SHREVEPORT, La. (AP) -- Two cockfighting arenas put out of business by a Caddo Parish ordinance that bans the blood sport are arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional because state allows cockfighting.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday, a month after Sheriff Steve Prator shut down the clubs following an undercover investigation of the cockfighting pits.

The suit claims that the ordinance "represents an abridgment of the police power of the state and is thus unconstitutional on its face and as enforced."

It also claims that the Caddo ordinance "is invalid and unconstitutional as it proscribes conduct which is explicitly and implicitly legalized by the state Legislature."

State laws states that game birds are not animals, and therefore do not fall under statutes banning cruelty to animals. Conversely, the Caddo ordinance states that the roosters used in cockfights are animals and cannot be used in fights.

"The controversy lies in the definition of rooster, cock or fowl and whether or not it is considered an animal. The state law says it is not an animal, and parish law says it is an animal," Prator said on Tuesday in a telephone conversation.

Cockfighting has been banned in the United States except in Louisiana and New Mexico.

Prator said he discovered that cockfighting is illegal under the ordinance after his agents went undercover to investigate allegations of wrongdoing at the clubs.

He said the investigation yielded no evidence of wrongdoing, but that a close reading of the 1987 ordinance revealed that the clubs were illegal.

"It is not legal in Caddo Parish, and until a judge tells us differently it will remain illegal," Prator said.

The suit seeks a preliminary injunction against the ordinance so that the clubs - the Pine Woods Game Club near Vivian and the Ark-La-Tex Game Club near Ida - can open their doors again.

The clubs do brisk business, attracting people from Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas. And some local officials have said shutting the clubs down hurts the local economy.

"They're pretty big, they're touted as an economic boost for the area, I'm not sure," Prator said.

Prator said he was not pressured into shutting down the clubs by animal rights activists, who abhor cockfighting.

"I haven't had pressure from either side, we've got to do what we've got to do. I was elected to uphold the law and I will do that until the law changes or is confirmed," Prator said.

TAKING

“Taking” n. 1. act of one who or that which takes. 2. state of being taken. 3. that which is taken. … 5. Colloq. state of agitation or distress. 6. captivating, winning, or pleasing. 7. Colloq. infectious or contagious.

“Taking” is all of these things, and more. The government takes from you when they condemn your land for a road. They take from landowners when they declare “viewsheds” and “corridors” around Parks and Refuges that restrict land use. They take from all of us when National Parks close state roads. They take from you when they forcibly introduce wolves that then kill your livestock, your pets, and the big game herds that you hunt. They take your property when they declare Critical Habitat or the presence of an Endangered Species on your property and you can no longer log, mow, build a home, burn, plant, graze, run dogs, hunt, fish, boat, etc. on your property. Property owners are increasingly “agitated and distressed” by the increase in magnitude and occasions of such takings. Government bureaucrats are “captivated” and “pleased” as they increasingly take from citizens. The increasing success of “taking” private property by bureaucrats, environmental radicals, animal rights activists, and politicians is clearly “infectious” and “contagious.” Of all the examples cited, in only the first (roads) are property owners paid or compensated for the property taken by government.

The Founding Fathers knew their history. For hundreds of years Kings, barons, and Parliaments “took” property on a whim and generally for their own profit. Whether it was monasteries transferred to political allies, rural landscapes and rivers reserved for the powerful rulers pleasure, Scotch and Irish land clearances, weapons confiscated, sons taken for war or daughters taken for the powerful, or homes destroyed for the “viewsheds” of the rich; “Taking” by government was a danger to be avoided at all costs. Therefore, the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution (smack dab in the middle of what we call “The Bill of Rights”) concludes, (No person shall…)”be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” There is nothing about good causes or the environment or some group of critters being exceptions to the obligation of the government to pay “just compensation” when they take property. The perverse current definition of public use ought to also be considered in this Constitutional light.

