the activity within the
state.
Rich soil and
damp air make Oregon one of the best places in the country to raise the birds.
The Oregon Gamefowl Breeders Association counts 450 breeders across the state,
and estimates it's a $9 million industry.
Many Oregon
roosters are sent to New Mexico and Louisiana, the only two states where
fighting the birds is still legal. Other birds go to Mexico and the Philippines,
countries where the activity is wildly popular in many circles.
All that is about
to stop.
"This will put me
out of business," said Steve Clark, who makes about $30,000 a year breeding 150
birds on a farm outside Salem.
Clark said there
was no need to strengthen the existing Oregon law, and what's resulted is
overkill.
"They are putting
a person who fights a chicken in the same category of someone who robs, or rapes
or is a child molester?" he said.
Kelly Peterson
from the Humane Society said the penalties should be stiff.
"It should be a
felony," Peterson said. "Cockfighting is very barbaric and cruel."
---
On the
Net:
HB2086
www.leg.state.or.us
Source: http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2003/05/09/news/news15.txt
Source: http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/05/09/d3.cr.roosters.0509.html
Source: http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D7QTGDNG2.html
When Is Freedom
Of Speech Nothing More Than A Vessel For Half Truths, Slander,
Misrepresentations, And Insinuations In Order To Deprive An Individual Of
Constitutional Rights?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THE
HILL
The Newspaper for and about
the U.S. Congress
|
SUBMITTING A LETTER TO THE
EDITOR |
The Hill welcomes
letters to the editor.
- Letters
should relate to an article that has appeared in The Hill and should be no
longer than 500 words.
- Letters may
be edited for content and space.
- For
verification purposes, only letters that include the sender's name, address
and telephone number will be considered for publication.
- Authors
cannot be notified in advance of a letter's publication.
Letters can be
sent to:
The
Hill
733 Fifteenth Street NW
Suite 1140
Washington, DC
20005
or, faxed to
202-628-8503
or, emailed
to Albert Eisele aleisele@thehill.com
or, use this
form:
Source: http://www.thehill.com/about/op_letter_rules.shtm
Thank you for
thinking of submitting your proposed op-ed to The Hill.
The Hill is a
non-partisan, non-ideological newspaper that welcomes a full spectrum of
opinions from members of Congress and readers. Op-eds should deal with topics
related to Congress and preference is given to congressional authors.
Terms and
conditions
The editors of
The Hill reserve the right to edit op-eds based on limitations of space or
production requirements.
The Hill will
attempt to let authors know within two weeks of submission whether an op-ed will
be used. Please do not follow up your submission with phone calls or
e-mails.
The Hill does not
pay for op-eds.
Specifications
Op-eds for The
Hill should be no longer than 750 - 800 words and should be e-mailed to Aleisele@TheHill.com. Follow up with a
faxed version to 202-628-8503.
Be sure to
include your name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address with
your submission along with a brief bio and your professional title.
The Hill is
published every Wednesday. Deadline for receiving op-eds is noon the previous
Friday.
The Hill will
only consider op-ed submissions that are original work and are submitted
exclusively to The Hill.
Source: http://www.thehill.com/about/op_opedrules.shtm
Let Us Be Reminded Of The
Long-Standing Decades Old Motto Of The UGBA
"COURAGE WINS THE VICTORY—NOT
THE SWORD!"
Courtesy: UGBA Motto
".......In This Fight
Against The Animal Rights Idiots"
Courtesy: BD Jones AR Agenda
Description
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And
Then From THE HILL Came.............
It’s time to put a halt to cruelty of
cockfighting and dogfighting
By Wayne
Pacelle
Travel through some rural reaches of many parts of the United
States and you will see an unusual type of animal operation: rows of small
A-frame huts or small barrels, each with a brightly colored rooster on a short
tether.
The birds are raised not for meat or for show but for battle. They
are fighting cocks — bred for aggression, trained to fight and destined for
mortal combat in the pit.
Cockfighting, and its evil relative dogfighting, are thriving
underground industries. Although animal fighting is illegal in the vast majority
of states (only Louisiana and New Mexico allow cockfighting, and none allows
dogfighting), an organized criminal network raises millions of birds and dogs
for staged fights at home and abroad.
