How Is The Attack By The AR Upon The Gamefowl Breeder.......
........there's not any reason for people to have these birds..........
Like Any Other Attack On Personal Responsibility And Individual Rights?
 
 
Open Containers And Individual Rights

Under the outrageously misleading headline, "Montana Legislature Balks at Outlawing Drunk Driving," the Associated Press reports that Montana lawmakers recently decided not to ban open liquor containers in cars and trucks. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) sneered that "there's still perhaps some carry-over from people whose view is their individual rights are being trampled on."

Individual rights. How quaint.

Outlawing open containers is as much an attack on personal responsibility as on individual rights. As Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman points out "you don't even have to drink to run afoul of this kind of law." There are countless circumstances under which a driver might have an open container sitting in the passenger seat and still be stone cold sober. To criminalize this perfectly harmless behavior is to say that drivers are somehow unable to stay sober with alcohol anywhere near them.

One Montana legislator had this to say about MADD: "It's not their business to change our culture. If they don't like our culture, they should go somewhere else."

Source: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=18971

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gamefowl News Report
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:04 PM
 
Subject: Complete Text of the new AWA sec. 2156

Like a piece of the puzzle, just reading the changes can be confusing unless you view the puzzle in its entirety.  So, I've edited the current AWA Sec. 2156 to contain the Conference Committee changes that have been approved by the House and in all likely hood, will be approved by the Senate in the coming days.  Once signed by the President, this version will take effect in 12 months.  Fortunately, the Conference Committee saw fit to re-include Subsection (d) which allows use of the U.S. Mail and other interstate instrumentalities (phone, Internet, etc.) if the intended purpose is to further legal fighting ventures.  (This section had been removed in the original S.345 bill)  So, this helps all the gamefowl related business, the magazines, and our use of the Internet when it concerns the Sport.  There is so much confusion being passed around about what the AWA Sec. 2156 with the new changes actually will say, I just thought it wise to enlighten everyone.  So, here it is below. 

Alan W. Ray



 
Federal Animal Welfare Act and Regulations
2156. Animal fighting venture prohibition
(a) SPONSORING OR EXHIBITING AN ANIMAL IN AN ANIMAL FIGHTING VENTURE.
(1) IN GENERAL. - Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce.
(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN STATES. - With respect to fighting ventures involving live birds in a State where it would not be in violation of the law, it shall be unlawful under this subsection for a person to sponsor or exhibit a bird in the fighting venture only if the person knew that any bird in the fighting venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of participation in the fighting venture.

(b) Buying, selling, delivering, or transporting animals for participation in animal fighting venture
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal for purposes of having the dog or other animal participate in an animal fighting venture.
(c) Use of Postal Service or other interstate instrumentality for promoting or furthering animal fighting venture
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or any interstate instrumentality for purposes of promoting or in any other manner furthering an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the States of the United States.
(d) Violation of State law
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c), the activities prohibited by such subsections shall be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof.
(e) PENALTIES.
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for each such violation.
(f) Investigation of violations by Secretary; assistance by other Federal agencies; issuance of search warrant; forfeiture; costs recoverable in forfeiture or civil action
The Secretary or any other person authorized by him shall make such investigations as the Secretary deems necessary to determine whether any person has violated or is violating any provision of this section, and the Secretary may obtain the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, or other law enforcement agencies of the United States, and State and local governmental agencies, in the conduct of such investigations, under cooperative agreements with such agencies. A warrant to search for and seize any animal which there is probable cause to believe was involved in any violation of this section may be issued by any judge of the United States or of a State court of record or by a United States magistrate within the district wherein the animal sought is located. Any United States marshal or any person authorized under this section to conduct investigations may apply for and execute any such warrant, and any animal seized under such a warrant shall be held by the United States marshal or other authorized person pending disposition thereof by the court in accordance with this subsection. Necessary care including veterinary treatment shall be provided while the animals are so held in custody. Any animal involved in any violation of this section shall be liable to be proceeded against and forfeited to the United States at any time on complaint filed in any United States district court or other court of the United States for any jurisdiction in which the animal is found and upon a judgment of forfeiture shall be disposed of by sale for lawful purposes or by other humane means, as the court may direct. Costs incurred by the United States for care of animals seized and forfeited under this section shall be recoverable from the owner of the animals if he appears in such forfeiture proceeding or in a separate civil action brought in the jurisdiction in which the owner is found, resides, or transacts business.
(g) Definitions
For purposes of this section--
(1) the term "animal fighting venture" means any event which involves a fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment except that the term "animal fighting venture" shall not be deemed to include any activity the primary purpose of which involves the use of one or more animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting;
(2) the term "interstate or foreign commerce" means--
(A) any movement between any place in a State to any place in another State or between places in the same State through another State; or
(B) any movement from a foreign country into any State or from any State into any foreign country;
(3) the term "interstate instrumentality" means telegraph, telephone, radio, or television operating in interstate or foreign commerce;
(4) the term "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States;
(5) the term "animal" means any live bird, or any live dog or other mammal, except man; and
(6) the conduct by any person of any activity prohibited by this section shall not render such person subject to the other sections of this chapter as a dealer, exhibitor, or otherwise.
(h) Conflict with State law
The provisions of this chapter shall not supersede or otherwise invalidate any such State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures except in case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between any requirements thereunder and this chapter or any rule, regulation, or standard hereunder. 
    
