Reg Wydeven column: Despite lobbying efforts, cockfighting is fowl play in 48 states

I was one of the lucky students who got to take one of the chicks home. I named my chick George and I fed him crushed Cheerios every day. He soon outgrew his coop and my parents’ patience, so we gave him to a friend who lived on a farm.

That’s why I love the “Seinfeld” episode in which Jerry and Kramer raise a rooster named Little Jerry. Like I did with George, they love and care for Little Jerry by giving him rubdowns and steam baths and by monitoring his high protein diet.

The “Seinfeld” gang then travels in the middle of the night to the back room of a small bodega to allow Little Jerry to compete in his first cockfight. The crowd gathers in secrecy under the cover of night to attend the match because cockfighting is illegal in New York and 47 other states.

After Jerry and Kramer see the size of Little Jerry’s opponent, they realize just how brutal the sport is and why it is illegal. Because he fears for Little Jerry’s life, Kramer dives into the concrete pit that serves as the cockfighting ring to save Little Jerry. He is then shredded by the opposing rooster’s beak, talons and razor-sharp spurs that are affixed to his feet, a common practice.

Citing the viciousness of the sport, Oklahoma became the 48th state to ban cockfighting. In 2002, a state law was passed outlawing its practice. The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear cockfighting backers’ appeal to overturn the ban, so Oklahoma’s prohibition on the sport will stand.

New Mexico and Louisiana remain as the only states that allow cockfighting. Cockfighters are bracing for the inevitable push from animal rights activists to ban the sport in those states as well.

Cockfighters in the Sooner State also were hurt by another law passed in 2002. This law, signed by President Bush, makes it a federal crime to transport roosters across state lines to engage in cockfights. Therefore, because they simply can’t make longer commutes to their matches, many Oklahoma cockfighters flew the coop and moved their operations to New Mexico or Louisiana.

While this may seem like a lot of trouble just to let some birds box, experts estimate cockfighting is a billion-dollar-a-year sport, and one with a huge lobbying effort. The high cost of chicken feed, cement and other supplies for coops and fighting pits, makes it expensive to raise chickens, as my parents can attest.

Though illegal, cockfighting still is popular in many rural areas, mainly in the South. Supporters, such as the United Gamefowl Breeders Association, claim it is part of agricultural heritage as it instills responsibility in children by teaching them how to breed, care for and match roosters against one another in fights.

Animal activists, such as the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), respond by saying if parents want to teach their children responsibility, buy them a goldfish. They assert cockfighting is inhumane, as most matches result in one of the birds being killed and the other crippled. Unlike the sports of hunting and fishing, cockfighting is not used as a means of controlling animal populations or for food — it is intended for the enjoyment of its spectators.

I’m just glad my George never participated in a cockfight. Because he was such a skinny rooster, if he had fought, it probably would have been in the featherweight division.

Reg Wydeven is a partner with the Kaukauna-based law firm of McCarty Curry Wydeven Peeters & Haak. To ask him a question, mail to The Post-Crescent c/o the business editor, P.O. Box 59, Appleton 54912.

ALEXANDER & THE JUMPING MICE

I had to set my coffee down and laugh as I read the report of Oliver Stone's theory on why his recent movie "Alexander" was a "commercial failure". "Some conservative groups condemned Stone's depiction of the Macedonian conqueror's sexuality." Stone was "taken aback by the controversy and fierceness of the reviews". He says he operates, "on my passion and sometimes I'm naïve."

He told London reporters, "the commercial failure of 'Alexander' in the United States could be linked to 'a raging fundamentalism in morality'".

Well aren't we ashamed. Here this brilliant fellow makes a movie that most of us are offended by and we don't but tickets and watch it. It's as if I wrote a book and then when it failed to sell, I tell you all that you were just too "stupid" or "closed minded" to buy it. I could then fly off to Zimbabwe or China and tell reporters that America is in the grip of "raging ignoramuses".

