Here Are A Few Comments From A Concerned American........

http://www.cockfightsonline.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000150

We are trying our best at Cock Fights Online to help you. We try to bring information to you about upcoming laws and votes. However, you seem to fail when it comes to unification.

Are you calling your congress? Are you voting those elected officials who support home grown terrorists for the likes of PETA , ARA and their TAX EXEMPT STATUS out of office? NO, your not.

Americans need to wake up and do it fast.

Your going to jail if you don't take your head out of the pits that you seem stuck in. The likes of PETA and ARA want to make ownership of gamefowl a FEDERAL FELONY.

If you don't start working harder on this issue, and defeat it, you can kiss your birds goodbye.

Onward
CFO Director


 

Point of View: Cockfighters need legislation

2003-03-05
By Tony Villalobos


The issue to ban cockfighting should never have been brought to a vote by the people. Its only purpose was to remove the rights of a minority group of citizens whose conscience tells them that all animals, even game fowl, have their purpose.

God created horses that run, dogs that hunt and roosters that fight. And when God gave man dominion over the animal kingdom, He gave us the right to use an animal's talents to our benefit, whether it is for food, clothing, entertainment or education.

The group that supported a ban on cockfighting lied to the voters. They told us that cockfighting was associated with crime, yet failed to produce a single report of crime at a legal cockfight in Oklahoma. They told us that cockfighting kept industries from locating in our state, yet couldn't produce a single industry that stayed away from Oklahoma because cockfighting is legal here. They planted fear in the minds of voters by defaming the characters of game fowl owners whose ranks include lawyers, school teachers, business owners, doctors and other professionals.

The most atrocious wrongs we commit are to recognize our mistakes and fail to take action to correct them. It is up to our legislators to do the very thing we elected them to do: To represent our individual interests and to uphold our constitutional rights. They understand what many voters were tricked into ignoring -- that it is not our government's purpose to restrict our rights, but to preserve them.

Villalobos, of Stigler, is a member of the board of the Oklahoma Gamefowl Breeders Association.

Villalobos

Source: http://oklahoman.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=994573&pic=none&TP=getarticle


Are All AR's Dunghill?

PETA shows its true color: yellow

Last night's airing of MSNBC Reports was scheduled to include a debate segment between Lisa Lange, the Vice President of Communications with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and John Doyle, co-founder of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). The debate, promoted on MSNBC's website, was to focus on PETA's offensive "Holocaust on Your Plate" promotion, which seeks to equate Jewish Holocaust victims with barnyard animals.

But if you tuned in to see MSNBC host Joe Scarborough at 10pm Eastern, you didn't see the latest installment of CCF vs. PETA. Why? Because PETA backed out.

At around 4:30 yesterday afternoon, the show's producer called to let us know that Ms. Lange refused to debate us on the subject. Pressed for a reason, he told us that that PETA spokesperson was worried that the debate would turn into a discussion of PETA's ties to terrorism.

So -- let's see if we have this straight. PETA is cheerfully lining up media opportunities to talk about a controversial promotion that has already been condemned by America's leading Jewish cultural organizations. But it won't discuss its equally controversial financial support of domestic terrorists in the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front?

We're confident that PETA will manage to find a sympathetic media ear, some host or other who won't challenge them on their history of cozying up to criminals. But the job of promoting "Holocaust on Your Plate" just got a bit more difficult. On Monday the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum issued a "cease and desist" order against PETA, demanding that the animal rights group "stop exploiting the Holocaust."

It turns out that the photographs of emaciated Nazi death-camp prisoners included in PETA's presentation came from the Museum's collection. Use of these materials is governed by an agreement that allows Museum officials to "ensure that reproductions are used with respect and dignity."

PETA, true to form, is defiantly ignoring the Museum's lawyers, arguing that when the Museum defined its mission as fighting silence, indifference and apathy "in the face of others' oppression," it surely must have meant to include farm animals in its definition of "others."

We're confident that PETA will continue to display its callous insensitivity toward Holocaust survivors and the families of those who perished under Hitler (whose own vegetarianism, by the way, informed his peculiar "equal" treatment of humans and animals). But we offer this advice for the leaders of Jewish groups who may want to publicly challenge PETA's tasteless tactics: if you have the opportunity to debate PETA about this atrocious campaign, keep your questions about their terrorist ties hidden until show time. Otherwise, they'll turn tail and run.

