Purpose: The Maryland legislature is considering H.B. 24 to close loopholes in the current animal fighting law. The legislation, sponsored by Delegate Chuck Boutin, would prohibit possessing, owning, selling, transporting or training a dog or bird for fighting, allowing an animal fight to take place on one's property, possessing cockfighting implements, and being a spectator at a cockfight.

Status: H.B. 24 will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, January 22 at 1:00 p.m.

THE HSUS SAYS.......

URGE PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL COCKFIGHTING CASE:

Since the discovery that videotapes showing violent and bloody cockfighting are being sold from a venue out of Kentucky in violation of federal law, The HSUS has been pressuring the U.S. Attorney’s office to investigate and prosecute those responsible. The videotapes, sold by Sabong Press out of Lexington KY, show an almost endless series of vicious fighting matches in which trained cockfighting birds suffer bloody injuries and debilitating exhaustion, all for the apparent amusement of wagering spectators. The videos also show that fighting birds have blades and gaffs attached to their legs, in order to cause greater injury and death. While the cockfighting video was apparently filmed in the Philippines, their sale or possession for commercial purposes in the United States is a violation of federal law, punishable up to five years in prison. Congress passed the federal animal cruelty depictions law to stop those who encourage and profit from cruel and illegal activities such as cockfighting, and now it is important that this critical animal protection law be enforced.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Contact the U.S. District Attorney’s office in Lexington, KY and respectfully urge them to prosecute John Purdy of Sabong Press for selling animal fighting videos in violation of federal law.

Gregory F. Van Tatenhove
U.S. Attorney
Suite 400
110 West Vine Street
Lexington, KY 40507-1671
859-233-2661
859-233-2666 (fax)

Source http://www.hsus.org/ace/441

THE SHREVEPORT TIMES HAS AN OPINION.......

State should join Caddo by outlawing cockfighting
Editorial Board
Posted on January 12, 2004

Enforcement of a parish ordinance now pits Caddo Parish against the state.

In this case, the big picture - whether the state law supersedes a local ordinance and whether a parish operating under a charter has the right to make and enforce a law that goes beyond the scope of a state law - isn't the most noticeable issue.

An ordinance adopted in 1987 prohibits cruelty to animals, and the wording of the ordinance indicates cockfighting is illegal. However, cockfighting is legal in a grand total of two states - and Louisiana is one of them.

The contest involves two fighting roosters fitted with spurs. The winner lives; the loser dies or is maimed. On one side, supporters tout the economics: Advocates travel to cockfights bringing their money for overnight stays, restaurants and, most of all, betting. On the opposite side, detractors point to the obvious cruelty of the blood sport.

And yet another element may creep into the argument as well. Without the gambling element, cockfighting would not exist. How can it be legal? Unlike other forms of gambling, there has been no referendum on cockfighting. There is no state regulatory agency or licensing.

The argument that the roosters are doing what comes naturally - fighting - is intellectually dishonest. The birds are bred for aggressiveness, solely for the purpose of fighting. They are fitted with spurs intended to make them more lethal to their opponents. There are claims the animals are drugged to maximize their aggression and endurance in the fight. In the wild or without human intervention, these birds may not have to fight; in captivity, the fighting is inescapable.

There's no reasonable justification for cockfighting to be legal in the state, and it's time for Louisiana to join the long list of states that have outlawed it.

Source http://shreveporttimes.com/html/E7AD7BCA-51EC-4FDF-98B3-BD5978DF3273.shtml

Dogfighting, cockfighting barbaric and cruel

Virginia Courtney

Hosston

I certainly agree with The Times' editorial regarding outlawing cockfighting, and let's add dogfighting also. Louisiana should be ashamed of its slowness in making this into law. There seems to be a very thin veneer between bestiality and civilization in some people, and how grown men can enjoy the torment of their fellow creatures is beyond my understanding. Of course, they bet on these cruel spectacles, but we have the boats for gambling and slots everywhere, so they must just enjoy the cruelty of the so-called "sport." May God have mercy on them. All creatures are his creation. We must apply pressure for our state to outlaw and properly punish the responsible parties.