Property is property. Whether it is your steer, or your land, or your china dishes, or your dog, or your horse, or the trees on your land, or the potential to build homes on your property or to drill for oil or gas or dig coal. Public property, be it a Park, Refuge, Forest, or Taylor Grazing Act (BLM) land and everything on it from trees, oil, animals, plants, roads, buildings, dams, fences, etc. are property held in trust for you and me. THEY don’t own it; they manage it for us. Furthermore, with one or two minor exceptions, Federal ownership of land is no different than private ownership relative to the government of the state wherein they occur. That is to say that the wild plants and animals are still under state authority and the state has the same jurisdiction with the exception of collecting taxes over any other owner.

When the Federal government prevents logging, grazing, hunting, recreation, horseback riding, trapping, dog field trials, and fishing or when they limit such public uses by reducing game herds, eliminating cabins, declaring wilderness or roadless areas, poisoning streams, declaring Critical Habitats or Endangered Species, etc.; they “Take” public interests every bit as much as an English lord who tortured and often killed a poacher who sought to feed his family from areas the baron simply declared to be for his use alone. When the Federal government refuses to manage its property to minimize fire it not only must answer to us all as in the foregoing, they should be answerable AS A LANDOWNER to state authorities aimed at preventing the disastrous fires that more and more result from Federal non-management of its growing estate.

When I said that “Takings” “were all these things and more,” I was referring to the way in which all this “Taking” WITHOUT COMPENSATION is perverting our government. Because they can increasingly “Take” without compensation the Federal government is steadily trimming the Constitutional rights of property owners and the Constitutional jurisdictions of state governments. One need not be a “right-winger” or a “property rights nut” to see that this is so. Furthermore, one need not be a “conspiracy theorist” to see that this trend will soon result in property owners without rights and state bureaucracies that are little more than regional offices for Federal agencies. I agree with the Founding Fathers that this would not be good, to say the least. This is the sort of thing my parents and grandparents and great grandparents always said they left behind in “the old country.”

The rate of “Takings” and the magnitude of “Takings” are increasing. The reason for this is simple and was understood by the Founding Fathers. When anyone, be they a King or Parliament or a rich businessman, Federal bureaucrat, Federal politician, or an Afghan warlord can take what he wants from the less powerful with impunity, his appetite will only increase. That is why the Founding Fathers included the 5th Amendment. Supposedly property could only be taken for “public use” (viewsheds?, wolves?, unrecognizable and unused animals and plants?, wilderness?, Roadless?, big game reduction?, dog field trial elimination?, endangered species, etc.) and “just compensation” SHALL be paid. Any judge worth his or her salt recognizes that what is going on now violates the Constitution and has only gotten worse once government was allowed to begin mimicking Kings, warlords, and dictators.

You don’t need a Ph.D. in economics to understand that if the government had to pay for all the “Takings” of the past 30 years, there wouldn’t have been any “Takings.” The bureaucrats and their allies would have never been able to con the politicians or us taxpayers out of the money to do even 1/10th of what they have “Taken.” Once the bureaucrats, politicians, environmental radicals, and animal rights activists discovered that they could get away with this, the sky became the limit. The absurdity of today is not only that activist judges refuse to apply the Constitution; the Federal bureaucrats can force wolves into an area, mandate no control by citizens when their property is “Taken” (i.e. stock or pet killed, game reduced, areas made more dangerous to children, etc.), and then claim no responsibility or any need for “just compensation” when property is “Taken” by the wolves. Vlad the Impaler would understand this and be fully supportive.

If things are not reversed, it may soon be too late. Where to find ethical judges? Where to get state politicians who stand up to Federal masters regardless of the loss of Federal funds? How to turn state bureaucrats from marching in lock step with Federal bureaucrats and the radicals who control them? How to form national organizations to represent us (as the environmental and animal rights cults have done) and who will work together? How to talk and write about these things without coming off as a kook to be dismissed? How to rejoin the urban/rural split that seems to be affecting more and more of our society like some cancer? How to overcome the loss of turnover in Federal politicians and the wicked influences that benefit them and harm us? I don’t have all the answers but I think careful consideration of this “Taking” phenomenon is a good place for many of us to start.

Jim Beers
9 January 2004

This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net