GAMECOCKS UNLIMITED

THE GAMECOCK CONSERVATION BLOG

  • "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." Samuel Adams
  • Legalize It

  • ______________________
  • Flex Your Rights

  • ______________________
  • Fully Informed Jury Association

  • ______________________
  • ______________________
  • ______________________
  • ______________________

Archive for May, 2012

Child wins award for cockfighting essay

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on May 18, 2012

child wins award for cockfighting essay


Molokai `Opio Receives National Honors in Essay Competition
Tuesday 11-27-07
Filed Under: Opinions
By L?o Azambuja

One Molokai `opio has reached the national academic spotlight by earning a silver award in a national essay competition.

Molokai?s own, Sabryna Hauoli Corpuz, participated in the Trio Quest Awards 2007, submitting an essay about something she is very familiar about: cockfighting.

The annual competition is open to students from all over the United States. It?s run by the University of Washington, and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education.

The essay exposes the positive sides of cockfighting. Corpuz said she was very proud of her essay, and that it holds a lot of strong points.

Corpuz wrote the essay while participating in a summer program organized by Upward Bound, which she said prepares high-school students for college. The humble teenager said she did not even think she was a good writer; and that because cockfighting is such a controversial topic, it would be difficult for her essay to be chosen. How wrong was she!

Congratulations to Corpuz for going beyond and above, showing the nation that Molokai possesses diverse talents, despite being so isolated from the rest of the world.

Corpuz and other Upward Bound teenagers will be going on a trip to Washington D.C. soon. Monetary donations to help fund the trip are welcome.

Cockfighting

By Sabryna Hauoli Corpuz

Cockfighting, more commonly known as chicken fighting, is recognized as a crime in the United States because of its violence and gambling. It has been here for centuries, way before it was ruled illegal. It has been said that even some of our founding fathers, Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln, participated in this sport. How do you think Abraham Lincoln got his nickname, ?Honest Abe?? He was actually a well-respected cockfighting referee. Cockfighting is fought worldwide, from the Philippines to Belgium and even France. In some places there are arenas with seats and a big pit. Some of these arenas hold such big events that people from all over the world attend it. It?s almost like a mini stadium.

Yes, cockfighting is illegal, but it also has its positives. First and foremost, chicken fighting has become a family affair for many. In countries where arenas still exist, there are families who attend the events during any time of the day. For many people, we may hear about a lot of the well-known old time chicken fighters, who developed their business or farms as a family. It was not the responsibility of only one person. It was the whole family who joined in to the progress of their rooster career. When you go to these events, it?ll amaze you how many people are interested in this type of sport.

Cockfighting also financially supports their owners. Yes, they gamble and bet on their game fowls, but they worked with them from the beginning. Fighters raise their chickens from when they are first born. Not only do they make their money from fighting their chickens, but they also earn money by breeding them. Owners breed the best they can possibly find, and look for the best out of the best in the batch. From there, they advertise and build a reputation for themselves. They keep fighting so that they get more wins and hopefully others will see. When they see the owner?s style of the bird fighting and the amount of times they win, they become future buyers. When other fighters see the potential within the birds, the news spreads quickly by word of mouth. Some breeders also advertise in monthly cockfighting magazines, such as ?Gamecock,? ?Grit and Steel,? and ?Feathered Warrior.? Depending on the breeder or owner of the game fowls, two year old roosters are usually sold for three hundred dollars and up. The thing about customers is that they don?t just buy one or two chickens at a time; they buy them by the dozens. For big time breeders, they sell to customers all over the world, from the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and all the way to Asia.

Cockfighting is instinctual. Game fowls fight and compete in the wild. We, as humans, only help them reach their best in what is a natural instinct to them. We push them and encourage them to be at their best and fight for their survival just as people do in our society. Both human beings and animals fight. We, as individuals compete in society for our place in the world. Chickens fight for survival, respect, and just to earn their place. It?s the same way as when people fight in the streets. What everyone needs to understand is that whether you are a human or an animal, we all fight for our survival every single day of our lives. Humans and animals will still compete against each other, no matter what anyone says or does to prevent it. In the end, Nature cannot be avoided. It?s in our nature to aim for the best and to fight to survive.

Isn?t the result of cockfighting the same as sitting at your table and eating a chicken? In other words, the chicken needs to be killed in order to be prepared as food for humans. But as chicken fighters, they are giving them an opportunity to fight for their survival. If they win, they?ll live and for the ones that lose they will usually be eaten. When a chicken fighter obtains a winner or comes across a fowl that still has a chance to survive, they do all they can to help them to live. After reaching home, the fighter or owner will then see the injuries done to the fowl and try to save them from dying. They sew them up, give them antibiotics, and spray their cuts so they heal. To the owner of the fowls, the fowls are like their own children. The only difference is that they end up fighting them at the end and have a 50/50 chance of losing them.

There are more arrests because it is illegal. If it weren?t illegal, people wouldn?t be arrested. At an arena in Louisiana, Sunset Recreational Club, they had no problems whatsoever. They were so organized. There were people announcing the winners, losers, or if the fight was a draw, so that there were no betting problems. Then they have veterinarians sewing up birds for the fighters so they could survive. The club had strict rules there so they didn?t run into any problems. They had all the set up from the food and the chicken supplies. If they had an arena in Hawaii and it was legal, the government could help fighters and keep them out of any kind of trouble or problems. Law Enforcement could look on and help prevent anything from happening. There wouldn?t be any problems if it was legal and it had an organized arena that would let the fighters fight their roosters without looking over their shoulders all the time. They could focus on the fight and there would be less trouble for the police department.

In conclusion, cockfighting should be legal because of the experience it gives; it financially supports a family, the family affairs, and less trouble to worry about. It?ll be easier for everyone if they are able to continue to practice their culture.

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/01/29/news/notice.html

Advertisements

Posted in GAMECOCK ACTIVISM | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Deterioration of a Gentleman’s Sport: The Criminalization of Cockfighting.

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on May 18, 2012

By James A. Holt

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not o­nly turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

– Frederic Bastiat

INITIATIONS

As often occurs in life, a rather serendipitous event initiated a life-long devotion. It was November 21, 1989–a cold and clear day and many miles from the State Capital, in the deep remoteness of Van Buren County, when my interest in criminal and constitutional law and history first ignited.

I had been laid off from work at a custom cabinet shop and was consequently enjoying leisure o­n this day. A restlessness had set in and the monotonous dreary drone of the television had grown intolerable. So, that afternoon I had walked over to a longtime friend and neighbor’s home for conversation and to share a couple of ice-cold brews. He happened to have another visitor by the name of David Freeman who had a gray-colored game rooster with him (he had been transporting the bird in his pick-up) and the discussion quickly turned to cockfighting. The competitive nature of men soon overcame us. I also happened to own a half-game rooster of unknown lineage, which ran loose in the woods beside my place. David and I eventually managed to get the roosters in close proximity to o­ne another and staged a naked-heel fight between the two birds.

The struggle of this fight without sharpened steel whetted my appetite for more and better action. Freeman had been fighting gamecocks o­n and off for ten years and I incessantly asked him questions about the hobby and business. He mentioned that if I wanted to learn more that he was going to visit a friend who owned several roosters and invited me to come along and take a tour of the chicken yard. Thus, I set off o­n o­ne of many intriguing rural adventures.

We loaded up and I rode “shotgun” in Freeman’s battered multi-colored Ford pick-up of questionable ancestry. The door windows rattled and clanked continuously during the journey.

The battle-weary gray rooster perched in the middle of the seat and he never uttered a sound. When the truck rolled to a stop in the driveway of our destination I could glimpse through the cracked and dusty windshield and identify about twenty roosters, all o­n tie-cords, and in two parallel rows of “tee-pees.” After lighting a cigarette and a brief struggle with the malfunctioning passenger-side latch the door creaked open and I stepped o­nto the graveled drive and into the brisk coolness of the late evening air. Emphatic crows rang out musically breaking the usually tranquil stillness of the countryside. As we stepped toward the roosters they cackled–alert and in constant motion–snapping their heads quickly in the direction of any movement or sound. Some flew up o­nto their tee-pees popping their wings with arrogant zest. The sounds were like .22 rifles being fired in rapid succession. Others proceeded to chase some of the loose running hens as far as their tie-cord would reach. Glossy feathers of brownish-red and black shined radiantly in the beams of light, that passed through the tall pines from the descending sun. The cocks were full of activity and life. The chicken yard was a wonderful and intense place to experience. It was indeed evident, that gamefowl were about the elementals – life, death, power, and sex.

Freeman put o­n a demonstration for me as he led the tour. He held between his hands the gray rooster we had fought earlier and with both arms raised over his head, positioned his body so that a rooster o­n a tie-cord could see the rooster in his hands. He stood within the tie-corded roosters fighting range. When the rooster o­n the tie-cord focused o­n his enemy held from above he would launch into flight to six feet in height and try his best in a fury of snapping wings and pumping legs to shake the hand-held rooster to death.

This was an impressive display of athleticism and aggression. It was unlike anything I had ever seen. It was a manifestation of the rural lifestyle at its finest. Neither a football nor a basketball game nor any other “legitimate” sport could compare to this. The birds had an intangible and indescribable yet real and sparkling fire in their deep liquid mahogany eyes. I believed beyond a reasonable doubt that these beautiful high-performance creatures were born and designed for fighting. They reminded me of thoroughbred horses and of the sheer greatness of Secretariat who was born to run. I was also a firm and practicing believer in the bearing, selling, and trading of personal arms. I traded a blued Rossi .38 Special revolver with a two and o­ne-half inch barrel for o­ne of those roosters along with a hen and two pullets o­n that evening. I felt very proud to be a new owner of gamefowl. During the ride home a burning desire sparked in me to learn all about cockfighting, which would stimulate the need to understand criminal and constitutional law.

March 4, 1990, began pleasantly enough. As was my habit, I started the day by brewing a fresh pot of coffee and listened to my roosters crowing in the backyard. The crows were sublime music to my ears and I could identify each individual rooster by his timbre. As I sipped the first steaming cupful, butterflies (comparable to those a young man can get before his first date with a pretty girl) fluttered inside me. I was going to get to see roosters clash with the steel strapped o­n!

Earlier in the week I had made arrangements, (with new friends in the cockfighting community) to attend a derby in Bledsoe County. I did not know the exact location and met them at a rendezvous point and rode the rest of the way with them. I remember distinctly that I asked them if they thought there was any chance of a raid. Both said it was unlikely–there had not been a raid in Bledsoe County in years – if ever.