Last time I checked, our Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, where the heck does this guy get off denigrating us simply because we don't view the world as he does? Could it be because the environmentalists and animal rights radicals have done the same thing with their view of the world and then taken it one step further?

Like Oliver Stone and his views of "sexuality", the environmentalists and animals rights folks propose their unique view of the world and how the rest of us should live. Like Mr. Stone, they want the rest of us to believe that their view is the ONLY one to be publicized and followed. Whether we consider them lies or destructive messages, we are condemned when we refuse
to view or agree or support such messages. But the environmental and animal rights extremists have gone one step further. They have succeeded in gaining passage of a Federal law that mandates their peculiar view of how we should live and imposes it on the rest of us.

The Endangered Species Act is steadily fulfilling the dreams of extremists in this country. Ranchers are denied water and grazing allotments because of "jumping mice." Homeowners are forced to watch their homes go up in flames because they cannot clear away brush because of "ground squirrels." Dog owners are forced to listen to their dogs being torn limb from limb and ranchers face dwindling herds and flocks while big game hunters disappear along with their quarry because of "wolves." Campers are mauled to death in their sleeping bags because of "grizzly bears." Taxpayers in all 50 states are forced to pay for cougar control in California (where the state refuses to mange such predators) to protect "California's bighorn sheep." These are just a few of many such harmful impacts from the imposition of the "views" of others on fellow citizens because of the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Stone wouldn't have a problem with "the fundamentalist morality in some parts of the United States" if he could just get a law to impose his will on the rest of us in the same way.

The Endangered Species Act is where Welfare was in this country 20 years ago. Everyone could see it not only wasn't working but that it was causing all sorts of harm and having all manner of unintended consequences. That is why the Endangered species Act has not been reauthorized for over a decade as required by law but still gets funded and increases in power, scope, and
funding in spite of this. Like Welfare advocates, the Endangered Species advocates whinny about how necessary the Act is and how the western civilization will collapse if anyone touches the Act (other than to increase it.) Like Welfare in the late 80' and 90's, the Endangered Species Act cries out for reform. Real reforms are called for and there has been no time in the past 20 years when the means of reform were more favorable.

Like Welfare reform, it is time to take the Endangered species Act in hand and:

-Sharpen the goals into realistic and attainable ends and eliminate the unattainable platitudes that saturate the Act.

-Limit participation by funding only what is achievable and eliminating the debilitating things like taking without compensation, Federal management authority (except in the most extreme cases), unrealistic goals like native ecosystems from a bygone era and plants and animals that harm citizens and the nation.

-Eliminating all of the parts that dampen the American spirit and Constitution like the erosion of private property rights and the negative impacts on ranching, logging, hunting, fishing, trapping, and other such human pursuits.

-Restoring the concept of managing and using natural resources on public and private land as the way to conserve species and the American way of life.

Congress is talking about doing this in the upcoming session. There is a lot of talk and proposals and a feeling among some that when the dust settles. Little will have changed. Don't let this happen. Watch what takes place and support those Federal politicians that are working for real reforms. Write letters and send e-mails that express your views. Oppose the reelection of those politicians that try to smother reforms and help reelect (through letters to the editor, conversations with acquaintances,
and contributions) those who do the right thing. The upcoming opportunity may be the (last?) time real reforms are possible. That doesn't mean, like most bureaucrats think, that finally the citizenry will be forced to accept the Act and submit. That means that the harms will not only continue to accumulate but that they will increase in severity and number. The eventual "reforms" will probably throw the baby out with the bathwater and be more traumatic than we envision today.

So the next time the environmentalists and animal rights radicals propose something like Invasive Species legislation or more Wilderness or the "Wildlands Project" just stay home and tell your Federal politician that he should keep busy reforming the Endangered Species Act and then concentrate on national defense and interstate commerce. If he or she wants to support
"historical novels" or environmental "passions" they should spend their own time and money on it and leave our money and our time alone.

Jim Beers

7 January 2005

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

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