Source: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=1812


 
From All We See And Hear Could We Say The Norm For Animal Rights Is To "Bear False Witness"?
 

Animal-rights director investigated in false report

QUINCY, Grant County — The director of a Seattle animal-rights group is under investigation for making an animal-cruelty report the Grant County sheriff's office says turned out to be false.

The sheriff's office will ask for charges of perjury, making a false or misleading statement to a public servant and second-degree trespassing against David Thornton, director of the Northwest Animal Rights Network, said Chief Deputy John Turley.

Thornton was not immediately available for comment. Turley said Thornton, 33, entered private property near Quincy on Saturday to look at a dog farm and reported to deputies that there were 200 to 300 animals in distress and some near death.

Deputies searched the site later than morning and found about 60 dogs. All but one appeared healthy and well-fed, said Marc Norberg, the sheriff's animal-control officer.

The Northwest Animal Rights Network in Seattle was founded in 1986.

Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134645295_dige04m.html


 
How Many Times Was 'Not a shred of evidence' Used As "AR Facts" To Pass Legislation By The AR?
 

Siegel biting back at animal rights activists

Becky Knapp   Staff Writer

ISLEWORTH — Judge Judy told animal rights activists to cease and desist. So did an Orange County Circuit Court judge

Now, a group that has focused on time share mogul David Siegel may have a tiger by the tail.

After his Isleworth home was picketed and his neighbors were blanketed with letters calling him an animal abuser, Siegel is suing Animal Rights Foundation of Florida and the former lawyer who heads it, claiming he is the victim of slander and defamation of character.

Smacking the cats?

Siegel is actually something of a middleman in the dispute, which dates to 1994 and involves David McMillan, a world-reknowned trainer of big cats and owner of Tiger's Eye Productions in Oviedo.

According to McMillan, in 1994, a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) enrolled in Tiger's Eye Productions' school to learn about the care and maintenance of exotic animals.

While enrolled at the school for eight months, the student did extensive videotaping that, 18 months later, turned up as a three-minute video that allegedly showed McMillan smacking the big cats with plastic rods and wooden sticks during training.

PETA demanded an investigation. The US Department of Agriculture, the Florida Fish and Game Commission, the Florida Department of Education and the Seminole County State Attorney's Office all looked into PETA's allegations that Tiger's Eye was abusing animals. After a year of probing the matter, the school was cleared.

"Four different entities investigated each and every one of 167 allegations," McMillan says. "They interviewed 25 witnesses and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money — and at the end of a year, none of them found any evidence of any abuse whatsoever. They closed the case."

The controversy continued, though. PETA and McMillan tangled again before Judge Judy, the popular syndicated TV court program. Despite a tearful plea from actress Bea Arthur on behalf of PETA, Judge Judy "ordered" the animal rights activists to leave McMillan alone.

One tape, plenty of protest

Siegel entered the fray when his Westgate Resorts hired McMillan to put on shows four nights a week.

That brought out demonstrators from Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, a group that disapproves of caging or training any wild animal.

"We're breaking the spirits of these animals so they can be carted around for human entertainment and that's despicable," says former employment discrimination law attorney Heather Lichin, the managing director of ARFF.

"We shouldn't train them — we absolutely shouldn't train them," she says emphatically.

Citing the videotape — which can be viewed on ARFF's Web site at animalrightsflorida.org — Lichin says her organization is battling Siegel as a way to pressure him to end his association with McMillan.

Lichin acknowledges that, except for the 8-year-old videotape, her organization has no other evidence of alleged abuse at Tiger's Eye Productions, nor does the group know if McMillan has changed his training methods during the past eight years.

"He's never told us — or anyone, that we know of — if he's changed his methods," she says. But regardless, she says, because of the PETA video, Siegel should be pressured to stop using the big-cat organization.

"If you were going to hire a company that brings pony rides in for your child's birthday party and I showed you a tape that showed the owner beating ponies, I would hope you would think twice about hiring that company to perform at your party," she says.

To drive the point home, ARFF has protested at Westgate Resorts, carrying signs that state, among other things, that Westgate — and Siegel — supports cruelty to animals through the continuing business relationship with Tiger's Eye Productions.