Source http://shreveporttimes.com/html/2646B336-51FA-4254-8936-12B32D865B3E.shtml

COULD WE CALL THIS MORE THAN JUST AN OPINION?

Caddo's cockfighting quagmire features interesting birds of a feather
Dan Turner / Louisiana Gannett News/Shreveport
Posted on January 18, 2004

The issue may be cockfighting, but the topic has more interesting tentacles than just a couple of roosters goring each other to the amusement and profit of their handlers.

Enforcement of the Caddo Parish ordinance that prohibits cockfighting opens several cans of worms. For starters, cockfighting is legal in Louisiana. There's a fairly well accepted view that state laws supersede parish ordinances, and if a court challenge backs up that viewpoint, the pits in the northern part of the parish may be littered with rough roosters again in short order.

And South Louisiana will have an interest in the argument.

In the southern stretches of the state, cockfighting is fairly commonplace and popular. And, apparently, there's a considerable amount of money involved. On the state level, the Louisiana Gamefowl Breeders Association has Randy Haynie as its lobbyist. Haynie's client list runs the gamut from AT&T and Philip Morris to the National Football League and Harrah's, so there's a pretty good indication that, (a) he's good at what he does, and (b) his services don't come at bargain basement prices.

The cockfighting supporters are used to playing with the big boys. In the 1990s, game-fowl groups hired former U.S. Sen. J. Bennett Johnston to lobby for them on the federal level.

The animal rights crowd in New Mexico, the only other state where cockfighting remains legal, claim to have public support on their side to eliminate the fights. Maybe so, but that hasn't translated into legislation there.

Similarly, any notions of getting Louisiana to outlaw cockfighting are summarily dismissed. Getting such a bill filed isn't the problem; getting it out of committee is the difficult part. In a state that can be profoundly indifferent toward the suffering of humans from time to time, it'll take a lot more righteous indignation than Louisiana normally can muster to get the law changed to keep roosters from butchering each other for sport.
If the cockfighting enthusiasts from Caddo Parish follow through with a suit against the parish, the local government may be forced to back down. With the parish budget already strained, about the last thing the parish commission wants to stomach would be another successful suit for damages.

But there may be more to the argument than the legality of cockfighting in the state and the parish's definition of cruelty to animals.

Cockfighting's popularity is based on gambling. That's why the birds have sharp spurs attached - it shortens the match and it generates a definitive winner and loser.

Despite what the state constitution says, the state Supreme Court has ruled that gambling - "gaming" to use the court's exact vernacular - is legal, and Louisiana taxes every form of gambling it can sanction.

Except for well-armed poultry.

If the house was taking a percentage of any of the bets in a cockfight before being shut down, the legal argument could shift dramatically from a cruelty-to-animals case to an illegal gambling operation with the likelihood that state and federal tax officials might take some interest.

Also, there may be some concern about the origin of the fighting fowl. If the birds fighting in the northern Caddo Parish pits came from somewhere within Louisiana, that's one thing. If those birds came in from Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas or some other state, there's another issue to wrestle.

A federal law criminalizing the transporting of game birds across state lines or overseas went into effect last year under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act. Illegally carting a rooster across state lines could mean a year in jail and a fine of up to $15,000.

Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator said his deputies saw a load of birds being hauled to one of the northern Caddo fighting pits in a vehicle with Texas plates.

Prator turned that information over to federal authorities. Before this version of the cockfighting tale ends, there may be a lot more federal involvement, if only because the state lacks the nerve to deal with it.

--

Dan Turner is a columnist and a member of The Times editorial board. His columns run on Sunday and Thursday. Reach him at 459-3279 or by fax at 459-3301. Address e-mail to dturner@gannett.com.

Source http://shreveporttimes.com/html/91A15B13-8093-4801-86C9-A6BF6CDE4332.shtml

Courtesy Tammy & Ken J.

HAS IT BECOME COMMON PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY TO DENY FREEDOMS?

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE

It is probably too late to write about this. At this point I merely open myself to personal attacks and the subject itself will be quickly lost in a fog of contempt and indignation. Maybe, just maybe, some will think about it and maybe, if some opportunity presents itself in the future, someone will look beyond the immediate promise and see where this is leading.