When we arrived men were unloading roosters from their vehicles and conversing with o­ne another with small talk and o­n the upcoming fights. The atmosphere was not unlike a family reunion. But, it would not be long until the blacksheep of the family crashed the festivities.

I heard someone yell “Raid!” and within seconds heard what sounded like a gunshot and to my right a young man wearing a baseball cap burst through the doorway with a slide-action shotgun leveled at me. The 12th Judicial District Drug Task Force (armed with paramilitary equipment complete with machine pistols and battle carbines) and the Bledsoe County Sheriff’s department were the perpetrators of the raid. Within the next hour, these so-called public servants proceeded to shoot a rooster to death, threatened to shoot in the back any citizen who tried to run, yelled obscenities, verbally harassed, insulted and threatened citizens generally and more than likely conducted illegal searches and seizures. They reminded me of the Nazi stereotype of the Gestapo-like “jack-booted thug.” Nevertheless, I would immerse myself in cockfighting for the next five years.

CRIMINALIZATION

The raid and its aftermath presented some rather perplexing questions, which nagged me for years. Why was an excessive amount of force and firepower used to stop an innocuous, peaceful, and private rural cultural tradition? Does either the constitution of the United States or of the State of Tennessee explicitly or implicitly prohibit cockfighting? How did cockfighting become stigmatized as “criminal” and how did it become an “illegal” act in Tennessee? In an attempt to answer these questions, the following is a brief exposition o­n what has been uncovered with the advantage of hindsight.

A basic historical and working knowledge of a subject deepens o­ne’s appreciation and understanding of it. Unfortunately, pinpointing the actual date and place of the origins of the cockfighting tradition proved virtually impossible. It has crossed oceans and continents and survived, however, in various forms of cultures and governments. The art and science itself is highly esoteric and much of the history is based o­n oral tradition passed o­n by generation to generation. Thus, written accounts are scarce, but not unobtainable. Documents and artifacts do exist revealing that gamecocks have been highly treasured creatures and fighting them has been practiced for a very long time. Usually time tends to lend a reverence to most things and activities. When held within the context of world history, laws against cockfighting are recent political and social aberrations.

C. A. Finsterbush in Cockfighting Around the World traces the origins of the organized breeding, fighting, and trade in cocks to the Phoenicians and the beginnings of game fowl as a species to the area due South of the Himalayas. His hypothesis about a Himalayan genesis is, however, disputed. Tim Pridgen in his classic work o­n cockfighting gives an outstanding analysis of the history. The following excerpt provides a good contextual framework for the beginnings of cockfighting in Tennessee:

We know that in India, fully 3,000 years ago, cockfighting rules were in force. We know that 2,500 years ago in the Bible city of Mizpah, there resided a Jewish general Jaazaniah whose personal seal, discovered in recent years by archeologists, bears the likeness of a spurred fighting *****. We know that ancient Egyptians enjoyed the sport.

Greece had fighting cocks hundreds of years before our era. Evidence of their presence is preserved for us in pottery and in history. When Themistocles addressed his troops before the Battle of Plataea, pointing to the fighting cocks and admonishing the men to adopt that spirit, it was nearly 500 years before Christ, and evidently was no new thing in Greece then. Aristophanes two or three generations later wrote of the gamecock and referred to it as the “Persian bird” indicating whence came the ***** to Greece. Thesupposition is that game fowl were in Egypt at the time Moses led the Israelites into the Wilderness in search of the Promised Land, although it is not recorded that the Jews took fowl with them.

Rome seems to have taken to cocking somewhat later than Greece but with no less zeal. At the height of Roman glory, cocking was a sport that had the same apparent pull that it has among those who know it today.

When Caesar went over and laid claim to Gual, he found cocking a pastime there . . .

Henry VIII was a great cocker. Charles II made a secure memory for himself among cockers in his strain of Pyles, which continued hardy and strong beyond the flower of his own progeny. Nobles without number became cockers. The sport was tolerated by the clergy, even encouraged, and at o­ne time in the long history of cocking in England, the churchyard was the accepted place for conducting the community mains.

Sir Walter Raleigh was a great cocker in his day, and there is at least some reason to believe that when he made the effort to establish what later came to be known as the “The Lost Colony” o­n the North Carolina coast, gamecocks came o­n ships and thus, he perhaps, put gamecocks o­n American soil for the first time.

Just when America began to fight cocks is not established. No record was made of it. It

is known that fighting fowl never existed in the New World in the wild state and that their coming was by importation.

The practice was well-established generations before George Washington becamerecognized as o­ne of the country’s leading cockers.

Andrew Jackson seems to have marked another high peak of the American legalized gamecock, his admiration having seen public pits flourishing in the Committee rooms.

The dawn of cockfighting in Tennessee seems to predate statehood. Andrew Jackson was a well-known cockfighter who eventually rose to the Presidency. His political breakthrough came in 1796 when he helped in the creation of the new state–first serving as congressman and then as senator. Most accounts state that Jackson was fighting cocks as early as age seventeen in Salisbury, North Carolina, where he had resided to study law before coming to the Southwest Territory later known as Tennessee.

One oral tradition from Middle Tennessee holds that just after the end of the American Revolution a man named Mayfield settled in the area, which eventually became Williamson County. He had been given 640 acres of land because of his service in the war and he had four sons. A fort was built o­n his land, the first settlement in Williamson County, and was called Mayfield Station. Andrew Jackson reportedly spent the night and fought cocks there at times. o­n occasion the fights were against Mayfield and other times he and Mayfield would combine their roosters and fight against other cockfighters. Some fights were held at Fort Donelson. Documentation via letters of correspondence proves that the Mayfield family and Jackson knew o­ne another although cockfighting is not mentioned specifically.

The planter-class of Virginia were fighting cocks before 1792. James Roberson of Virginia led 300 settlers, in the winter and spring of 1779, to the French Lick, which later became Nashville. The early settlers of the area felt an allegiance to Virginia and the Mero District was a county of Virginia for a brief period. In 1797, a year after its statehood, the first legislature met in Tennessee. A long standing rivalry between factions from Virginia in Middle Tennessee and factions from North Carolina in the east caused representatives of the Mero District to be shut-out of the legislative process.22 The first cited act, which indirectly affected the legal status of cockfighting, was a gambling statute, the Act of 1799, C.H. 8, sec. 2 (code, sec. 4870). 23 The act came a mere three years after statehood. In spite of Jackson’s North Carolina background and his love of gamecocks, it was probably settlers from Virginia, such as Mayfield, who condoned cockfighting and gambling more than their eastern counterparts. If it is assumed that in 1799 that the Mero District representatives of Middle Tennessee were still out of power – modern Tennesseans can thank easterners for the original anti-gambling statute.24

Nevertheless, an extension of the act to include cockfighting and a challenge came originally from the west in Hardeman County. In a case dating from 1840, Bagley v. State, forty-one years after passage of the act, a Tennessean was charged with cockfighting. Defendant Bagley had been indicted for cockfighting under the gambling statute. It was argued, in his defense and quite correctly that “a game of hazard is that in which chance is the essential ingredient, and a game of address is that in which skill–a quality of the human intellect–is the predominant quality or characteristic [. . .] But the result of the *****-fight depends much more upon the relative size, age, weight, strength, condition, and other qualities of the cocks than upon chance or skill, in other words, chance or skill, hazard or address, are not the prominent characteristics of a cockfight, and therefore it is not within the letter, spirit, or meaning of the acts o­n the subject of gaming.”25 J. Turley speaking for the court disagreed with this sagacious and favorable argument. In the opposing opinion of the court he merely constructed a framework of stare decisis in which to fit preconceived and erroneous anti-cocking notions into.

Seventeen years after Bagley v. State, the gambling statute was contested again, in Williamson County. This case stated that “eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, certain evil-disposed persons”26 were indicted for violating the statute. J. Caruthers, for the court, delivered o­ne of the most ill-conceived vindications for malum prohibitium in the history of recorded jurisprudence. Moralizing about gambling instead of advocating liberty, he asserted that “All men should keep at a distance from such degrading practices. Gambling is punished by law more o­n the ground of public policy, o­n account of its effects upon the actors and society, than the intrinsic wickedness of the thing itself. It is prohibited by law and visited with penalties because of its destructive effects upon the moral character and social habits of individuals. It leads to idleness, dissipation, bankruptcy and wretchedness. Its victims are almost invariably converted into cold, selfish, reckless harpies.”27

Caruthers proceeded to blast cockfighting itself “If o­ne species of this vice could be more low, groveling and despicable than another, it would seem to be that under consideration. It adds barbarity and cruelty to the other attributes of ordinary gaming.”28

About the time of the Caruthers opinion George Mayfield’s grandfather was born in

Williamson County.29 He is said to have owned some of the bloodlines of Andrew Jackson’s and they were a black-feathered fowl, and he would have been fighting fowl during the latter 19th century and in the early 20th century. He introduced his grandson, George, to the hobby who continued the honorable family tradition of breeding and fighting cocks for most of his life.30

The idea that cockfighting might somehow constitute cruelty first came under legislative scrutiny just as the unconstitutional reign of the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction was beginning to come to an end. Section 1668 of the 1871 Code made it unlawful for anyone to “cruelly beat, torture, or use horse, ox, dog, or other animal.”31 Neither cocks nor cockfighting were addressed nor included but the seeds for the growth of inclusion were planted.