 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

.......you don't even have to drink to run afoul of this kind of law.......
But In This Case, You Don't Even Have To Allow Them To Cockfight To Run Afoul Of This Kind Of Law........
According To Vegan Pacelle In The Honolulu Advertiser Article Below.........
.........The kicker is that, since cockfighting is illegal in Hawaii, there's not any reason for people to have these birds at this point........

Could We Consider This Just Another Blatant Mis-Representation In The Mainstream Media By The AR To Further A Political Agenda At The Expense Of Personal Responsibility And Individual Rights?
 
Should Vegan Pacelle Read Section 26 Again Or Is He Just Purposely Using The Media To Perpetuate A Lie?
 
 We Can See After May 13th It Will Be Unlawful.......
........for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce.........
 
And We Can Also See After May 13th It Will Be Unlawful........
.........for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal for purposes of having the dog or other animal participate in an animal fighting venture........
 
The Statute Is Based On That Which Has Actually Moved In Commerce And Then Participated In
"An Animal Fighting Venture"
 
"An Animal Fighting Venture" Is.......

..........any event which involves a fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment...........
 
 
That PARTICULAR Animal MUST Have Moved In Commerce And That PARTICULAR Animal MUST Participate In "An Animal Fighting Venture" To Cause An Infraction Of The Law Under That Statute!
 
Is Vegan Pacelle Stating Since EVERY Single Gamefowl That Moves In Commerce Will Enter Into An
.....event which involves a fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment..... When He Says...........
 
.........The kicker is that, since cockfighting is illegal in Hawai'i, there's not any reason for people to have these birds at this point........
 
Is The Kicker That Vegan Pacelle Is Blatantly Lying In The Mainstream Media To Promote A  Political Agenda At The Expense Of Personal Responsibility And Individual Rights??
 
After May 13th,
Only Animals That WILL NOT Themselves
Participate In "An Animal Fighting Venture" 
May Legally Move In Commerce,
Couldn't Those Be In The Millions?
 
Do You Think That Is A.....
.........reason for people to have these birds........
 
 
Do You Think This Is An AR Attempt For Innocent Gamefowl Breeders To........
.......be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.........
By An Attack On Their Personal Responsibility And Individual Rights Through Media And Political Maneuvering?
 
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv
 
 
And Then The Vegan..........
 
............Pacelle conceded that proving shipped gamecocks are being used for cockfighting is the challenge facing the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It won't be easy, but he said the government is committed to the law and that the USDA is in the process of securing additional money to enforce it..........
 
You Don't Think We Will Be Seeing In The Future More Headlines Like This One Printed One Year Ago, Do You?
 
Wednesday, May 1, 2002
Homeowner to fight seizure by state
By Brandon Masuoka
Advertiser Staff Writer
 
The owner of a Kalihi home that police have targeted for forfeiture said yesterday he plans to challenge the seizure attempt, saying police exaggerated reports of drugs and gambling on his property.

On Friday night, about 60 police officers raided 686 Bannister St. and arrested 25 people on suspicion of gambling and drug violations and on bench warrants, said Maj. Darryl Perry of the narcotics/vice division.

Police said the house, mauka of the O'ahu Community Correctional Center, has long been known as the best cockfighting arena in Honolulu, and the house has been raided at least four times.

No cockfighting was going on during the raid, and the owner was not arrested, Perry said.

Police want to seize the house, and noted it would be the first to be forfeited to the state, Perry said.