A nation founded on individual freedoms and guaranteed rights is not a society where powerful interests should be able to deny freedoms and eliminate traditional rights. However that is not only happening routinely today, it has steadily increased in frequency for many years. In spite of a Constitution that designates and limits the powers and responsibilities of state and Federal government, environmental and animal rights interests have been successful in transferring state authorities to the Federal government and using those contrived authorities to transform the country into a socialist dictatorship in these matters.

How did we come to accept Federal wolves for which the Federal government is not responsible when they destroy private property; unmanaged whales and seals that depress already depressed commercial fisheries; increasingly vast unmanaged Federal lands that are inaccessible, unproductive fire hazards; invented Federal authority over animal testing and dog breeding; Federal proposals to ban trapping, ban bear baiting, ban hunting with dogs, restore “Pre-Columbian ecosystems”, eradicate “Invasive Species”, finance “non-game species”, register pet owners, and on and on?

This began with the acceptance of the pernicious notion that each of us has a “right” to meddle in the lives of others and deny them the right to live in freedom. It may have started when northern Europeans successfully outlawed bullfighting that was enjoyed by and part of Spanish Americans heritage. Maybe it was when certain citizens (Urban? Religious? New England?) outlawed cockfighting, a worldwide practice engaged in by countless generations of families and societies. When Americans accepted the idea that state and Federal laws could be used successfully to “protect animals” or “improve society” or “establish humane standards for animals” the table was set for the slide to where we are today.

Consider why these practices were outlawed nationally and on the state level almost everywhere. Was it because animals are not private property but somehow the property of government? Was it because of interstate commerce concerns? Was it because certain animals or all animals have “rights?” Was it because anything voted by a majority of voters or a state or Federal legislature is therefore a just law to be obeyed? Was it because a court or the Supreme Court agreed that it was “good” no matter what the Constitution says? I suggest that it was basically because most people didn’t like these practices and wanted them banned, period.

If banning such practices was acceptable, why is wrong to ban trapping or hunting or dog breeding or selling dogs or fishing or logging or grazing or animal farming practices or animal experiments or dog training methods or circuses or rodeos or rural living or to close public lands for Wilderness or forcibly introduce wolves or to protect cougars and bears from management or (fill in the animal or environmental use dearest to you)? These things all have the thread of animals, plants, and land. A proliferation of special interest groups aiming to ban not only these things but also SUV’s, energy development, roads, smoking, alcohol, guns, ATV’s, capitalism, corporations, and a long list of other things also surround us today but let’s concentrate on the environmental and animal rights (including animal welfare) changes of the last thirty years.

Consider the Federal laws (Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Animal Welfare Act, Wilderness Act) and Federal agency regulations and policies (Roadless Areas, Entrance Fees, bans on logging, grazing, hunting methods, fisheries, animal control, wildlife management, and animal husbandry licensing and inspection) and current Federal proposals to do everything from listing endangered soils to registering all domestic animals and their owners. State governments are implementing all manner of restrictions on animal breeders, animal trainers, pet owners, circuses, rodeos, horse owners, trappers, hunters, fishermen, and other animal users. Local jurisdictions are enacting more and more restrictions on numbers of animals, kinds of animals, animal shows, and other uses. Schools are more and more employed to imbue justifications for these values in all children.

Setting aside the legitimate Federal responsibility to regulate interstate commerce and to eradicate animal health threats that endanger our interstate or foreign commerce, and disregarding the state government responsibility to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” how do we justify banning every manner of animal use, wildlife management, and land uses from logging to energy development? How do we justify licensing and inspecting dog breeders, horse owners, animal trainers, and all manner of human uses of animals?

Is it because those who want to do away with these things recognize that it must be done incrementally? Is it because animals (or wilderness or public land) have some sort of moral “right” to protection? Is it because the central government should control absolutely (one day soon) all wild and domestic animals and any interaction they have with humans? Is it because we Americans are bound to establish a society wherein people and animals and wilderness and Pre-Columbian ecosystems are equal before the law? Is it because we are growing more and more intolerant about fellow citizens doing things we neither do nor approve-of? Is it because we invent animal welfare standards that are applied to deprive others of the use and ownership of their animal property? Is it because of constantly adjusted “science” generated to justify domestic animal restrictions or elimination of plant, animal, and land uses?