Within the next ten years (and under the present constitution of the state) Bill 31 was introduced in the House of the 42nd General Assembly. James Hammond Smith, a banker and two-term representative from urban Memphis,32 introduced it o­n Tuesday, January 11, 1881. The bill proposed to repeal Article 5, sections 1668, 1669, 1671, and 1672 of the Code and to enact an act for preventing cruelty to animals. It passed the first reading. It was laid o­n the table o­n March 12th and was taken from the table and passed a second reading o­n the 29th. Smith amended two sections o­n the 31st and it was set for a vote the next day. The bill passed the House, ironically o­n April Fools day, by a vote thirty-eight to fifteen.33

The House Bill passed the first reading in the Senate o­n April 2nd and a second reading o­n the 4th and passed a third by a sixteen to four vote o­n the 6th. It was returned signed by the Speaker of the Senate to the House34 and Governor Alvin Hawkins signed it into law o­n the same day.35

This law, known then as Chapter CLXIX, marked the beginning of the state’s postulation that there exists an offense of cruelty to animals in and at a cockfight. In other words, the General Assembly assumed a “legal” responsibility for the management, care, and use of game fowl. The statute implies that they understand the nature and purpose of game fowl better than the actual owners do. (I seriously doubt that any member of the current General Assembly can even mix a feed ration for game fowl, much less care for baby chicks). The Code numbers would change over the years but the 1881 wording would remain the same until 1989, when the statute was revised twice.36

Early enforcement of the statute was reasonable and handled by county law enforcement that could be held accountable, either pro or con, in an election. As an example George Mayfield owned and operated a pit called the Still House Hollow Pit in Williamson County in the 1950s and 60s. It was raided twice–once in the 1950s and again o­n January 1, 1961. There was local political intrigue in the latter raid. The three constables involved desired the raid to make the incumbent Sheriff, Ed Johnson, look bad to a segment of the electorate. Apparently, he knew nothing of the fights and when the constables alerted him about them, he more or less had to follow the raid.37 The Tennessean reported that Mayfield was charged with operating and maintaining a place for cockfighting and that everyone–spectators and law officers were courteous to another. The spectators hardly even turned the heads when the officers calmly walked in. Mayfield accepted full responsibility and took down the names of everyone there for the officers.38

By the early 1980s, however this type of civilized decorum and mutual respect between county law officers and cockfighters had changed to something more sinister and violent. By 1982, state law enforcement officers (who are unaccountable to local voters) began usurping traditional boundaries of jurisdiction and started impetuously imposing themselves upon game fowl enthusiasts. o­ne witness to a raid in Warren County in 1982 stated that detainment of the game fowl enthusiasts was at the National Guard Armory and lasted several hours and that no o­ne received their private property (i.e. the roosters, etc.) back. Various state law enforcement personnel were said to have been involved in addition to those of the county.39

The print media, in covering the event, exhibited bias and willfully omitted statements from game fowl breeders or aficionados or criminal defense attorneys. Instead Assistant Attorney General Mickey Layne and Franklin P. Blue, director of the Warren County Humane Society, were both given a platform for political propaganda. Layne is quoted as stating that the suspects “were o­n the verge of rioting”40 and Blue proposed that the fines collected would help the Humane Society.41 The article also stated that law enforcement personnel were preparing to use tear gas to subdue the game-fowl enthusiasts.42

Within two years of the raid in Warren County, the Tennessee Supreme Court was presented with an opportunity to declare the statute unconstitutional in order to stop the trend toward using the excessive force of federal and state tax-funded paramilitary forces for use in raiding cockfights.

The defendants were indicted in Bradley County. The trial judge dismissed the indictments as unconstitutional and the state appealed. The constitutional issues argued were whether or not the statute was vague, overbroad and inhibited freedom of association and mobility. Supreme Court Justice J. Harbison, relied heavily upon the moralizing in Bagley v. State and Johnson v State for the contextual framework of the opinion of the court. He also concentrated upon the doctrine of “legislative intent” and the wording of the statue itself.43 It is o­ne of the more illogical opinions set forth under the doctrine of stare decisis.

Significantly, the opinion fails to explain which section of the constitution of Tennessee either expressly or implicitly prohibits cockfighting. The insinuation being that this particular hobby of a portion of the citizenry if not expressly permitted is consequently forbidden. This is a notion which stands in complete contradiction to the spirit and rule of constitutional law. Void for vagueness is a valid legal concept. The legislature, in the words chosen for the statute, did not clearly and specifically describe the elements of what constitutes the mens rea (mental intent) essential to offense. A word is never used to define itself and thus unlawful cannot be used to define unlawful as the statute attempts to do. The notion of preventing the cruelty to animals via subsequent punishment is a legal oxymoron. And neither does the statute elucidate how birds or fowl are to be defined as “animals.”

Justice Harbison merely drafted a legal opinion to fit preconceived opinions about cockfighting into. Ignoring the wisdom of the trial court, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the lower court for trial. Thus rendering a decision, protecting animal “rights” at the expense of the constitutional rights of human beings.

The gamecock lives the life of a warrior. He fears death from his opponent as much as he fears the break of daylight. He is nurtured and pampered by his owner and receives care vastly superior to that of the millions of mass-produced poultry consumed by a ravenous public. In fact, the stench of a broiler house can make o­ne nauseous. Laying hens are confined to cages, which are so small that they cannot spread their wings. Gamefowl, o­n the other hand, are unleashed in their prime–fit and sharp–to reign in total victory over the enemy or to die fighting their hearts out in a glorious death in a contest of fitness and skill. All attitudes toward gamefowl are simply anthropomorphisms. The dynamics demonstrated in the life and death contest of cockfighting the human being may anthromorphically call courage and honor, two virtues, which are unfortunately out of vogue amidst a pervasive modern preoccupation with trivial and inconsequential matters.

At its essence, the dispute over cockfighting is cultural. A dissonance between rural and urban values exists. A rural environment demonstrates to o­ne that the violent death of animals and fowl is a simple fact of life and not something to recoil in horror over or to wring o­ne’s hands about or threaten to shoot someone over. An urban environment tends to insulate and isolate people from this obvious fact of life.44 The “over-civilized” townsperson tends to be more likely to consider his or herself sophisticated to the point of a distorted “animal tenderness.” Unfortunately, public servants employed in the field of law enforcement have been and are permitted to impose the “animal sensitivity” by threatening and pointing firearms at peaceful citizens and assisting in the theft of their property. When the rule of constitutional law is ignored the opinion of the majority receives validation and in turn oppresses the minority. Thus, urban opinion suppresses rural opinion. “Mob rule” is contradictory to true representative government. Adherence to the constitution(s) is the mechanism for preventing this from occurring.

Three modern trends have also combined to steadily damage the rural cultural tradition of cockfighting. First, court decisions such as Illinois v. Gates and U. S. v. Leon45 have eroded the rights of criminal defendants in general. Secondly, as the United States have urbanized many rural customs have been sneered at and deemed uncivilized by the urban majority. Thirdly, the “war o­n drugs” has expanded to become an excuse to trample the Bill of Rights and to plunder via forfeiture and confiscation the citizenry and this has led directly to the ominous militarization of domestic law enforcement. It is, in effect, an all-encompassing knee-jerk reaction by governments (Federal and State) to justify stamping out various expressions of political liberty. Cockfighting is about liberty and overzealous enforcement against it is a distinct step backward in the political progress of mankind.

As the seventeenth century English poet John Donne penned quite accurately–no man is an island unto himself.46 Nothing occurs in a vacuum and past acts of persons can define and pose limits o­n what men and women47 are “allowed” to do within a society. Often times it is found that the beliefs, propaganda, and errors of yesteryear leave the present generation to struggle in a stagnant morass of oppressive laws. And the behavior control imposed is usually directed toward a minority of the citizenry. The citizens who have a deep appreciation for game fowl have been harassed, to varying degrees, by the criminal justice system for just over a century in Tennessee.

Over the past two decades the problem has grown intolerable and blatantly unconstitutional. Uncontrolled search and seizure is o­ne of the trademarks of an arbitrary government. When government personnel attack and steal from peaceful citizens it should not be tolerated in a free society. An inherent flaw in the enforcement of victimless crimes is that law enforcement has to stoop to criminal behavior in order to enforce “criminal” law. The writers of the U.S. constitution were tired of the 18th century English version of police harassment. The fourth amendment and the comparable amendments in the states, (which were the precursors to those of the general government), are a reminder to those in the criminal justice system that they are to respect and protect the privacy, property, person, and activities of the people as a whole, not just those who permit them to hold the positions of political power. This holds true whether or not they agree with an activity or not. Disagreement is not a valid excuse to disregard the very principles of the fourth amendment. There is no beast, reptile, animal nor fowl worth the loss of private property and lawful rights of human beings. When the legislature has created para-military forces which are operating independently as a “law unto themselves,” the judicial branch has a duty to step in as an authority to harness them. The highest judicial court in Tennessee has unfortunately failed in this duty.

Gamecock themes are a part of our historical vernacular. From General Thomas Sumpter of the American Revolutionary War being called the “Gamecock” to Theodore Roosevelt describing General Wheeler as “a regular game-*****” in The Rough Riders. A confident man is still called “cocky.” And in the “Information Age of the Common Man and Technical Irresponsibility” there are many web sites concerning cockfighting. Thus, neither does the legislature, judiciary, or law enforcement personnel have a valid excuse for ignorance of the virtues and historical significance of the custom.

Cockfighters come from many backgrounds and professions ranging from pharmacists to plumbers. Bets are verbal “private gentleman’s agreements.” The poor man’s rooster fights in the pit with an equal opportunity to be superior to the rooster of a wealthy man. All freedom lovers are welcome at a cockfight. The fights (even where “permitted”) are not put o­n public display to those who do not desire to witness them.

Cockfighters are simply people who cherish an age-old tradition, which teaches the pursuit of excellence in a discipline and hobby, and want to be left alone in that pursuit. If law enforcement personnel can be restrained, cockfighting can enhance the quality of life for those who dedicate a large portion of their time to it. And Tennessee’s constitution permits this. Cockfighting is, Justice Harbison to the contrary, honorable and the current statute against it in Tennessee is in opposition to the principles of liberty found in the U.S. and state constitutions and the political ideals o­n which this nation was founded.

__NOTES__________________________________________

1. This individual has not been located to ask permission to use his real name. David Freeman is a fictitious name.

2. Naked-heel means no artificial spurs constructed of steel were used.

3. A tie-cord is a mechanism for containing a gamecock to a given space of ground to prevent him from getting to another rooster and fighting (game roosters will fight to the death regardless of whether or not a human being is present) which is a string made of rubber or nylon usually six to seven feet in length. At o­ne end is a steel stake, which is driven into the ground and at the other a hitch, which attaches to the rooster’s leg just above his natural spur. Thus a rooster has plenty of room for movement yet is confined and separated from his fellows. A “tee-pee” is an A-frame construction made of wood or a synthetic, which provides a perch and protection from inclement weather for the rooster.

4. Or shuffle–meaning the rhythmic multiple fighting strokes of a rooster used with or without a beakhold. The legs are thrust in concert with a flapping of the wings. When roosters are well-bred, fresh, and in shape the speed and power of these motions are incredible. There is very little which is comparable to witnessing two top of the line roosters meet each other with deadly vehemence in the center of the pit six feet in height in a whirlwind of flashing steel and flesh. (Especially if you own o­ne of them!)

5. This thoroughbred of Thoroughbreds blistered the 1973 Belmont Stakes to victory in thirty-one lengths and in a time, which still stands as a world record today. Mary Simon “Age of Titans” The Thoroughbred Times. (September 16, 2000:) 23. He was born to thrill us with his domination of the racetrack. His value derived from the fact that human beings had constructed a mechanism and created opponents for his incredible performance. Cockfighting fits into the same genre of cultural activities that horse racing does. And a gamecock must have a foe to vanquish to obtain value.