They recovered nearly $2,500, 74 metal cockfighting gaffs, crystal methamphetamine, drug pipes and some gambling devices, Perry said.....

........25 percent of its value goes to police, 25 percent goes to the prosecutor's office and 50 percent to the state attorney general's office fund.........

Source:  http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/May/01/ln/ln36a.html
 
 
Should The Question Really Be.......
Is The Real Kicker That Others Will Follow Suit And Blatantly Lie To Promote A  Political Agenda
At The Expense Of Personal Responsibility And Individual Rights??
 
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
........there's not any reason for people to have these birds..........
 
 
New law could bleed gamecock breeding businesses

By Will Hoover
Advertiser North Shore Writer

Until May 14, Ed Galiza will have plenty to crow about.

Ed Galiza runs a game fowl farm on his Sunset Beach property. Galiza and other breeders in Hawai'i face financial disaster when a new law takes effect May 14, making it illegal to ship gamecocks anywhere for the purpose of fighting.

Bruce Asato • The Honolulu Advertiser

His two-acre Sunset Beach game fowl farm, one of the larger in the state, features 300 cages lined up neatly between the mountains and the sea. Every coop contains a single brightly colored rooster with warrior ancestry dating back thousands of years.

In addition to gamecocks, Galiza has more than 100 chicks warming up in the wings, a high-tech hatchery and an assortment of jittery brood hens scratching at the grass.

"He's got it down to a science," said Galiza's son, Darren, as he eyed his dad's incubator setup, which can delicately rotate dozens of eggs in a precise environment.

But in 16 days Galiza's operation, and those of hundreds of other breeders in the state, could suffer a severe financial hit when a new federal law goes into effect. The new law makes it illegal to ship gamecocks anywhere for the purpose of fighting.

Reaction to the law provides a glimpse into a thriving industry worth millions of dollars in Hawai'i but one that is little known outside of gamecock breeding circles.

Well beyond the blood sport of illegal cockfights that take place in parts of the state is what qualifies as big business, down-home style: thousands of gamecocks exported from Hawai'i every year to Guam, the Philippines, Saipan, Puerto Rico, Mexico and a few remaining holdout locations on the U.S. Mainland where cockfighting is legal.

The demand for fighting birds and the need to constantly fortify bloodlines with stock from diverse gene pools has made Hawai'i a unique and important gamecock breeding crossroads between Asia and Latin America, according to breeders here.

Multimillion-dollar business

At Galiza's North Shore hatchery, 131 of 160 fertile eggs were hatched in a controlled environment. These hatchlings are 12 days old.

Bruce Asato • The Honolulu Advertiser

It's a legal business and a profitable one practiced across the state's rural areas by those who say game birds have been part of their family tradition for generations. Many are mom-and-pop operations with fewer than 100 birds. Others are elaborate enterprises such as Galiza's.

All will be affected by the federal law beginning May 14.

Found in Section 26 of The Animal Welfare Act, the misdemeanor law was signed by President Bush last year as part of the 2002 Farm Bill. Violators face a $15,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

Galiza and his counterparts say that since more than half their sales come from birds shipped out of state, the law could drive a spur through their financial hearts. They also don't feel it's fair that they should be held responsible for what buyers do with their product.

How many rooster suppliers are in the state is unclear. But Annette Lee, president of the Hawai'i Game Breeders Association, said her organization has maintained more than 1,000 members since it began in the mid-1980s. She called gamecock breeding in Hawai'i a multimillion-dollar activity.

Lee said an economic impact survey conducted by her organization several years ago showed that some 1,400 members spend $3.4 million a year on feed, and $4.2 million more on cages, related equipment and incidentals.

In addition, members fork over $1.4 million annually in shipping charges.

Lee said those figures are minimum estimates, since there is more than one breeder organization in the state and many independent breeders aren't affiliated with any association.

Lee's own Ace Gamecock Farm in Waimanalo sells around 400 birds a year at up to $250 each. Like other breeders, Lee said the majority of her sales are shipped out of state. She believes the new law is part of a concerted effort by animal-rights groups to eventually make it illegal to even own a gamecock.

Anticockfighting move

Types of game birds
Black McCrae

Grey Cavazo

Red Yellow Leg Sweater

Of the various gamecocks in Hawai'i, the three most common are the black, the grey and the red. The quality of the birds has little to do with the color.