The determined band of demonstrators has protested at the gates to Siegel's neighborhood — shouting at passersby and interfering with traffic — and mass-mailing letters to Siegel's Isleworth neighbors.

'Not a shred of evidence'

Victor Kline, the Greenspoon, Marder, Hirschfeld, Rafkin, Ross & Berger attorney who, with Michael Marder, serves as counsel for Siegel in the matter, protests that David Siegel is being targeted unfairly.

"Imagine if John Doe, in 1970, gave money to the Republican party," he says.

"Does that mean that John Doe supports burglary because of the Watergate break-in in 1972 — or that someone should go out and publish statements that John Doe supports burglary?"

Siegel and his attorneys don't think so, which is why the developer is vigorously pursuing a lawsuit against ARFF.

"David Siegel has never seen any bit of information — not one iota, not a scintilla, not a shred of evidence — that Tiger's Eye Productions, in any way, abuses animals," continues Kline.

Siegel won a recent court victory when Orange County Circuit Judge R. James Stoker granted Siegel a temporary injunction against the group, barring them from picketing his home and business.

"We're just dumbfounded that the court ruled this way and we're appealing now," says Lichin of the decision.

"We know we're up against a lot of money," Lichin says of her legal contest with Siegel, "and frankly, that's a problem for us.

"But we're not going to back down, because it's our right to protest this and our First Amendment rights are being threatened."

Not surprisingly, McMillan has another view of the continuing battle.

"To accuse David Siegel of being an animal abuser is completely crossing the line," he says. "If Siegel ever thought I was abusing or hurting animals, believe me — he'd have had me out of his resort in a heartbeat. He's totally a businessman, and if he had any thought at all I was doing anything wrong, he'd have had me out of there because it would not be profitable for his business."



© 2003 American City Business Journals Inc.

Source: http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2003/03/03/story6.html


 
This Email Was Forwarded >From Another Yahoo Animal Rights List By A Concerned American To Us With This Question.......
 
It seems darn near all the Animal Rights Organizations are screaming bloody murder agin this Domestic Terrorist Bill in Texas, is it because they are afraid they gonna be considered a part of the terrorist group with the Animal Terrorists actually doing the terrorist deeds when they are caught? 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "mgoose" <mgoose@erols.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: [aars] PROTECT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
 
URGENT LETTER TO STOP ANTI-ACTIVIST BILL IN TEXAS
The letter must be inserted in each representative's web email box individually.
Please edit letter and express yourself!

Please cross post

Judy Reed
AnimalVoices
Speaking For Animals & Their Environment

----------

  Source: Jan Stern <
ratlady@chartermi.net>

  -----Original Message-----
  From: National Anti-Vivisection Society <
navsnewsblast@navs.org>
  To: NAVS Email Supporter
  Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:22 PM
  Subject: Texas Bill Puts Animal Activists on Alert

  Visit navs.org
<
http://echo.bluehornet.com/ct/ct.php?t=147967&c=84719183&m=m&type=1>  to
learn how you can help make a difference

  An attempt to equate activism with terrorist activity has been presented
in a bill before the Texas legislature, H.B. 433. This bill would create a
new category of offenses targeted at individuals working on behalf of animal
rights and environmental protection.

  Under H.B. 433, activities such as interfering with a pigeon shoot,
blockading the entrance to a horse slaughtering facility, or even handing
out protest flyers in front of an aquarium could be characterized as an act
of "terrorism" if it interferes with the planned activity and is politically
motivated. Any supporters of these activities, both individuals or organized
groups, would also be considered "terrorists."

  This bill could have a chilling impact on the First Amendment rights of
individuals to free speech, free assembly and free expression. What if they
were passing out brochures with the name of an organization YOU support?
What if this type of legislation was introduced in YOUR state next?

  Please write or call members of the Texas House of Representatives to
OPPOSE this bill. This bill could target the conduct of every animal
activist in Texas. Penalties already exist for illegal conduct. Don't let
animal and environmental activists be singled out for silence.

  To see the full text of this bill, go to
www.animallaw.com
<http://echo.bluehornet.com/ct/ct.php?t=147969&c=84719183&m=m&type=1>  for
Texas legislation, keyword: terrorist.