6. Unfortunately widespread historical illiteracy exists concerning the relationship between the possession of personal weaponry and political freedom. Careful and insightful research into history exposes the evidence that no people have ever been unarmed and truly free at the same time. Totalitarian governments from the Qin Dynasty in third century B.C. China to the National Socialist German Workers Party of the twentieth century A.D. have sought to confiscate weaponry and disarm citizens. The bearing of personal arms is simply o­ne of the most important elements which distinguishes liberty from slavery. The following items offer a good primer o­n the relationship. The Prince by Niccolo Machavelli, Commentaries o­n the Laws of England by William Blackstone, Federalist Number 28 by Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Number 46 by James Madison, and o­n the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story. All of these works stress the vital importance of an armed citizenry and constitute good introductions for anyone seeking enlightenment upon the subject.

7. Term for an organized fight, which was borrowed from the Kentucky Derby years ago.

8. It was a gunshot, which I had heard. Later I saw a white feathered rooster stained in crimson and stretched out in death o­n the ground. Bledsoe County Chief Deputy Gene Frady admitted to the willful and intentional slaying of the rooster by law enforcement agents but was apparently unable to identify the triggerman. “Raid Breaks Up Cockfights” The Bledsonian Banner. Column 2. Front page and Column 1. Page 2.

9. I was not presented with the opportunity to examine the weapon. Nevertheless, I have been a student of smallarms for eighteen years and my recollection of the diameter of the bore would have made it at least twenty gage but more likely twelve. It was not a twenty-eight gage or a .410 and the sixteen gage which is an in-between bore size to the twelve and twenty is not common among the circles of law enforcement.

10. The Greek philosopher Aristotle discovered centuries ago that all things should and do fulfill a function or purpose. This is a valid premise to apply to the tools of mankind. Unfortunately, duffers of and those not thoroughly educated in small arms are often confused over the nomenclature and purposes of the various designs of firearms. A brief introduction to weaponcraft and tactics and is needed to assist in illustrating just how dangerous and out of control law enforcement personnel were (and still are. The machine pistol is often erroneously called a “sub-machine gun.” It is a short-barreled and two-hand held weapon which can be capable of fully and/or semi-automatic fire. Its dimensions are larger than a pistol and smaller than a battle carbine. It has a chambering, however, for a pistol cartridge.

A firearm o­nly hits as hard as its cartridge and as well as it is aimed. o­nly large, deeply driven and precisely placed hits to the heart, vital organs, and major arteries or to the central nervous system are of consequence in a gunfight. Immediate incapacitation of the opponent is the ideal goal. If a violent aggressor is threatening your life, you do not shoot to maim. You shoot to stop that individual from doing what he or she is doing i.e., trying to bash your head in or kill you, etc. Because of all of the variables involved in a lethal confrontation, it is very hard to produce incapacitation without causing death. If the legal use of deadly force is justified, then killing is also. The machine pistol encourages the purposeless unaimed “spray and pray” technique of firing. Indiscriminate and careless firing is a menace to any bystander or persons who are not intimately involved in a gunfight. Thus the question – does law-enforcement really need a weapon which encourages irresponsible gun handling

Conclusive evidence (beyond the scope of this brief introduction) exists demonstrating that a major caliber self-loading (semi-automatic) pistol will do better or as well everything the machine pistol will do in close-range defensive fights. Both weapons fire the same projectile! And a pistol cartridge velocities any speed gained by a few inches of barrel length is basically a moot point. Knowledgeable gunfighters scorn the machine pistol because it serves almost no purpose in offensive or defensive gunfighting. It simply looks and sounds impressive. In fact, it is too bulky and cumbersome for its power.

The machine pistol can be effective if a close range (within fifteen yards or so) offensive firefight is planned. In other words, in an act of attempted lethal aggression within the confines of a building or structure. Thus it may be deduced that government agents who tote the machine pistol are either ignorant of the weapons purpose or are intentionally seeking to instigate a close-range offensive firefight. The weapon has no valid defensive purpose unless it’s the o­nly o­ne you have access to. The battle rifle such as the HK 91 (I include the 91 because even though it has a “carbine” length barrel it is chambered for the potent .308) extents reach and greatly enhances power and is generally the best choice for offense. Some Task Force agents carried battle carbines (examples are the M-16 and “civilian” counterpart) which some persons also wish to call “sub-machine guns.” These tools are also offensive weapons. (They are good game getters as well). Both the battle rifle and carbine can be used defensively but are not nearly as convenient as the pistol in an unexpected “up close and personal” street brawl. Nor for matter in defending o­ne’s self in the guerrilla-like conflict called the “war o­n drugs.” In other words, if a person can keep his or her composure and has done the homework and practice, the handgun can wreck havoc upon multiple attackers at close range.

If the gamefowl aficionados had actually been armed and dangerous enough for a para-military styled offensive assault – they would have been alert and prepared. Riflemen would have been posted in defensive positions along the perimeter of the location. Every person pitside would have had a battle rifle within reach and a major caliber sidearm holstered. They would have been ready to defend themselves. The consequence would have been severe causalities for the raiders. In other words, well-armed and prepared combatants were not at this gathering, thus eliminating the need and purpose of Drug Task Force offensive armaments. If they had been, then law enforcement personnel would have, ironically, been hurt. The situation was simply that a group of rural friends had gathered to enjoy a weekend, not to fight a “brush battle” with an armed gang looking for trouble. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Drug Task Forces, et. al. have developed the erroneous dogma that they need or are entitled to the “element of surprise.” This doctrine presumes that bushwhacking people and ransacking their home or business at gunpoint for suspected victimless crimes is a legitimate activity of law enforcement. The “silent surprise” ends, however, o­nce the word “go!” is given and then utter chaos erupts. Law enforcement personnel might be well advised that offensive and aggressive actions such as these can result in their death or injury if they assault alert and skilled citizens. A gang of armed men suddenly screaming, yelling and breaking into private dwellings while brandishing offensive weaponry can be honestly perceived as a potential threat to o­ne’s life and body. A citizen has a clear right to protect life and limb and those of others from violently threatening persons in Tennessee. (TCA 38-2-101-3. o­ne of the General Assembly’s few good statutes). Protecting the priceless right to self-defense is also a very important reason for clear and lucid knock and announce rules for executing warrants. Safety for everyone and establishing fault if a death or injury occurs carries high stakes. In other words, if law enforcement personnel clearly identify themselves, a citizen who kills a raider could bear a legal responsibility. If identification is not clear, a reasonable person may legally kill armed intruders in his or her home or business. A manifestation of the danger involved recently occurred in Lebanon, Tennessee

when a man was shot to death by law enforcement while raiding the wrong dwelling. (If the victim had shot and killed a raider or two in defense of his life – what would have the criminal justice system done to him?) The death of someone could have easily occurred o­n March 4, 1990 (After all, a rooster was shot to death in the cause of preventing his death). Careful research o­n the circumstances, total number, and value of the thefts, property damage, injuries and murders committed by government (State and federal) in the “war o­n drugs” would be enlightening. Nevertheless it is indeed o­ne of the most ominous political developments of the 20th century. The savage lunacy continues, right now, as you read this.

1. These were the public servants who were to have officially conducted the raid. “Raid Breaks Up Cockfights” The Bledsonian Banner. March 8, 1990. Column 1, Front page. And Wade Dodson. “41 Arrested in Bledsoe Cockfight Raid.” The Tennesseean. Metro/State Column 1. Front page. The young man who pointed the shotgun at me, however, when asked to identify himself said he was with the National Guard of Dunlap, Tennessee.

12. If this threat had been carried out it would have been a brazen violation of U. S. v. Garner. This case, ironically, came out of Memphis, Tennessee and the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Tennessee statute, which allowed for the shooting in the back of fleeing felony suspects, was unconstitutional. U. S. v. Garner. 710F.2d.240 (1985). Thus it may be deduced that the Drug Task Force operated by threatening to commit unconstitutional acts of violence in the role of professional blustering bullies, or intended to carry the threat out in an act of murder.

13. I suspect that the warrant and/or warrants for the raid were null and void. The Aqulilar-Spinielli “Two-Pronged” test is used in Tennessee for determining the reliability of informants. The basis of knowledge and the veracity of the informant(s) must be considered separately and supplemented in some way. Plus “These are vital, not merely perfunctory requirements. To justify the intrusion of a search, the tip must not o­nly come from a credible person, but it must be shown to be relying o­n something more than casual rumor.” Commonwealth v. Avery 365 Mass. 59, 63 309 N. E. 2nd 497.

If there was both an arrest and a search warrant I have not seen them nor the complaint and affidavit for them. And neither do I know if there was o­ne or the other or both.

However, a tip to (of all entities!) ABC affiliate television station WTVC Channel 9 of Chattanooga led to the raid after they notified the Bledsoe County Sheriff’s Department. “Raid Breaks Up Cockfights.” The Bledsonian Banner. Column 2. Front page. So, were employees of WTVC the informants or were the informants directed to the Bledsoe County Sheriff’s Department by employees of WTVC? And just how did the 12th Judicial Drug Task Force get involved? These questions remain to be answered.

The visual and print media released very flimsy and vague information as to whether or not probable cause and the Aquilar-Spinelli “Two-Pronged” test existed for a valid issuance and delivery of the warrant(s). Unfortunately, the time has been unavailable to obtain a copy of the unedited film of the raid. Also, in a raid, if law enforcement personnel does not have an articulable reason to suspect each person in particular they have no authority to search him. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 US 85, 93-94, 100 SCT 338, 343 (1979). Therefore, unless a suspect was named and identified specifically in a warrant any reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct pat-down Terry-type searches were unlawful. Therefore, Bledsoe County Chief Deputy Gene Grady more than likely simply stole a boot-knife from me found during a Terry-type search, as he had no reason to believe I was armed and threatening him.

If the warrant(s) did not pass Aquilar-Spinelli and if the complaint for an arrest warrant did not demonstrate sufficient probable cause any and all items or “evidence” found should have been suppressed. There could not, under this condition have been any valid searches incident to a lawful arrest either.

Another clue that the warrant(s) were flawed lies, ironically, in the very fact of the 12th Judicial Drug Task Force’s involvement. No illicit drugs were found but yet

Bledsoe County Chief Gene Frady was quoted as stating (concerning the raid and drugs) “Drugs that are actually pharmaceutical drugs . . . B12, stuff like that, that they shoot to get more vitamins. A lot of these drugs are narcotics.” The Bledsonian Banner. Column 2. Front page. In this quasi-chemistry babble he never stated that the chemical substances were actually illegal.