Bruce Asato • The Honolulu Advertiser

Wayne Pacelle doesn't deny it. Pacelle, senior vice president of The Humane Society of the United States, fought to have the law passed. He's not shy about stating its intended purpose: to shut down cockfighting bird breeders in Hawai'i and elsewhere.

He said the law was created to close a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act of 1976 that allowed breeders to ship birds for the purpose of fighting to locations where cockfighting is legal.

"What the amendment to Section 26 did was ban any interstate movement and — this is important — any exports as well," said Pacelle.

"So, if you're in Hawai'i, you're not allowed to ship to Guam, the Philippines, Mexico or to New Mexico, which is one of the states where cockfighting is still legal. The kicker is that, since cockfighting is illegal in Hawai'i, there's not any reason for people to have these birds at this point."

In the past Pacelle said breeders circumvented the law by saying they were shipping breeding stock for use in legal game fowl shows.

"That's all a ruse they use," he said. "The problem is that the show industry is relatively small. The cockfighting industry is huge."

Ripple effect of new law

The name of the game is cockfighting, said Pacelle. The show bird industry is not enough to sustain the gamecock industry. Pacelle said breeders are often participants in cockfights and personally sell their birds at such events.

One such breeder is John "Butch" Cambra of Kahalu'u. Cambra just returned from selling birds in Louisiana, where cockfighting is legal. At the end of the month he will leave for a county in Oklahoma where game fights are legal until courts there sort out jurisdiction issues (voters in Oklahoma recently outlawed cockfighting).

"I run a legal business," said Cambra, who is a building inspector for the state. "My life is going to change big time after May 14 because I ship a lot of chickens. I'd say I make close to $40,000 a year on chicken sales. I put two kids through college on the money I've made from gamecocks. I couldn't have afforded it otherwise."

Cambra said the law will have a negative economic ripple effect in the state. Glenn Yogi, owner of Kaneohe Farm Supplies, is a case in point. Yogi said he does $300,000 a year in gamecock-related sales. That's half his gross revenues.

"I have feed, pens, gloves, ID bands, vitamins, medicine — everything," he said. "The last six customers who walked through the door were here for their chickens. This law is going to devastate my business.

"People are quitting. Going out of the business. Feed sales are going down already."

Elizabeth and Jose Royos of Kane'ohe have been raising game fowl for decades. The couple sells around 300 birds a year at $100 to $200 apiece. Mostly, they sell out of state. They are holding out hope that the United Game Breeders Association, the nation's largest gamecock organization, will launch a successful challenge to the law.

"It would be a total loss if we can't ship roosters," said Elizabeth Royos. "And there are many, many more people like us."

Is law enforceable?

Royos, Cambra and Yogi aren't alone in wondering how the law will differentiate between a rooster that's shipped legally and one that isn't. Halyna Kuheana, president of the Big Island Gamefowl Breeders Association, doesn't think the law is enforceable.

Dave Anderson is in charge of judging for the American Poultry Association — the nation's oldest livestock organization — which hosts hundreds of fowl competitions every year. The shows are comparable to dog shows, and feature hundreds of different breeds of domestic fowl.

Anderson, a California marketing consultant who has judged a number of gamecock shows in Hawai'i, said his organization opposed the law.

"Basically, the law is trying to stop cockfighting," said Anderson, a lifelong show bird hobbiest who said he has no interest fighting gamecocks. "But the problem is, how do they know the difference between a show bird and a fighting bird? The fact is, they're identical."

Pacelle conceded that proving shipped gamecocks are being used for cockfighting is the challenge facing the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It won't be easy, but he said the government is committed to the law and that the USDA is in the process of securing additional money to enforce it.

Meanwhile, The Humane Society of the United States is trying to make things even tougher for game bird breeders. It backs legislation introduced in Congress that, if passed, would make transporting gamecocks for fighting a felony. Violators would face up to two years behind bars.

That legislation is supported by the Hawaiian Humane Society, said Eve Holt, society spokeswoman.

Added Cathy Goeggel, director of research and investigations for Animal Rights Hawai'i, "We support the idea of making the law a felony."

Local breeders find the felony legislation attempt especially troubling.

Lee, who believes such laws are an example of Mainlanders imposing their own morality on Hawai'i's local culture, said if a felony version of the law ever becomes reality, growing gamecocks in Hawai'i will become a thing of the past.

"We're making our own living doing this," said Lee. "Animal groups don't care about that. They'd rather see us all on welfare."

Reach Will Hoover at whoover@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8038.

Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Apr/28/ln/ln05a.html