  Find the names of the Texas House Committee Defense Affairs and
State-Federal Relations
<
http://echo.bluehornet.com/ct/ct.php?t=147970&c=84719183&m=m&type=1>

  For more information on NAVS (non-terrorist!) activities, go to
www.navs.org
<http://echo.bluehornet.com/ct/ct.php?t=147967&c=84719183&m=m&type=1> .



Source Texas House Info:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo/committees/cmtembrs.d2w/re
port?LEG=78&SESS=R&CMTECODE=C305&CHAMBER=H&CTYPE=House%20


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sample letter~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /j


Texas House of Representatives

House Committee Membership
Committee on Defense Affairs and State-Federal Relations
Legislative Session: 78(R)



Chair:    Rep. Frank Corte
Web Email:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=122&rep=frank.corte

Vice-Chair:   Rep. Scott Campbell
Web Email:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=72&rep=scott.campbell

B&O Chair:    Rep. Leo Berman
Web Email:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=6&rep=leo.berman

Members:

Rep. Dianne White Delisi

Web Email:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=55&rep=dianne.delisi


Rep. John Mabry

Web Email:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=56&rep=john.mabry


Rep. Tommy Merritt

Web Email:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=7&rep=tommy.merritt


Rep. Paul Moreno

Web Email:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=77&rep=paul.moreno


Rep. Rick Noriega

Web Email:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=145&rep=rick.noriega