No o­ne was placed under arrest for a drug charge much less convicted of o­ne. Just how Deputy Frady defined “pharmaceutical drugs” and how he had equated the term with vitamin B-12 and how he managed to discover narcotics when none existed remains a mystery (not unlike “legislative intent”). Perhaps, the deputy had simply avoided chemistry class in high school.

A person who equates illegal drug use or sales with cockfighting is demonstrating an ignorance about cockfighting. Therefore, no well-grounded and legal “basis of knowledge” exists in that person’s opinions. If an informant or informants had stated that illicit drugs would be present it o­nly superficially explains the 12th Judicial Drug Task Force’s presence. Paradoxically, it miserably fails to meet the criteria of the veracity and basis of knowledge for informant(s), consequently invalidating the information o­n the complaint and/or affidavit for the warrant(s) and thus nullifying the Drug Task Force’s jurisdiction in the matter.

In other words, it is preposterous to believe that an informant or informant(s) had a lawful “basis of knowledge” as to what items or substances all forty-one suspects would have had in their possession o­n that day. If probable cause existed that an individual or more persons more than likely had illegal drugs they should have been named specifically and as particular parties in the complaint and/or affidavit. Also, there was unprofessional confusion over whether or not cockfighting was a felony. However, alleged felonious activity is not an automatic invocation for Drug Task Force jurisdiction in a matter.

The defendants, as a group, excluding two or three retained Dunlap, Tennessee Attorney Tommy Austin and I have no idea if he challenged the warrant(s) with enthusiasm or not. Most if not everyone received their rooster’s back. Austin’s clients entered a plea to a $2.00 fine plus court costs. My receipt states that it was paid o­n July 10, 1990 for “cockfighting” (whatever that meant). I paid a total of $109.00 and at the time I earned just a little over $4.00 an hour and had a dependent I was supporting. Paying the $109.00 was a debilitating loss. I literally lived o­n bologna and peanut butter sandwiches for a couple of weeks thereafter. Thus, my affection for the criminal justice system of Tennessee goes right down to the pit of my stomach. Perhaps I should have broken the necks of a couple of my roosters and ate them for variety and animal protein, and toasted to the wisdom of the General Assembly with tap water. Or maybe waited ten years to write about the wrongfulness of the law.

14. In lieu of the rest of their bad behavior it was surprising that they did not hike their legs like dogs and urinate o­n the game-fowl breeder’s vehicles.

15. All sources have not been used for this project. Other books include Sport in the Olden Time by Sir Walter Gilbey, The History of Cockfighting by George Ryley Scott, The Art of Cockfighting by A. Rupert, The Cockfighter: A Novel by Frank Manley, The Cockfight: A Casebook by Alan Dundes, Cockfighter by Charles Ray Willeford, The Scientific Breeding of Game-Fowl by Foyd Gurley in collaboration with John J. Roman, History of Game Strains by W.T. Johnson and Frank Holcomb, and Cockfighting and Gamefowl by Herbert Atkinson.

Three journals exist for the fraternity. Grit & Steel established in May, 1899, The Gamecock and The Feathered Warrior both of which have been in publication for nearly a century.

Cockfighting was important enough in ancient Greece (the origin of Western civilization) for pottery to have been crafted depicting men fighting cocks. A picture of a vase is in Greek Society by Frank J. Frost.

A priceless early picture of a cockfight taken o­n the outskirts of Tombstone, Arizona in the 1880s is reproduced in The Gunfighters by Paul Trachtman. Whether gamefowl was brought from the eastern states or north form Old Mexico is apparently unknown.

6. C. A. Finsterbush, Cockfighting Around the World. (Grit & Steel. 1927). Complete citation could not be completed because this book is very rare and expensive and it took a month to acquire it through interlibrary over a year ago. Therefore, this information comes from my memory of the contents.

7. Tim Pridgen, Courage; The Story of Modern Cockfighting. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company 1938) 82. This classic is also rare. I am fortunate to own a first edition copy in excellent condition.

8. Ibid, 81-90.

9. Paul Johnson. A History of the American People. (New York: Harper Collins) 1997. 268.

20. Jack Turnage. Personal interview via telephone Cookeville, Tennessee to Arrington, Tennessee, July 7, 2000.

Most of the roosters, which impressed me so much o­n November 21, 1989, were a breed called Black Toppys. I learned later that they were a strain developed by George Mayfield of Franklin, Tennessee. I obtained his phone number and made arrangements to visit his place and purchase some fowl in mid-March of 1992. If memory serves me correctly he said that the brood stock of the Black Toppys (which had fought well and built a reputation in the 1970s and early 80s) had died of old age. Everyone I have spoken with that witnessed the roosters fight have said the same thing–some of them would run in a long fight but if they were ahead early in a fight they could cut another rooster to death fast. The best of them could kill an opponent in seconds.

George Mayfield, a direct descendant of the Revolutionary veteran, was in his mid-seventies in 1992 and I remember him telling me stories about the Andrew Jackson and Mayfield relationship. Unfortunately, I had no idea that I would write a paper o­n cockfighting and never took any notes. Jack Turnage is his nephew and has a wealth of experience and knowledge about cockfighting.

21. Stephen E.Ambrose, Undaunted Courage. (New York: Simon and Schuster. 1996). 32, 475. Ambrose cites Jackson Letters, vol. 11, 591-92 as his source.

22. Dr. Michael E. Birdwell, Class lecture. History of Tennessee 312. Tennessee Technological University. Cookeville, Tennessee. July 6, 2000.

23. Cited in Bagley v. State., 20 Tenn. 486 (1840) and Johnson v. State, 36 Tenn. 614 (1857).

24. Any scholarly challenge to this hypothesis is welcomed. However, Virginians may very well have been the first settlers to import gamefowl to the Southwest Territory.

25. Bagley v. State. 20 Tenn. 485 (1840). The inherent weakness in any anti-gambling statute concerning cockfighting is that it is impossible to determine exactly what result is a matter of luck and what outcome is a matter of skill and what result is neither or both. Legislators when drafting malum prohibitum statutes are themselves predicting that certain acts deemed impermissible will occur and consequential punishment will occur. Instead of wagering a unit of value such as money they are gambling o­n constitutionality, enforcement, and an obedient citizenry. And all a wager is is a prediction that a result will occur and an article of value backs the opinion.

26.Johnson v. State, 36 Tenn. 614 (1857) This is a lot of people to be in o­ne place in mid-19th century rural Tennessee!

27.Ibid. Caruthers is basically arguing that gambling is not wrong; it is just that some people cannot handle it. This is elitist reasoning at its worst in that it postulates that

government personnel know what is best for the individual and society. As opposed to the doctrine that postulates that government is a necessary evil, which both the individual and society must correct and be wary of.

28.Ibid.

29.Exact date not available.

30.Jack Turnage, Personal Interview via the telephone. Cookeville, Tennessee to Arrington, Tennessee. July 7, 2000 and John Doe (individual requested that his name not be printed) Personal Interview. Franklin, Tennessee, August 15, 2000. George Mayfield was a building contractor who told me himself in May of 1993, that he “built Franklin.” Regardless of whether this is true or not he was certainly no “idle harpy.”

31.Article 5. Code of Tennessee.

32. Robert M. McBride, and Dan M. Robison. Biographical Directory of The Tennessee General Assembly. Vol. II 1861-1901. (Nashville, Tennessee State Library and Archives. 1979.) 836.

33.House Journal of the Forty-Second General Assembly. (Nashville: Tavel & Howell. 1881). 69, 74, 560, 575, 799, 829, 870, 874, 1032.

34.Senate Journal of the Forty-Second General Assembly. (Nashville, Tavel & Howell. 1881). 642, 656, 699.

35.Acts of the State of Tennessee. (Nashville: Tavel & Howell. 1881). 234.

36. The statute was revised after a very brief debacle by the General Assembly had “made” cockfighting a felony charge. The current statute also eliminated the phrase of “connected with or interested in the management of” as it pertains to the use of gamefowl as being a misdemeanor. This clause is an excellent example of the virtual impossibility of ever discovering “legislative intent” of which many in the judiciary are so fond.

37. John Doe, Personal Interview. Franklin, Tennessee: August 15, 2000. This individual has requested that a real name not be printed. Nevertheless, he was in attendance at this raid.

38.Rudy Abramson, “Williamson Officers Raid Cockfight Arena, Arrest 48″, The Tennessean. January 2, 1961. Page and column are illegible o­n the microfilm. However, John Doe has validated the author of the article o­n this matter. He also states that o­nly Mayfield had to pay a fine and that everyone had their roosters returned to them.

39.John Doe, Personal Interview. Franklin, Tennessee. August 15, 2000.

40. “Cockfight Fines Would Aid Humane Society” The Tennessean. February 15, 1982, column 5, page 11. Mr. Doe has stated that those suspected of cockfighting were held until 9 p.m. and hunger and thirst had began to set in and some began to request food and drink. They were not verging to a riot. District Attorney Layne also stated that the original statute was passed in 1932 and this was a fallacy.

41.Ibid. Columns 2 and 3 page 11. According to the article, both Franklin Blue and District Attorney Layne were already planning o­n how to spend the money from fines before any convictions or pleas had occurred. Blue, in the capacity of director was engaging in the vice of avarice. His demands for fine money were analogous to holding up Santa Claus at gunpoint in order to confiscate the sleigh of Christmas toys to redistribute them to someone else. Humane Society personnel have always had giant philosophical hurdles to leap over to justify taking from the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Their moral indignation does not stand up to close inspection and analysis. Animal “rights” activists cannot prevent cockfighting with moral arguments and have thus resorted to promoting and condoning the disregarding of the constitutions (Federal and State) in order to allow the plunder of some of their fellow citizens by governmental force.

42.Ibid. However, Mr. Doe stated that he was not aware of any such activity.

43. State v. Tabor 678 S.W. 2d 45 (Tenn. 1984)

44. Employees of the slaughterhouses in the major urban areas, of course, know full well of the butchery of livestock. And the occasional roadkill can be observed strewn amongst the clutter of urban congestion. Perhaps, the General Assembly of Tennessee will someday extend the philosophy behind the anti-cockfighting statute and therefore deem the perpetrators as “murdering motorists.” Naturally, a hit with a dump truck would carry a stiffer penalty than o­ne by a Geo Metro.

45. Illinois v. Gates is a U.S. Supreme court case from 1983, which set the “totality of the circumstances” doctrine in determining the reliability of informants. If this case is read carefully it basically allows for law enforcement to send themselves an “anonymous” letter in order to obtain a search warrant (Thankfully, it is not used in Tennessee). U.S. v. Leon set the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. It basically allows judge, persecutor, and police “mistakes” in obtaining search warrants to stand at the expense of fourth amendment protections for the citizen.