The industries persist because prohibitions against the activities
are too porous, penalties are too weak and enforcement is too lax.
It is hard to precisely measure participation in the shadowy world
of animal fighting. We do know that there are three national, monthly
subscription cockfighting magazines — each chock full of advertisements for
fighting cocks, for drugs that are pumped into the birds to heighten aggression
and clot blood, and for razor-sharp knives and gaffs that are affixed to the
birds’ legs. There are about a dozen underground dogfighting magazines and a
slew of websites promoting dogfighting and cockfighting. Some California
agriculture-industry officials have speculated that some 50,000 individuals are
raising fighting birds in California alone.
Last year’s farm bill included a provision to ban any interstate
transportation or exports of fighting birds and dogs. Sens. Wayne Allard
(R-Colo.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Reps. Earl
Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)
championed the change in the law. Though the House and Senate animal-fighting
provisions were identical, conferees stripped the felony-level penalty,
defaulting to the misdemeanor-level jail penalty that had been in effect since
1976 and that had proved anemic in deterring illegal fighting activities.
Conferees also delayed the effective date of the provision for one
year, claiming that cockfighters and dogfighters should have a grace period to
make a final round of profits by selling their animals to the states and other
jurisdictions where fighting is legal, including Louisiana, New Mexico, Guam,
Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Mexico.
On May 14, the federal provision kicks in and the interstate
commerce in fighting animals is supposed to stop. But don’t hold your breath.
Cockfighters and dogfighters are a lawless subculture, engaged in not only
animal cruelty but also narcotics traffic, illegal gambling and violent acts
against people. They will cease their illegal activity only when the costs of
arrest, jail time and financial loss exceed the benefits they derive from
participation. Paltry fines and misdemeanor charges are considered a cost of
doing business.
That’s why Sens. Ensign, Allard and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and
Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) have introduced new
legislation, S. 736 and H.R. 1532, respectively, to restore the felony-level
penalty that had been inexplicably removed in the farm-bill conference. U.S.
prosecutors have told lawmakers that they are more likely to pursue cases
against animal fighters if they can bring felony charges.
In addition to law enforcement and humane groups, mainstream
agriculture is now calling for upgraded penalties for animal fighting. An
outbreak of exotic Newcastle disease (END) — a highly contagious scourge that
kills almost all infected birds — occurred in California last fall.
The evidence suggests that END found its way to California from
infected birds smuggled from Mexico.
Once the disease reached the state, the massive network of
backyard cockfighting operations provided the “perfect storm” circumstances for
its spread throughout southern California and now into Arizona, Nevada, New
Mexico and Texas.
Federal and state authorities have killed more than 3.3 million
birds and spent more than $90 million to contain the disease, and there’s no end
in sight.
Interestingly, the federal government has paid millions of dollars
to cockfighters for the depopulation of their birds — remunerating lawbreakers
for their live contraband at rates of up to $350 per fighting bird.
So here we have an industry in which the core conduct involves
naked animal cruelty. It is an industry where staged fights are venues for other
criminal behavior. And it is an industry that threatens mainstream agriculture.
Isn’t it time to pass S. 736 and H.R. 1532 and clamp down on these
gladiatorial spectacles of animal cruelty?
A Statement That All
Gamefowl Are Used For Cockfighting?
.........The birds are raised not for meat or
for show but for battle..........
After Determining All
Gamefowl Are Used For Cockfighting Then A Further Slanderous Statement
Eluding That All Gamefowl Breeders?
........are a lawless subculture, engaged in
not only animal cruelty but also narcotics traffic, illegal gambling and violent
acts against people..........
An Elusive Statement
Inferring Infected Fighting Cocks By Using "Infected
Birds"?
.........The evidence suggests that END found its way to
California from infected birds smuggled from
Mexico..........
Misleading Statements
Inferring To The Reader That Fighting Birds Brought END In The Country, Spread
The Disease, And Now........
.........mainstream
agriculture is now calling for upgraded penalties for animal
fighting........
When Is Freedom Of Speech
No Longer Freedom Of Speech But A Libelous Attack And
Attempted Infringement Upon The Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights Of
Individuals?
