Respecting Cockfighting

One of my readers has asked the following question:

"Jim -What do you think of the bill Bush signed that makes it a felony to
cross a state line with a rooster?   Aren't there some constitutional rights
issues involved here?"

It is a good question about something that concerns everyone.  My response
will try to explain why.

Imagine for a moment that your neighbor calls you over to see his new pet.
You arrive to see a domestic sheep ewe and her lamb.  The ewe is housebroken
and stays on the porch.  The lamb is being handled and "oooh'ed and aaah'ed"
over by every kid in the neighborhood.  Your neighbor tells you about recent
breakthroughs in training and handling sheep and what great pets they now
make.  He goes on about how everyone is looking for sheep pets and how there
are shows and clubs and competitions.  You watch the young girls playing
with the lamb like some Barbie doll and an old man contentedly scratching
the complacent ewe behind her ears.

Would such a developing phenomenon be a moral or legal or just basis for
outlawing the use of wool or the use of sheepskin or the eating or sale of
lamb or mutton?  Would it be worthy of the American Republic to pass a law
that says no one any longer may "own" sheep?  Would it be "fair" or
Constitutional to simply deny current owners any rights to use "their"
sheep?  Would it be feasible to require that everyone who owns a sheep must
maintain it according to and in compliance with Government Regulations until
it dies naturally?  Is there any basis for the Federal government to simply
pass a law forbidding transportation of sheep or shearing (for wool) of
sheep or slaughter of sheep?  Could the Federal government simply assume
authority to prohibit the ownership or possession of sheepskin car seat
covers or the tooth or tail of a deceased sheep?  The answer to each of
these questions is of course a resounding NO!

In the last 35+ years there has arisen in the United States a Radical
Movement that is steering our society into a morass designed to disrupt it
and replace it with a socialist democracy where the majority rule and an all
powerful central government will replace the guaranteed rights, balance of
powers, and strong local governments that have made this country the envy of
the world.  This dark vision is exactly what the Founding Fathers feared and
what each generation must forestall or ignore at their own peril.  Animal
"rights" and environmental issues have been skillfully honed into some of
the primary weapons to achieve this dark vision in today's society.

In the political acrimony ( Vietnam withdrawal, Democrat Congress v.
Republican President, demonstrations, sexual "rights" debates, etc.) of the
late 1960's and early 1970's politicians found a clever way to divert our
attention as suggested by the radicals of the day.  Creation of "new"
Federal powers and "rights" spawned Roe v Wade, The Endangered Species Act,
The Marine Mammal Protection Act, and The Animal Welfare Act.  Basically we
found the extreme power of the Federal government had been directed at us to
essentially establish two radical concepts.

First, whatever a majority or close to a majority of Americans want, they
can get regardless of the Constitution or traditions or freedom or property
rights or States rights or any other impediment.  If a lot of folks claim a
human fetus is simply tissue then let the mother and whoever do what they
will.  This has led to euthanasia laws and Nazi-like consideration of the
disabled and infirm among us as well as "quality of life" discussions and
stem cell debates.  Whatever enough voters want at the state or Federal
level is going to be allowed.  Likewise the Endangered Species and Marine
Mammal and Animal Welfare Acts established that certain animals can be
placed under Federal "protection" for no other real reason other than a lot
of folks think it is a good idea.  Wolves, bears, whales, rats, seals, dogs,
(the list is truly ENDLESS) may have lots of nonsense written about their
"ecosystem value" or their "intelligence" or their "status" or their
"importance" but make no mistake that at root it is an ever-expanding list
of critters and areas and human-related issues coming under Federal
authority BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA.

Second, we have come to accept that Federal laws not only simply create
un-Constitutional authority out of thin air but that the expansion of that
authority is quite endless once begun.  Endangered Species come to include
"Endangered" subspecies and then races and then populations and then
distinct populations and then even something called a "distinct population
'segment'".  Marine Mammals were supposed to be returned to management and
uses and state authority (where established) but 35 years later they are
unmanaged, unused, and still under Federal authority.  Laboratory mice and
rats that were "never intended to be covered" by the Animal Welfare Act but
are now under Federal authority.  Habitat claimed as "Critical" to
Endangered Species is "taken" from private property owners neither for a
"public USE" nor with any "just compensation" (both of which are
specifically mandated by the Constitution).  This flagrant and successful
disregard of the Constitution has led not only to the controversy of the
Kelo Decision but just as egregiously to the flawed and illegal passage of
recent Federal laws forbidding the slaughter of privately owned horses and
the fighting of privately owned cocks.

This disruption of rights and traditions and freedoms in a reputedly "free"
country has been perpetrated for many reasons.  Environmental and animal
rights organizations have raised millions of dollars by appealing to the
emotions of mostly urban citizens and young people that "feel bad" when told
about horse slaughter or old ladies with many dogs or hunters killing
animals or trees being cut down.  They not only send money to these
organizations (that then spread it around to politicians), they encourage
politicians to "do something" so that, by harming other citizens, they can
"feel better".  International and national connections between environmental
radical groups and extremist animal rights groups and others like Women's
Rights Organizations and Socialist protest groups work together and share
lawyers and personnel (NARAL lent an employee to the animal rights extremist
Great Ape Project for instance) to denigrate human life under the guise of
"elevating" animals by denying their property status and dictating their
"rights".  Federal and State bureaucracies are willing participants in all
these laws and the subsequent expansions by regulation, silent "cooperation",
and careful establishment of precedents.  The bureaucrats expect and get
increased budgets, promotions, power, and more influence over ever-widening
segments of society.  Sadly and invariably, these incremental expansions
purposely only affect one narrow segment of society at a time so as not to
inflame any large number of protestors at one time.