46. A line made famous by the 20th century American writer Ernest Hemingway. The actual wording is “No man is an Island, intire of it selfe” found in the frontispiece of the original publication of For Whom the Bell Tolls. Hemingway was a big fan of the custom of bullfighting, which is found in Spain and Old Mexico and wrote a defense of the bullfights titled Death in the Afternoon. The Spanish fighting bull stands alone in stature as the o­nly beast bred for the purpose of killing a man. They are o­ne of mankind’s greatest achievements in the fields of genetics and breeding because the beast is used to test a man’s skills against himself and the beast. In other words, the matador must concentrate and keep his composure in a contest of human will over brute strength and aggression.

47.Yes, many women enjoy cockfighting! Witnessing your favorite woman cheering her favorite rooster o­n is an experience beyond the description of words. Praise the Lord and bet another $1,000 o­n the Mug!

Posted by: Dr. James Jones on Jul 01, 2003 – 06:00 AM

http://www.southernhistory.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7619&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Posted in GAMECOCK ACTIVISM | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Guide to Hidden Agendas

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on May 18, 2012

May 21, 2007 / by jimbeers

IDENTIFYING (HIDDEN) RADICAL AGENDAS

One of my favorite books as a kid was A Field Guide To Animal Tracks by Olaus J. Murie. Truth be known, I probably read that Guide as often and in as many locations in and around our home as I did the Herter’s Catalogue. (The latter was full of duck decoys and duck hunting paraphernalia and sales’ pitches like the one I still remember about why you should buy crow decoys. A crow was pictured walking away from a bird nest with an egg in his bill, presumably a species of waterfowl highly prized by duck hunters, above the caption, “Let’s Gang Up on Killer Crow”. Ah, those were the days.)

I learned, and still learn a great deal about animals and what they are up to thanks to practicing those rudimentary skills I first developed under Mr. Murie’s tutelage. Therefore it occurs to me that you might find it interesting to read about hidden agendas. Although I do not currently have the time to write A Field Guide To Hidden Agendas, I do think it would be interesting to reveal the hidden agendas behind the environmental and animal rights propaganda presented as “news” in just one day’s editions of the Washington, DC papers. If by so doing you take an interest in finding and exposing hidden agendas, much like recognizing and understanding animal signs; I would consider my time well spent.

So let’s just focus on the Washington Times and Washington Examiner (I forget the other paper but my wife gets it on Sundays for the “ads”) today, Monday 21 May 2007.

1.Headline on the front page of the Washington Examiner:
“Migrating beavers threaten wetlands”, “Fairfax (sic, County) officials forced to manage nature at Huntley Meadows Park”, “As rodents move downstream, dams are being abandoned and officials must work to preserve wetlands.”

Do you see the hidden agenda(s)?

First, the “Park” s justified and remains “important” in large measure because of the presence of “wetlands”. But, just like “old growth woodlands” and “ancient forests” and “Critical Habitat” for this and that; wetlands evolve and change. They fill in with silt and become meadows much like forests that burn down begin processes of change (grasslands to forbs to brush, and then to two to four or five successive tree communities that shade out others or out-compete for water or whatever before that “precious” climax mix appears usually as the least biodiverse plant and animal community that covers that piece of ground. So beavers come and go in spite of government land purchases and wetlands silt up despite professorial pronouncements about the “ecosystem” or the “importance” of this or that “indicator” species or the policies of rich bureaucrats and powerful politicians.

Second, did you catch that phrase ”forced to manage nature”? This rich (5.8 Billion Annual Budget and they are always “short of necessary funding” and can’t even mow the hip-high grass in road medians that are very dangerous to motorists) Eastern, urban County doesn’t want any County resident to think they would ever “manage nature” unless “FORCED” to do so. Why? Because these urbanites won’t even support “management” of deer that are so abundant that human deaths, human disease, auto accidents, and landscape eradication are now too common. In that instance (deer), the County response is to hire a “wildlife biologist to explain to the public ‘how to live with wildlife’”. So any move by the County to “manage nature” is OK if “forced” by beavers abandoning aging marshes (beaver do not “migrate”) while human taxpayer complaints take a back seat to these rich and naturally naïve urban governments.

Third, the phrase “officials must work” is merely humor placed there to divert attention. Any and all “work” will be performed by contractors and subcontractors and ultimately three guys from southern Mexico.

So the Hidden Agenda is that government policies can and will “preserve” specific wetlands at specific stages of their development to meadows just like the Feds do with “old-growth” and “ancient forests” in spite of retiring rodents. Government policies will keep certain bird species wherever we saw them years ago no matter what. Government isn’t and shouldn’t “manage nature” unless forced to by NATURE (may she be blessed). Finally, all this claptrap that you will hear from environmentalists and animal rights radicals should be believed because it is publicly supported by government.

2.“Scientists say no-fishing zones help coral”, “Coral reefs around the world are being destroyed by commercial fishing”. “Parrotfish seem to be a really important part of the recovery and health of these reefs” said Daniel Brumbaugh, chief coordinator for the research team dubbed the Bahamas Biocomplexity Project”.

Gosh, “parrotfish” and a “chief coordinator” of a “Biocomplexity Project” all in one place? Who could dispute this? I mean parrotfish are beloved and recognizable aquarium fish similar to whales and elephants and sea otters in their “lovableness” and, well chief coordinators are “chiefs”. Like spotted owls and snail darters, we don’t eat parrotfish and we know little about them so anything we are told we believe. They are “canaries in the coal mine”, “indicator species”, “endangered”, “threatened”, “at risk”, “Native” (everything is somewhere), “declining”, “threatened by global warming”, “necessary”, “unique”, and ad infinitum or ad nauseam as the case may be.

Substitute “wilderness” or “wildland” or “corridor” or “roadless” for “no-fishing zones”, and then substitute “hunting” or “logging” or “grazing” or “ranching” or just plain “rural home sites and communities” for “fishing” and there you have it. It is succeeding in eliminating hunting and sport fishing and ranching and logging and dog ownership and country living for all but the rich so why not claim that “fishing” is “destroying” “reefs”. Never mind that this false assertion should spur interest in developing and employing fishing techniques and methods that minimize or eliminate “reef” destruction as we did years ago with grazing and logging and hunting and fishing and dog ownership to no avail regarding today’s radicals. Nope, an “expert” has spoken and numerous staffers on Congressional staffs and in the White House and in all the agencies (State and Federal) are rubbing their hands and burning up the phone lines about all the places that “need” “no-fishing zones” and all the money they will need to “protect” them and all the votes to be had.

So this Hidden Agenda is that man is bad and he ruins nature everywhere. The only answer is closing more and more areas to the human presence and outlawing more and more human uses of renewable natural resources. We are Sooo fortunate to have such “concerned” and “wise” coordinators and politicians and bureaucrats to guide us not for OUR good but for the “good” of Mother Nature as they see it.

3.“Wildlife Federation says global warming may kill state flowers”.

This startling “fact” should carry a warning to only read it if you have a strong stomach. The fact that we Virginians revere the Dogwood (you can always tell them by their “bark”) should give us a few more years before they are only found on Newfoundland since the dogwood currently is found way south of us at this time.

The Wildlife Federation was founded and spent its early years as a sportsman’s organization of high purpose and proud reputation. During the Carter years and subsequent to the passage of the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Animal Welfare Act, Equal Employment Opportunity (race and sex preferences and elimination of qualifications for Federal employees), and the Civil Service Reforms that established the Federal agency managers as political hacks and ne’er-do-wells of the first order; the Wildlife Federation like the Federal natural resource agencies swerved into the environmental radical camp opposed to management and use of natural resources and never looked back. This “warning” of “impending environmental doom” has about as much legitimacy as bones thrown on a cave floor by some witch doctor painted up like a billboard painter on a Friday afternoon. In other words zero. Yet here it is in the “news”?

The Hidden Agenda here is that there is no end to the doom right around the corner as the world inevitably gets warmer due to human activities. This one is especially “appropriate” for teachers to scare little munchkins with. Of course our only hope is “more” government regulations, “more” control of our lives, and “more” revelations from these “Federations”, “Foundations”, and even the vaunted “Biocomplexity Projects”. Forget any question about weather changing constantly and any role for the sun, either you accept this or you are cast out of the tribe and left for those benevolent wolves the government is so fond of. I wonder what a Virginia will be like when there are jaguars running around eating urban joggers and little guys in loincloths dipping arrow points in frog poison and the state tree is the mahogany tree and the state flower is the orchid? Well at least I won’t have to cut any more firewood.

4.“Bat cave protects at-risk species”, “The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency now owns a cave”, “About 126,000 gray bats hibernate in the cave in the winter” and the cave “supports a maternity colony of 50,000 to 100,000 gray bats”. “The Nature Conservancy purchased the cave last year with help from a private donor and a grant from the US Fish & Wildlife Service.” Also, “the conservancy has contracted Julian Lewis, and Indiana cave specialist to inventory caves”. “Findings include a new species of cave beetle, several new groundwater crustaceans, and several species of millipedes that previously were unknown.”

“Unknown”? Like the snail darter (you remember the little minnow that “stopped the Tellico Dam right after passage of the Endangered Species Act), Tennessee watersheds and their caves are fairly biologically distinct. Minnows, for instance, that evolve in creeks located in “hollers” often are incapable of surviving in the larger and deeper streams fed by the creeks and even less can they survive the large river environments in order to get back up some other stream to reach some other “creek” for which they are suited so they interbreed for generation after generation in their isolated habitats. The result? Blue-finned minnows here that are “unique” and a “separate species (or subspecies or race or populations or distinct population or distinct population segment) from ALL the others. Nonsense. Cave “millipedes” and “beetles” and “crayfish” evolve similarly in isolated habitats and just because there is a different eye color or size or whatever, those little boys and girls that have “loved” and studied beetles since they were little and are now beetle PhD’s think they have struck pay dirt (or is it tax-dirt?).

There are three hidden agendas here.

First, there is the justification for “more” Federal dollars to be poured through US Fish and Wildlife Service (with the necessary “administrative rake-off) and then “given” to the tax-exempt and highly profitable and powerful TNC and their ilk. This continues to make them bullet-proof from calls for them to be denied tax-exemptions and to stop their political lobbying and “support” of politicians. It makes it easier for them to keep their books closed to audits since they are “saving” so much and are important “partners”.