Rep. Gene Seaman

Web Email:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=32&rep=gene.seaman


~~~~~~~~~~~~Insert This Portion ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/j


  Re:  OPPOSE HB 433:  PROTECT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS


Dear Representative ______________:

I do not live in Texas.  Nevertheless, I have reason for alarm about a
proposed Texas bill that equates animal activists with terrorists -- H.B.
433.

This bill would create a new category of offenses targeted at individuals
working on behalf of animal rights and environmental protection.  Under H.B.
433,  interfering with a pigeon shoot, blockading the entrance to a horse
slaughtering facility, or even handing out protest flyers in front of an
aquarium could be characterized as an act of "terrorism" if it interferes
with the planned activity and is politically motivated.   Any supporters of
these activities, both individuals or organized groups, would also be
considered "terrorists."

This bill attacks the First Amendment rights to free speech, free assembly
and free expression that should be enjoyed by every American.

Please oppose this outrageous bill.  Penalties already exist for illegal
conduct.   Please don't allow animal and environmental activists to be
singled out to be silenced.

Sincerely,

Your Name
Your Address

Remember the Animals:
They Don't Vote, But People Who Love Them Do

" The animals of the world exist for their own reasons.  They were not made
for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for
men."  _ Alice Walker
 


Charge of the Chicken Brigade

Now is the time for all good chickens to come to the aid of their country. Actually, it might be a bit late for that. Operation Kuwaiti Field Chicken is over, it seems.

Before you start thinking I'm a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal, let me say that this column came about after I read a story in this newspaper last Sunday, and that chickens really have played a part in military training recently.

According to wire reports, some 43 chickens were deployed to Kuwait to go into battle with Marines. That kind of imagery can send one's imagination running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Sorry, bad choice of words.

In all actuality, the plan was to employ the clucking compatriots much like canaries were used in coal mines years ago, to warn of poisonous gas. I don't know why they chose chickens over canaries. Maybe it's because they would work for mere chicken feed.

I'm sad to report that all the chickens have died, other than two, who lived to tell the tale. No word on whether they'll be decorated for their service to our country or be marching in parades any time in the future. They may get a guest spot on "The David Letterman Show," however, after being debriefed. You know Dave, and, well, it could happen.

Another thing that is unclear to me that I'd like to know, is what happened to cause their demise? The article reported that they'd been buried in the sand near headquarters at Living Support Area 7 in Kuwait, and that they even have wooden tombstones marking their graves. I am not making that part up.

Were they killed on secret reconnaissance missions? Were they caught selling secrets to the enemy, and then drawn, quartered and deep fried? Did soldiers get tired of eating cold C-rations while watching plump, juicy hens strut around in front of them? You know how military secrets are; we may never know what happened during "The Charge of the Chicken Brigade."

Maybe it's just me. I wonder if maybe the birds went through some special training so they could be more useful than just falling over after getting a whiff of poisonous gas. Were they taught to sacrifice themselves by jumping on a live grenade? Probably not, as they wouldn't have that much effect, other than to scatter parts of themselves all over everyone within 100 feet. That'd be my luck as a soldier over there, getting killed by gizzard shrapnel.

Were they trained to go for help, like Lassie always did every time Timmy fell down one of the numerous abandoned wells on the old TV series?

"Go for help, Gertrude! Fly like the wind! Oh yeah, you can't fly. Flutter back to camp for reinforcements!"

Another cry from the battlefield might have been, "Chicken down! Send in a vet!"

Maybe they were used for target practice, like the William Tell story, with the bow and arrow and apple. "Okay, you three privates step off 40 paces and let me see if I can shoot one of them chickens off your head with a bazooka!"

Surely there are animal activist groups that were alarmed by the demise of these fowls. Did they cry foul because the chickens weren't provided with gas masks? Were the birds at least outfitted with those sharp razor spurs that are used in cockfighting so they could at least defend themselves if captured? We may never know.

I saw that movie "Chicken Run" and know what they are capable of. Never underestimate the power of poultry. They may even help instigate a coop over there. I mean, a coup.

You want to talk covert operations? How hard would it be for chickens to meander over across enemy lines, each fitted with one of those deluxe Linda Tripp bugging devices, and bring back top secret information? And did you know that another definition for "covert," according to Mr. Webster, is, "One of the feathers covering the bases of the longer main feathers of a bird's wing or tail?"

Kinda makes you go, "Hmmmm...," doesn't it? The American bald eagle better be careful -- there might be another bird vying for its perch.

You can e-mail Luke at: lukewilson@graffiti.net

By Luke Wilson columnist

Source: http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive4/030503/tp5de5.htm?date=030503&story=tp5de5.htm


Minnesota............

Want To Tell The True Side Of The Story, Here Is A Group Doing A Research Project......

Dear game fowl friends:

I am currently doing a research project for school about the bill against animal fighting.  I am finding groups who are for and against animal fighting.  Do you know of any organizations or clubs that support animal and cockfighting? 
 
The bill is about increasing penalty for encouraging animal fighting or owning an animal for fighting.  Can you give us specific information about these groups that let their animals tend to their natural instincts.
 
The bills number in the senate is #SF0126 and the author is Skogland.  We interviewed him on February 26th at the capitol of Minnesota. To our dissapointment he was not the one who actually wrote the bill he just proposed it.  The real author is Rep. Joe Mullery.

Do you have any information about any other interest groups that we could get information from?  If you could please e-mail me ASAP that would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your help!
 
Here Is The Email Address That Contacted Us:

BaddCC@aol.com

___________________________________________________________________

 

Bill Name: SF0126     Bill Text       Revisor Number: 03-0630
The House Status shows the House actions on SF0126, if any have occurred.
Companion File: HF0028    Bill Text   House Status of HF0028   Senate Status of HF0028 

Short Description: Cock and dogfighting criminal penalties

Long Description
Chief Author: Skoglund    
Source: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us:8181/SEARCH/BASIS/sstat/public/www/DDW?W=session_number+=+0+and+FILE_SEARCH+inc+'sf0126'+and+session_year+eq+2003
 

S.F No. 126, as introduced: 83rd Legislative Session (2003-2004) Posted on Jan 22, 2003

  1.1                          A bill for an act 
  1.2             relating to animals; providing criminal penalties for 
  1.3             activities related to cockfighting, dogfighting, and 
  1.4             fighting of other domestic animals; creating 
  1.5             procedures for disposition and care of the animals; 
  1.6             providing for hearings; clarifying admissibility of 
  1.7             certain evidence; amending Minnesota Statutes 2002, 
  1.8             section 343.31. 
  1.9   BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 
  1.10     Section 1.  Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 343.31, is 
  1.11  amended to read: 
  1.12     343.31 [ANIMAL FIGHTS PROHIBITED AND POSSESSION OF FIGHTING 
  1.13  ANIMALS.] 
  1.14     Subdivision 1.  [PENALTY FOR ANIMAL FIGHTING; ATTENDING 
  1.15  ANIMAL FIGHT.] Any A person who: 
  1.16     (1) promotes or, engages in, or is employed at in the 
  1.17  activity of cockfighting, dogfighting, or violent pitting of one 
  1.18  domestic animal against another of the same or a different kind; 
  1.19  or 
  1.20     (2) receives money for the admission of any a person to any 
  1.21  a place used, or about to be used, for that activity; or 
  1.22     (3) willfully permits any a person to enter or use for that 
  1.23  activity premises of which the permitter is the owner, agent, or 
  1.24  occupant; or 
  1.25     (4) uses, trains, or possesses a dog or other animal for 
  1.26  the purpose of participating in, engaging in, or promoting that 
  1.27  activity 
  2.1   is guilty of a felony.  Any A person who purchases a ticket of 
  2.2   admission or otherwise gains admission to that activity is 
  2.3   guilty of a misdemeanor. 
  2.4      Subd. 2.  [PENALTY FOR POSSESSING A FIGHTING DOG.] It is a 
  2.5   gross misdemeanor for a person to own, possess, or have custody 
  2.6   of a dog that has been trained or is being trained for use in 
  2.7   dog fights.  It is conclusive that a dog has been trained or is 
  2.8   being trained to fight if: 
  2.9      (1) the dog exhibits fresh wounds, scarring, or other 
  2.10  indications that the dog has been or will be used for fighting; 
  2.11  and 
  2.12     (2) the person possesses training apparatus, paraphernalia, 
  2.13  or drugs known to be used to prepare dogs to be fought. 
  2.14     Subd. 3.  [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.] It is an affirmative 
  2.15  defense to prosecution, if it is proven by a preponderance of 
  2.16  the evidence, that: 
  2.17     (1) the person does not use the dog in dog fighting or 
  2.18  train the dog to be used in dog fighting; and 
  2.19     (2) drugs, accompanying drug paraphernalia, or exercise 
  2.20  equipment found in the person's possession are used solely to 
  2.21  maintain the health of the dog. 
  2.22     Subd. 4.  [PENALTY FOR POSSESSING FIGHTING BIRDS.] It is a 
  2.23  gross misdemeanor for a person to own, possess, or have custody 
  2.24  of a cock or other type of bird that has been trained or is 
  2.25  being trained for use in bird fights.  It is conclusive that a 
  2.26  bird has been trained or is being trained to fight if: 
  2.27     (1) the bird exhibits fresh wounds, scarring, or other 
  2.28  indications that the bird has been or will be used for fighting; 
  2.29  and 
  2.30     (2) the person possesses training apparatus, paraphernalia, 
  2.31  or drugs known to be used to prepare birds to be fought. 
  2.32     Subd. 5.  [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.] It is an affirmative 
  2.33  defense to prosecution, if it is proven by a preponderance of 
  2.34  the evidence, that: 
  2.35     (1) the person does not use the bird in bird fighting or 
  2.36  train the bird to be used in bird fighting; and 
  3.1      (2) drugs, accompanying drug paraphernalia, or exercise 
  3.2   equipment found in the person's possession are used solely to 
  3.3   maintain the health of the bird. 
  3.4      Subd. 6.  [PEACE OFFICER DUTIES.] Animals described in 
  3.5   subdivisions 2 and 4 are dangerous weapons and constitute an 
  3.6   immediate danger to the safety of humans.  A peace officer or 
  3.7   animal control authority may remove, shelter, and care for an 
  3.8   animal found in the circumstances described in subdivision 2 or 
  3.9   4.  If necessary, a peace officer or animal control authority 