When Do Half Truths,
Slander, Misrepresentations, And Insinuations To Promote A Political Agenda In
The Mainstream Media Finally Reach The Level Of Conspiracy Against The Rights Of
Individuals?
The Federal
Statute Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
States...........
Conspiracy Against
Rights - This statute makes it unlawful for
two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any
person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of
any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the
United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the
same)..............
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section245
When Is Freedom Of Speech
Nothing More Than A Vessel For Half Truths, Slander, Misrepresentations,
And Insinuations In Order To Deprive An Individual Of Constitutional
Rights?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could We Say They Don't
Hold Water But Are Still Constantly Presented In The Media To Become
Truth?
..........While superficially
attractive, the arguments used by Wayne Pacelle, vice president of the Humane
Society of the United States, don't hold water.........
Ban bear
baiting
Wayne Pacelle
Just before leaving office, Minnesota Gov.
Jesse Ventura was asked for his thoughts of bear baiting. He replied, "Going out
there and putting jelly doughnuts down and Yogi comes up and sits there and
thinks he's found the mother lode for five days in a row — and then you
back-shoot him from a tree?.... That ain't sport — that's an assassination."
Mr. Ventura had it exactly right: baiting
makes a mockery of any sense of fair play or hunting ethics. baiting also wreaks
havoc by creating a class of "nuisance" bears that puts the animals, private
property and people at risk. The practice is shameful. It is bad public policy,
and it ought to be outlawed.
Baiters dump parts
of animal carcasses, pastries and other decaying foods into piles or barrels. To
the bears, who feed in autumn for 15 hours a day to prepare for a long period of
dormancy, the bait piles must seem like a gift from
heaven.
Many guides and outfitters set up the
bait "stations" to make it easy for paying clients to shoot a trophy bear. The
client, perched in a tree or behind a blind, takes aim with a rifle or bow,
often when the oblivious animal is feasting. It's a last meal for the bear, a
big payday for the guide, and light work for the so-called "hunter" who pulls
the trigger.
It is not exactly heart-stopping
action, except if you are the bear. Nor can it be called by any stretch
"subsistence hunting." Bear baiters litter the woods with scraps and garbage,
leaving behind far more food than they drag off in the form of the bear meat —
if they bother taking the sinewy carcass at all.
Of the 27 states that allow bear hunting,
two-thirds ban baiting. In the states that allow it, baiting often occurs on our
federal lands. But baiting on these lands is particularly hard to defend, since
all of the federal land agencies put out materials telling the public not to do
precisely what the baiters are doing. The U.S. Forest Service, for instance,
publishes leaflets and brochures that warn "Do Not Feed Bears!," "Bears Are
Dangerous!," and "A fed bear is a dead bear." "Biologically, there is no
difference between a bait station and a dump," wrote a top official with the
National Park Service. "Bait stations habituate bears to human-generated food,
contributing to the potential for conflicts between bears and people in the
park."
Tom Beck, a hunter and a bear biologist
with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, wrote in Outdoor Life, "I firmly believe
that baiting creates 'nuisance' bears. Black bears are naturally wary,
instinctively avoiding close contact with humans. But large amounts of tasty
food, easily obtained, defeats this wariness. By baiting, we create lazy bears
who have been rewarded, not punished, for overcoming their fear of humans."
Not only lazy, but dangerous and destructive:
Bears accustomed to human foods raid campgrounds, break into tents and cabins,
and may even threaten people. In Yosemite National Park, where many visitors
ignore the no-feeding policies, bears caused more than $630,000 in property
damage in one recent year.
Reps. Elton Gallegly
and James Moran, have introduced legislation, H.R. 1472, to halt baiting on
federal lands. A Senate companion bill will soon follow. The anti-baiting
legislators object to the practice not only on the basis of fairness and
decency, but also as a matter of consistency in federal policy. If it is wrong
to set out food to lure bears for picture-taking, or even just to watch the
bears, why is it OKto lure bears for the purpose of shooting
them?
Bear baiting apologists claim that it's
needed to control the bear population. What they fail to mention is that
thousands of bait piles provide massive supplemental feed for the animals not
shot for trophies. Bears that build major fat reserves thanks to bait stations
are more likely to produce cubs and add to the total bear population. The
practice is self-defeating if the goal is population
reduction.