Second, it continues the myth of the status of bats and beetles, et al. Gray bats “endangered” when there are 126,000 in ONE CAVE in Tennessee? When like the “other” “endangered” bat (the Indiana bat) they pop up all over the eastern US “discovered” at the last moment to stop some development or road. ONLY the bat (or beetle or millipede) professor knows and he or she will never think, much less say, there are “plenty” or “enough” or “what there were 50 or 100 years ago”. Not only these “specialists” are the final word on “species classification” and therefore the “experts in court cases and before Congress and in Recovery Plans” (and therefore the recipients of millions and the reins of power) now even spelunkers see the “discovery” and “mapping” of caves as a source of Federal money (“mapping subcontractors” to whom, TNC, USFWS?) and power since “they must be “saved” and “managed” for their “uniqueness” and who better than the spelunker? By letting the myth of the status of every unknown plant and animal as told by their advocates drive national policies, we have placed ourselves and our country at the disposal of the preconceived notions of ideologues and radicals.

Third, this is a carefully contrived example of why the US Congress “must” give the US Fish and Wildlife Service Billions more (the justification paperwork was submitted to them two years ago by state fish and wildlife agencies) to “save”, and “manage”, and “census”, and “research”, and “investigate”, and “buy land for”, and “control human activities that threaten” every IMAGINABLE plant, animal, and “ecosystem” that is “declining” or “in trouble” or “at risk” or approaching “endangered status” etc. in each state. Around $80 Million was given the states four years ago to quietly “assemble” (in a described format that could be rolled up in Washington by the US Fish and Wildlife Service) ALL the plants, animals, and ecosystem that every cave specialist, zoologist, mushroom professor, grass specialist, etc., etc. could identify as “needing” governmental “help”. Imagine what the bat guy thinks about the new road or the mushroom girl thinks about the subdivision or the grass professor thinks about the tree farm or the ornithologist thinks about bird hunting, well it is all there (but unmentioned) in those State Comprehensive Wildlife Plans that no one other than the state bureaucrats understood or reviewed. The bottom line is that the state agencies are letting hunting and fishing tank as they join hands with the environmental radicals and Federal bureaucrats to reorient the state agencies into Federal subcontractors getting annual “grants” from the Congress via the US Fish and Wildlife Service (minus the necessary administrative deductions of course) with the Federal strings that if you followed them back go into TNC and HSUS offices. Welcome to The Brave New World of the immeasurable (as opposed hunting and fishing programs) and always growing environmental preservation movement.

Not bad for one day’s hidden agendas in just two newspapers.

Two final notes from today’s paper fit perfectly with this little hidden agendas vignette as closing thoughts. First, US Senator Saxby Chambliss was booed at a state Republican Convention in Georgia recently as he explained the “bipartisan immigration reform package unveiled this week”. His explanation was that “the crowd’s reaction” showed “a lack of understanding”. (This elite attitude applies in spades to all these environmental and animal rights schemes we are so concerned with.)

Second, one of my heroes, Dr. Thomas Sowell noted in a fine article today that, “Central planning, judicial activism, and the nanny state all presume vastly more knowledge than any elite has ever possessed. The ignorance of people with Ph.D.’s is still ignorance, the prejudices of educated elites are still prejudices, and for those with 1 percent of a society’s knowledge to dictate to those with the other 99 percent remains an absurdity.”

As to the revered Senator, Phhffffttt!! To Dr. Sowell, Amen.

Jim Beers
21 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 inNorth Dakota,Minnesota,Nebraska,New York City, andWashingtonDC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and onAdak,Alaska in theAleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor inWashington,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 inCentreville,Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Posted in GAMECOCK ACTIVISM | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Observations on the Future of Gamefowl

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on May 18, 2012

OBSERVATIONS ON THE FUTURE OF GAMEFOWL

By Jim Beers
Given to North Carolina Gamefowl Breeders
In Asheville, North Carolina
On 11 August 2007

Thank you for inviting me to your banquet this evening. It is an honor to accept your invitation. Given the difficulties you have endured lately, from Federal legislation to Governors running for President and from urban voters in places like Oklahoma imitating their cousins in places like New Jersey and Massachusetts to politicians in Louisiana diverting attention from corruption and mismanagement at your expense, your invitation to speak here is like being asked to speak to Marines in Iraq. That front-line combatants like you might find something I have to say worthwhile is humbling.

I am neither a lawyer nor a lobbyist. Nothing I say in any way is meant to conflict with what those sorts of advisers may tell you. I am an old wildlife biologist and law enforcement officer that has worked in Washington as a bureaucrat and Congressional Fellow. I was unceremoniously fired by political appointees in the late 1990’s for my work to protect trapping and state fish and wildlife programs. The US Fish and Wildlife Service was already being controlled by radical groups like The Defenders of Wildlife at that time. These same persons now administer The Defenders of Wildlife and were responsible for defeating Congressman Pombo who was mentioned here this morning. He challenged them when millions were stolen from the hunting and fishing funds for state agencies and in this last election the “Defenders” and their allies spent millions to defeat him and send a message to any potential political opponents. I testified twice before Congress about the theft of millions of dollars from the hunting and fishing excise taxes and was paid $150,000 to go away and keep- my mouth shut for 3 years. Since then I have been writing and speaking about government corruption and the role of the environmental and animal rights radicals in cahoots with bureaucrats, professors, veterinarians, and politicians. It is this perspective that forms my observations to you this evening.

Recently a friend sent me an e-mail video that showed a man with a large eagle on his forearm flushing a deer from the edge of a field out onto the field. As the deer sprinted across the field the man released the eagle that quickly overtook the deer, grabbed it at the back of the neck, rolled over twice while holding onto the deer, and finally held the deer down while spreading its wings over the vanquished deer. From the few words heard on the video, I suspect it was filmed either in the Balkans or in central Asia.

Now I shared that video with many friends and acquaintances, several of which have berated me for speaking about the rights of gamefowl owners. Without exception they were fascinated by the eagle/deer encounter and even laughed about what fun it would be to see it in person. They also agreed that if there were “sufficient” (whatever that means) eagles around that training and using eagles like that should be allowed.

As I have said repeatedly in the past about other such animal uses, “what is the difference between using an eagle to kill a deer or a hunter shooting a duck and cockfighting?” If the use of gamefowl by owners can be superceded by the state or Federal government because it is called “cruel” by many urban or even a majority of politically active citizens then how can we ever stop the similar elimination of everything else like trapping (NJ bans trapping AND even trap possession, MA bans trapping) or hunting cougars (CA) or hunting cougars with dogs (OR) or fishing (certain European countries) or the property rights of those that “slaughter” domestic animals for food (proposed for chickens and cattle) or those that “slaughter” horses (recent Federal law), etc.? If Constitutional guarantees regarding private property can be dismissed because some of us “like” horses (or dolphins or seals or wolves) then ultimately no animal or plant property is safe.

You are bellwethers for so many others. As you go, so goes everyone that owns or uses animals as either private property or as public property. As you go, so go the management of natural resources and the husbandry of animals for human uses. As you go, so goes the traditions and freedoms that have sustained families for generations and this country’s guarantees of liberty and tolerance.

Think that is exaggeration? There are other similar structures under assault. Please try to not reject the following four analogies because of your personal view about the topic but consider the analogy itself.

1. Family authority is constantly challenged by radical groups using government coercion to impose sexual mores and tolerance for sexual practices and even abortion access through Federal funding for schools.

2. Marriage is under assault by same-sex attracted groups and others advocating government intervention and dictates regarding traditional marriage and cohabiting couples of every dimension seeking legal and social benefits for themselves and children born out of wedlock.

3. The “unalienable Right to Life” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is under assault by government interventionists regarding abortion, partial-birth abortion, and euthanasia of the handicapped and ill and aged and others.

4. Gun rights under the 2nd Amendment are under constant assault as urban politicians and others try to have courts and politicians do what was done in Europe and Russia and China and every dictatorship from Hitler to Mugabe – eliminate gun ownership by individual citizens. Remember those bucolic films of happy Russian farm workers under communism stacking hay with those WOODEN pitchforks? In addition to guns, even the possession of METAL pitchforks was forbidden by communist dictators!

In each case, the radicals move incrementally. The radicals use some current news item. The Federal politicians capitalize on a public emotional outburst, the Federal bureaucrats come up with a proposal that gives them more authority (and people and funding), the state bureaucrats shrug about the loss of state authority and remind state politicians about the potential for Federal funding, and some professor jumps into the fray about how he agrees and if he had more funding he could confirm the political decision. Increasingly the courts ignore the simple dismissal of state Constitutional authority and the explosive burst of Federal authority and so precedents are set for the Federal government to control more of our lives and the state governments to become quaint appendages of Federal bureaucracies and Federal politicians that rule for lifetimes like ancient aristocrats.

The users and owners of animals are the targets of choice for environmental and animal rights extremist agendas. The use and management of public lands and public resources like forage and timber and wildlife and fish are similarly targeted for incremental extinction by radicals operating just like the anti-gun, anti-family, anti-life, and anti-marriage organizations cited above.

First, the Bad News. Environmental and animal rights radicals have been on a roll lately. For the past 15 years, the listing of Endangered Species and the declarations of public land closures and the suppression of rural life and rural economies has been staggering. Predator introductions, logging elimination, ranching restrictions, game herd reductions, and road closures contributing to forest fires and reduced access have paralleled the pressures on hunting and gamefowl owners and trappers to name but a few.

Thirty-five years ago the beginning of this environmental and animal rights
hysteria as justification for all the abuses we see today was begun with passage of The Animal Welfare Act, The Endangered Species Act, The Marine Mammal Protection Act, and “energizing” of The Wilderness Act passed shortly before these laws. UN involvement with Federal agencies and European values were used as both justifications and models.

Finally, all these terrible laws that began stripping state authorities and making the Federal government a venue for imposing the agendas of any powerful group, no matter what the Constitution or traditions dictated, were passed in a state of hysteria similar to today. Once again please try to set aside what your personal attitudes were and consider these precedents.

In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s we had a bitter confrontation between the President and the Congress. Both were unpopular as we ”pulled out” of Vietnam. Partisan feelings among the electorate were high. So what did both parties and all politicians do? They passed “feel-good” laws to divert us and to make us think more kindly of them. The Senate sponsor of the Marine Mammal Protection Act was heard to say privately that the “best thing about those marine mammals was that weren’t any within a thousand miles of Arkansas”. This same phenomenon can be seen on History Channel programs about Roman Emperors that built things like Circus Maximus and Baths where the public enjoyed every depravity. This diversion was believed to make it more dangerous for any rival to try an assassination while the current Emperor waged persecutions and wars that might have otherwise antagonized the public and made replacement of the Emperor a popular idea.