When rich horse owners and all the suburban moms and young girls with horses
are disturbed about a horse like their own "Flicka" or "Misty" being
slaughtered for some French dinner table or to feed pets or mink, they are
aghast and demand it be stopped.  When urban commuters are told rural people
in New Jersey or Massachusetts are "trapping" animals with "leg-hold traps"
or that hunters want to kill bears or moose, they too are aghast and
"demand" it be stopped.  When urban condo-dwellers are told China uses the
hides of dogs and cats (that the Chinese willingly eat like some Native
Americans also do) they are aghast and demand that such hides not be allowed
into the US where many would be delighted to buy and use them due to cost,
qualities and other factors. (It is beyond my comprehension how all these
same people can advocate wolf and grizzly bear and mountain lion numbers and
distributions that not only endangers humans and livestock but also exposes
watchdogs, pet dogs, and hunting dogs to horrible, painful, and often
lingering deaths.)

Cockfighting, like trapping and hunting, is very easy to vilify with lies
and propaganda directed at today's urban elites.  The lies about drugs at
cockfights or hunting leading to domestic violence or trapping leading to
abuse in families are ludicrous and exactly the opposite of the truth, yet
these lies are eagerly swallowed by urban commuters and people so well-off
financially and living untraditional life patterns that any reform of some
imagined thing that disturbs them is believed unquestioningly.  The fact
that it also invariably is something that "doesn't affect their style of
living" makes it even more acceptable to busy urban people with large
incomes in search of a "worthy cause".

The truth is that after lo these many years I can safely say that trappers,
cockfighters and hunters are some of the finest individuals and parents and
citizens I have ever known!  They all cherish and revere traditions passed
down in their families for not only generations but indeed centuries.  The
game dinner and the fur coat and the evening at a cockfight (on every
continent in the world for centuries and in places like Asia and tropical
jungles for eons) are links to an ancestral past that if claimed by today's
Native American in the US would be tolerated in a New York second and even
given land set-asides by the same folks that clamor for the elimination of
that which they neither understand nor appreciate in their neighbors (go
figure?).

We accept the principle that if enough of us (or enough money and votes can
be generated by) object to our neighbors' activity with their own property,
it should be stopped whether we ever see it or whether or not it is ever
apparent to us.  The even stranger aspect than this truly un-American
practice is the feigned disinterest of others slated to also be eliminated.
Hunters don't care about trappers.  Dog owners look down on cockfighters.
Many veterinarians look down on anyone that "uses" their animal or believes
it to be their "property". Cattlemen seldom come to the aid of farmers
threatened by salmon claims.  Midwest irrigators see little in common with
ranchers threatened by Federal Native Ecosystems authority creation.  Trout
fishermen selfishly support Federal Invasive Species power creation thinking
only of their stream and not all of the dozens of species in thousands of
lakes and streams enjoyed by millions of fishermen that would be eliminated.
Add to all this that today in 2007 we have President Bush instead of
President Nixon; Iraq instead of Vietnam; the most vitriolic Congress in my
time; and public sexual claims that dwarf the "free-sex" and "living
together" claims of 35 years ago and you have a recipe for a repeat of the
environmental/animal rights law orgy of 35 + years ago.

Is it any wonder that we see these pernicious bans on taking a rooster to
another state or disposing of an old or sick or unwanted horse that can't
otherwise be sold?  Is it any wonder that there is one of the most egregious
Federal land closure laws ever conceived (The Northern Rockies Ecosystem
Protection Act) sitting in Congress as I write this?  Is it any wonder that
the radicals are on a roll as they anticipate "control" of not only Congress
but the White House too?  Is it any wonder that (just like 35 years ago) the
Republicans are racing to match the Democrats' "concern" for animals and the
environment (think the rush to "List" polar bears and embrace the Law of the
Sea Treaty and "Global Warming")?

The only consolation I can think of is Prohibition.  That was an equally
harmful and stupid move by a block of voters to force others to live not as
free men but as the teetotalers would have them live.  Instead of staying
out of bars they destroyed the bars.  Like the urban do-gooders in a swoon
over cockfighting and horse slaughter and trapping and hunting, etc. they
choose not to ignore their neighbors' differences and values; they choose to
destroy them.  Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, a far greater
hurdle than these unjust and unconstitutional laws or bureaucrats'
regulations or connived precedents from rogue courts.  Prohibition was
repealed by an incensed electorate.  Either these bad laws and selfish
practices are overturned and rejected or we will all live to regret it.

Although I have never owned a fighting cock nor have I ever attended a
fight, I say do not give up hope cockfighters.  Either the insanity of the
past 35 years is stopped and reversed or you will be probably able to renew
and enjoy your heritage and traditions under whatever it is that replaces
what is continuing to fall apart all around us.

Jim Beers
16 May 2007

- 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://jimbeers.blogster.com   (Jim Beers Common Sense)

- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak.  Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net

- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow.
He was stationed in North Dakota , Minnesota , Nebraska , New York City , and
Washington DC .  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western
Pacific and on Adak , Alaska in the Aleutian Islands .  He has worked for the
Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security
Supervisor in Washington , DC .  He testified three times before Congress;
twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60
Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to
expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Centreville ,
Virginia with his wife of many decades.