  3.10  may deliver the animal to another person to be sheltered and 
  3.11  cared for.  In all cases, the peace officer must immediately 
  3.12  notify the owner, if known, as provided in subdivision 7.  The 
  3.13  peace officer, animal control authority, or other person 
  3.14  assuming care of the animal shall have a lien on it for the 
  3.15  actual cost of care and keeping of the animal.  If the owner or 
  3.16  custodian is unknown and cannot by reasonable effort be 
  3.17  ascertained, or does not, within ten days after notice, redeem 
  3.18  the animal by paying the expenses authorized by this 
  3.19  subdivision, the animal may be disposed of as provided in 
  3.20  subdivision 7. 
  3.21     Subd. 7.  [DISPOSITION.] (a) An animal taken into custody 
  3.22  under subdivision 6 may be humanely disposed of at the 
  3.23  discretion of the jurisdiction having custody of the animal ten 
  3.24  days after the animal is taken into custody, if the procedures 
  3.25  in paragraph (c) are followed. 
  3.26     (b) The owner of an animal taken into custody under 
  3.27  subdivision 6 may prevent disposition of the animal by posting 
  3.28  security in an amount sufficient to provide for the actual costs 
  3.29  of care and keeping of the animal.  The security must be posted 
  3.30  within ten days of the seizure inclusive of the date of the 
  3.31  seizure. 
  3.32     (c)(1) The authority taking custody of an animal under 
  3.33  subdivision 6 must give notice of this section by delivering or 
  3.34  mailing it to the owner of the animal, posting a copy of it at 
  3.35  the place where the animal is taken into custody, or delivering 
  3.36  it to a person residing on the property and telephoning, if 
  4.1   possible.  The notice must include: 
  4.2      (i) a description of the animal seized; the authority and 
  4.3   purpose for the seizure; the time, place, and circumstances 
  4.4   under which the animal was seized; and the location, address, 
  4.5   telephone number, and contact person where the animal is kept; 
  4.6      (ii) a statement that the owner of the animal may post 
  4.7   security to prevent disposition of the animal and may request a 
  4.8   hearing concerning the seizure and impoundment and that failure 
  4.9   to do so within ten days of the date of the notice will result 
  4.10  in disposition of the animal; and 
  4.11     (iii) a statement that all actual costs of the care, 
  4.12  keeping, and disposal of the animal are the responsibility of 
  4.13  the owner of the animal, except to the extent that a court or 
  4.14  hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not 
  4.15  substantially justified by law.  The notice must also include a 
  4.16  form that can be used by a person claiming an interest in the 
  4.17  animal for requesting a hearing. 
  4.18     (2) The owner may request a hearing within ten days of the 
  4.19  date of the seizure.  If requested, a hearing must be held 
  4.20  within five business days of the request to determine the 
  4.21  validity of the impoundment.  The municipality taking custody of 
  4.22  the animal or the municipality from which the animal was seized 
  4.23  may either (i) authorize a licensed veterinarian with no 
  4.24  financial interest in the matter or professional association 
  4.25  with either party, or (ii) use the services of a hearing officer 
  4.26  to conduct the hearing.  An owner may appeal the hearing 
  4.27  officer's decision to the district court within five days of the 
  4.28  notice of the decision. 
  4.29     (3) The judge or hearing officer may authorize the return 
  4.30  of the animal if the judge or hearing officer finds that (i) the 
  4.31  animal is physically fit; (ii) the person claiming an interest 
  4.32  in the animal can and will provide the care required by law for 
  4.33  the animal; and (iii) the animal has not been used for violent 
  4.34  pitting or fighting. 
  4.35     (4) The person claiming an interest in the animal is liable 
  4.36  for all actual costs of care, keeping, and disposal of the 
  5.1   animal, except to the extent that a court or hearing officer 
  5.2   finds that the seizure or impoundment was not substantially 
  5.3   justified by law.  The costs must be paid in full or a mutually 
  5.4   satisfactory arrangement for payment must be made between the 
  5.5   municipality and the person claiming an interest in the animal 
  5.6   before the return of the animal to the person. 
  5.7      Subd. 8.  [PHOTOGRAPHS.] (a) Photographs of animals seized 
  5.8   during an investigation are competent evidence if the 
  5.9   photographs are admissible into evidence under all the rules of 
  5.10  law governing the admissibility of photographs into evidence.  A 
  5.11  satisfactorily identified photographic record is as admissible 
  5.12  in evidence as the animal itself. 
  5.13     (b) A photograph must be accompanied by a written 
  5.14  description of the animals seized, the name of the owner of the 
  5.15  animals seized, the date of the photograph, and the signature of 
  5.16  the photographer. 
  5.17     Subd. 9.  [VETERINARY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.] (a) A report 
  5.18  completed by a Minnesota licensed veterinarian following an 
  5.19  examination of an animal seized during an investigation is 
  5.20  competent evidence.  A satisfactorily identified veterinary 
  5.21  investigative report is as admissible in evidence as the animal 
  5.22  itself. 
  5.23     (b) The veterinary investigative report may contain a 
  5.24  written description of the animal seized, the medical evaluation 
  5.25  of the physical findings, the prognosis for recovery, and the 
  5.26  date of the examination and must contain the signature of the 
  5.27  veterinarian performing the examination.
Source:  http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill.pl?session=ls83&version=latest&session_number=0&session_year=2003&number=sf0126