Whatever the reason for this trend, we are on an increasingly slippery slope. If it is acceptable to drive dog breeders out of business because we don’t like the condition of their pups, it is a short leap to stop the possession of tropical fish because many of them die prematurely. Hey, so what? I don’t keep fish. If wolves cannot be prevented from killing stock and dogs, it is a short leap to forcing buffalo into farming communities or eradicating highly sought after non-native birds or fish to protect a mouse or sucker. If it is acceptable to stop animal experiments it is only a short leap to banning the keeping of pets. If wilderness is “sacred”; energy development, ranching, mining, farming, and recreation are living on borrowed time.

When we rejected the principles of freedom, we started the slide. When we no longer relied on merely teaching our own kids to not go to bullfights while allowing those who enjoyed that bloody spectacle the freedom to live THEIR lives it started. When we rejected merely telling our neighbors to not buy puppies from men that didn’t keep their pens clean it continued. When we stopped buying fur because we didn’t like trapping and unsatisfied, began preventing others from buying fur we ratcheted up the activism. When we got laws passed like the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and then got other laws passed that made any animal or plant use impossible we passed a milestone dividing us from socialist governments. When we no longer were content to teach our own children not to hunt or trap or fish and began having the state schools so teach all kids we took a page from Hitler and Stalin. When we each accepted as supreme OUR specific desires from doing away with pets or hunting or rural living to forcing vegetarian diets and urban living under government supervision to override our responsibility to maintain a free society we sold out what the Founding Fathers and our forefathers fought and died for.

As we called for “more” government controls for our fantasy fulfillments we slowly eliminated property rights and gave more power to our government over all aspects of our lives. Federal politicians, bureaucrats, environmental and animal rights radicals, and University professors all profit from this. In the name of “protecting puppies” we drive dog breeders out of business. In the name of animal welfare we stop bear and cougar management by eliminating hunting and are thereby cause the deaths of fellow citizens. In the name of imaginary environmental “needs” we deny others the use of their own public land and drive the cost of government to ever increasing heights. In the name of “concern” politicians, bureaucrats, interest groups, and radicals play us like a banjo.

Until we can accept that Americans should be allowed to raise and use animals as they see fit while those who choose not to eat, wear, or use animals are free to do so, things will get worse. Until we understand that you either protect freedom or lose it, things will get worse. Until we recognize that one citizen’s belief that animals or wilderness are sacred does not give them justification to impose those beliefs on the rest of us, things will get worse. Until we accept the fact that animal standards are best enforced by voluntary groups and free market principles and not Federal and state fiats, things will get worse. Until the animal rights advocate, the environmental supporter and the rancher and hunter can sit down to dinner and speak to each other civilly, things will get worse.

How can this be achieved? The same way that the United States Constitution showed the world how to have Protestants and Catholics live together in peace. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution states in its opening sentence, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This was the first time in the long and bloody confrontation between Catholics and Protestants that such an approach was proposed. It worked and other countries eventually followed suit as people began leading their own lives and treating neighbors with different basic values as cherished friends and coworkers. The primary answer to this current debilitating confrontation between citizens that enriches others at our expense is to similarly apply freedom. Freedom for citizens to pursue lives that reflect their values and traditions is the hallmark of our society. Imposed values in those earlier confrontations led to the eventual demise of European monarchies that had attempted to benefit from manipulating the confrontation over religious values. When both sides were assured that they could practice their beliefs without interference, peace was achieved internally and a great nation began to arise from a bloody revolution.

Regarding state government over-reaching in these areas, recalls and elections are the best way to throw out dangerous state politicians who are primarily responsible for implementing harmful laws. On the Federal level I recommend a XXVIII Amendment to the Constitution stating, “Congress shall make no law respecting restrictions of animal, plant, or environmental uses by citizens except for interstate or foreign commerce purposes.” I’d vote for it and I would hope you would too. Then the problem is appointing judges who would respect it, but that is grist for another article.

Jim Beers
16 January 2004