The federal government banned the
baiting of waterfowl decades ago. And in 1970, Congress outlawed hunting by
aircraft — for the same reasons of ethics and good public policy. Now, it is
time for the federal government to tell hunters to pursue their quarry the
old-fashioned way and to quit turning thousands of bruins into garbage moochers
and nuisance animals. Bear baiters need to leave their jelly doughnuts at home
and quit treating federal lands like their dumping
grounds.
Wayne Pacelle is a senior vice president of the Humane Society of
the United States. (www.hsus.org.)
Source: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030508-76857479.htm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bearbaiting bravos and boos
Thank you for printing Wayne Pacelle's column about
bearbaiting on federal lands ("Ban bear baiting," Op-Ed, yesterday). It is time
outdoorsmen clean up their act and end these despicable, unsporting practices.
Leaving piles of food in the woods, so that you can reliably know where the bear
is going to be, is like shooting fish in a barrel — it's not hunting.
It is
laughable that anyone would claim this is necessary for population control. The
great majority of states that allow bear hunting have long ago banned
bearbaiting, yet still meet their management needs.
The real reason some
extreme elements in the hunting world support bearbaiting is not because it is a
good tool, but because they refuse to moderate their behavior for fear of a
slippery slope leading to an end to all hunting. But that slippery slope goes
both ways. How much cruelty and unsporting slaughter are we going to tolerate
just to stick it to people that care about animals?
The Bible mandates that
we be responsible stewards of the Earth and all of creation. Surely bearbaiting
runs contrary to that. I hope Congress will do the right thing and rein in this
horrible activity.
DOUG BOMAR
Silver Spring
•
While
superficially attractive, the arguments used by Wayne Pacelle, vice president of
the Humane Society of the United States, don't hold water. If bearbaiting
results in the execution of those charming bears, then they obviously don't have
a chance to become nuisances. They're dead.
Anthropomorphizing wild black
bears into Yogi the Bear-type cartoon characters is typical of the Disney school
of wildlife management. The Humane Society opposes all hunting, and this baiting
ban proposal is a not too subtle nose under the tent to that end.
The same
logic used to justify a ban on bearbaiting would apply equally to the planting
of food plots by deer hunters. Black bears are not endangered, and are
increasing in both numbers and range. That bears are shot over bait would seem
more likely to reduce a nuisance than encourage it. Even rats learn by negative
reinforcement.
STEPHEN L. WILLIAMSON
New Orleans
•
I
would like to make a few points in respect to Wayne Pacelle's column.
First,
whatever the view of former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, hunting black bear
with bait is not so simple, as I know that from personal experience. There isn't
even a guarantee the hunter will see a bear. It does increase the chances,
however, especially in heavily forested areas where stalking them is not
feasible.
Second, I don't know the basis for Mr. Pacelle's assertion that
baiting prevents controlling the population. What's the empirical support for
that assertion? In Maryland, where there hasn't been any bear hunting, let alone
baiting, the bear population has continued to increase, as have the number of
bear-human conflicts.
Third, the proposal for a
one-hunting-style-fits-all-policy is absurd. Different circumstances, goals or
problems can require different styles of hunting.
ROBERT A.
DUBLIN
Annandale
•
The practice of using bait to attract bears
during hunting season has proven to be an effective wildlife management tool for
many states and Canadian provinces, in contradiction to Wayne Pacelle's
misinformation.
Without the use of baits in hunting for reclusive bears,
annual harvests would not be sufficient to maintain healthy, controllable
populations as determined by state and provincial wildlife departments. In
Ontario, where politicians succeeded in banning spring bear hunting altogether —
much of which was done through the use of baiting — bear populations have
increased significantly and bear-human encounters are growing. In New Jersey,
where politicians have consistently refused to initiate a bear hunting season
against the requests of the state game biologists, bear-human encounters have
grown to alarming levels.
So, while we can debate the terms of fair chase and
appropriate methods of wildlife management, we must be careful not to
prematurely tie the hands of government biologists responsible for wildlife
management. I encourage both hunting and nonhunting citizens to contact their
respective state's wildlife agencies to get the real facts on hunting and its
role in our ecosystem.
CHRIS FROST
Centreville, Va.
Source: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030509-17145992.htm#4