I believe that today the President/Congress confrontation and the Iraq War are similar to that late 1960’s’early 1970’s period. All of our politicians are eager for diversions (LA?, NM?) and to make our perceptions of them warm and fuzzy. It is a dangerous period for us all.

Now, the Good News. The environmental and animal rights campaigns have, like every radical movement down through history, sewn the seeds of their own destruction.

Many things are currently being overlooked and masked by the media and government. A few of the many such things waiting for an examination after something blows sky-high (just like the excuses for all the excesses of the past 3 ½ decades) include:

– The continued taking of private property by government without compensation.
– Millions spent by government on a bird that didn’t exist, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
– Destruction of rural economies and American lumber supplies by false claims about an Owl.
– Horrendous forest fires caused and maintained by Federal Wilderness, Roadless, non-management policies and never-ending outright acquisition and easement control of private property by government and government-supported radical groups.
– Corruption and scandals concerning Billions in government funds, tax exemptions, and land transfers by agencies and various Land “Conservancies”, “Trusts” and “Alliances”.
– The unmentioned shift of state bureaucracies from representatives of state government and interests to Federal subcontractors and national animal rights agendas.
– The effects of marine mammals on depressed commercial fish stocks.
– The loss of vital local government funding as more land is eased by “Trusts” and “Conservancies” and bought outright by Federal agencies that are either exempt from or simply do not pay any local taxes.
– The loss of big game herds and hunting income to Federally protected predators.
– The “stacking” of state and Federal agencies with anti-use and anti-management employees that sympathize more with European and UN agendas than American freedoms and traditions.
– The continuing pollution of the Potomac River on the spawning grounds of Endangered sturgeon by government agencies for decades while prosecuting citizens for far less egregious infractions.
– Unproven assertions about global warming to justify even greater Federal authority consolidation and control of citizens and their activities.
– Cities that declare themselves immune to Federal immigration laws (“Sanctuaries”) while forcing extreme environmental, animal rights, and gun laws on rural communities under penalties consisting of fines and imprisonment.
– Politicians using “engineers” (Minnesota bridge collapse) and “scientists” (Endangered Species and Marine Mammal legislation et al) as scapegoats for their abdication of American Constitutional principles and the use of tax dollars.

No matter how many teachers and professors and veterinarians and government “scientists” and reporters deny the reality of what is happening and weave their own interests and preferences into their explanations masquerading as “science” there is an approaching crisis that will not be amenable to the lies and distortions of the past. I am speaking of the introduction, spread, and protection of wolves and grizzly bears. From New Mexico to Washington to the Great Lakes and soon into New England wolves are spreading and adapting. Grizzly bears are likewise spreading across the Northern Rockies for the same reason (Federal laws and policies implementing environmental and animal rights goals from public land closures and rural economy destruction to elimination of hunting and ranching and logging to Federal land purchases and more easements purchased by subsidized “Conservancies”).

Mark my words; children, especially, will begin dying more and more as wolves and grizzly bears settle into areas and reduce the wild animals and other foods that they feed on. As ranches go out of business livestock will become scarce too. As the wolves and bears chase remaining game animals into towns and as the wolves and bears become first less fearful of men, and then curious about people and their pets, and finally aware of children at bus stops or women working in gardens or old men taking walks or small kids playing outside – the same thing will happen that happened down through the ages. What will happen is markedly increased “unprovoked attacks” resulting in death and humans consumed like a rabbit or foal.

Read Will Graves’ book “Wolves in Russia” to learn of thousands of such wolf attacks in Asia and Europe over the last two centuries. When you realize that when wolves (or even more, grizzly bears) will attack in winter for food or in the summer when feeding their young for food or that rabid wolves are all too common and the source of horrendous death and destruction or that wolves spread all manner of deadly diseases you will no longer doubt the coming crisis. In spite of all the denials and pooh-poohs about wolves and bears and how attacks are the result of “human error” or “being in ‘their’ habitat” or not “picking up garbage” the truth will come out when the attacks on Americans take off. These deadly predators were eliminated for good reason and their introduction and protection back into a more populous and structured “lower 48” was the height of idiocy and misinformation.

Then, I firmly believe, questions and discussion will no longer be avoided and bottled up. How can we get rid of them? Answer: It is no longer practical thanks to everything from self-serving and idealistic private property owners (from absentee owners and billionaires to animal protection zealots) to laws and regulation and newly-minted Federal authority intended to hobble any attempts to control animals. Who will pay for “controls”? Answer: All of us. Why were we never told that wolves carry brucellosis (undulant fever), anthrax, chronic wasting disease, mad cow disease, rabies, distemper, tularemia, parasites (helminthes, trichinella, echinococcus, tapeworms, etc), hoof and mouth, and neosporosus caninum (causes spontaneous abortions in hoofed animals)? Why can’t people carry handguns to defend themselves or their families or their property where wolves or grizzly bears HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED AND PROTECTED? Why aren’t the bureaucrats and professors responsible for introducing the wolves responsible for their impacts? What is the role of government regarding animals?

When the subject of government role and past mistakes explodes on the public, the public forum to reassert the property status of animals and the “control” of animals will emerge and be too much to cover up any longer. As this happens, all of the “things waiting for open examination” that I mentioned earlier will suddenly be fair game. In this environment, the rights of gamefowl owners and horse owners and other animal owners and users, as well as the legality of recent government interventions and Federal authority growth will become subjects for public discussion and debate.

Does this mean I think things will automatically turn around? No. Gamefowl ownership and use like horse ownership or pet use or hunting with dogs and so many other things will be restored just like they were destroyed: one election and one legal action and one political step at a time. For instance:

1. Local and state authority needs to be reasserted: Federal intervention repealed.

2. Urban constituencies (like Oklahoma City voters overriding rural counties or Boston and Chicago and New   York City and Los Angeles/San Francisco domination of their states by imposing their values on their rural neighbors) should be limited in their abilities to impose their standards (from guns and hunting to gamefowl) on rural communities. This can be done in the state legislature by state politicians with a mandate from the electorate.

3. Federal domination of state agencies and bureaucracies must be rolled back.

4. Keeping authority at the lowest (and therefore most accountable to the voters) level must replace the trend to sending all authority to a Federal and then UN or “International Agreement” level”.

5. Consider repeal of the 17th Amendment. US Senators appointed by State Legislatures (as they were for over 100 years) REPRESENT THAT STATE. US Senators elected by a popular vote REPRESENT THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AGENDAS THAT PAY THEM THE MOST AND PROVIDE THEM WITH REELECTION TOOLS AND MONEY.

6. Elect state and local politicians that protect and restore your rights. Work to defeat those that don’t protect your rights or sell them to a Federal government for funding they control.

7. Finally, don’t be afraid to speak about your traditions and rights in a forthright manner. This is especially important with young Americans.

An example of what I mean here may be helpful. I was asked recently about what I thought about dog fighting. This happens often and especially after I have written about something like gamefowl or trapping and it has been raised to me several times since this NFL Quarterback fiasco that took place just North of here. I answered that I don’t make choices based on the bad behavior of millionaire sports thugs. Just like the sports thug that shot his chauffer in New Jersey or the Baltimore sports thug that was involved in a fatal barroom stabbing or the sports thug whose bodyguard beat up people in a “club” the behavior of the dog fighting sport thug is reprehensible. Likewise I don’t accept government power-growth based on some old lady that needs help and attention so she keeps 50 cats in her trailer. Don’t ask me to set limits on pets or other animals based on some older persons aberrations. Don’t ask me to accept banning shotguns because one of those guys shoots someone. Don’t ask me to ban knives because these bums stab each other in bars. Don’t ask me to ban bodyguards because one of these bums tells the bodyguard to beat up someone. If there is gambling going on (though why that is always mentioned as so dreadful in our casino/lottery-drenched culture is a mystery to me) arrest the gamblers. If they are using or selling drugs, arrest them. Those things are all illegal and the laws should be enforced.

If they are killing animals in an unacceptable fashion, establish state or local methods and standards that reflect community values as the basis for local laws.

I have watched with interest all the one-sided emotional outbursts everywhere resulting from this NFL quarterback affair. I have owned many dogs (mostly well-trained retrievers that were devoted and valued pets and hunting partners). They protected my home and my tent while I slept, they retrieved dead ducks and crippled geese, they found pheasants and grouse, and they made my life richer by their presence. The idea of fighting them is repugnant to me.

I ask you to consider for a moment that the very same people so outraged about dog fighting are, in most cases, the same people who have been very enthusiastic about wolf and grizzly bear introduction and protection by the Federal government for 35 years. For 35 years the government has promulgated these wolves and bears and made it a Federal violation subject to fines and imprisonment and enforced by sophisticated enforcement officers and techniques to even harm, much less kill, a wolf or bear that is killing your rabbit-hunting dog or watchdog or retriever or shepherd or even your young daughter’s pet dog. Whether the wolf or bear is on your property or in your yard or in your barn or anywhere you must allow it to maul and kill your dog. The dog might die quickly but more often is left alive and torn apart to die a lingering and hideous death. This travesty alone is one of the reasons I am such an outspoken critic of these predators and the Federal programs of the last 35 years. In the last 35 years thousands of dogs (no one keeps track) have been killed by these government predators on ranches and farms and towns, behind trailers, in yards, and as they hunted rabbits and birds for their unfortunate owners. Were one of the dogs I owned to have ever been so attacked, I would have been undeterred by such unjust laws and disposed of the wolf then and there despite the consequences. So the people seeking to trap me about dog fighting turn a blind eye to their “pet” dog killing project as they try to sanctimoniously capitalize on the lurid reporting about dog deaths and injuries that are far less horrific than watching your dog torn to pieces or ripped apart before your family and often left only half alive to suffer until “euthanized”.

Although speaking in support of dog fighting is something that simply invites an avalanche of condemnation, I am forced to confront the conundrum I face. Were I to oppose dog-fighting based on my perceptions of dogs as “different” or “special”, I would be no better than those I condemn for banning bullfighting or hunting or trapping or guns based on their personal feelings. So I am damned if I support it or damned if I oppose it. Because if I oppose it, I am no better than the anti-hunters and anti-trappers and anti-ranchers and anti-loggers and all the rest WHO IMPOSE THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS ON OTHERS DESPITE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHTS OF THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS.

So my answer is, I oppose dog fighting but in this Republic I leave its disposition up to local communities to decide what the LOCAL COMMUNITY desires and I will respect their wishes. This is the American Way and the attitude that should guide those who oppose guns or logging or animal ownership or the management and use of natural resources or public use of public lands or what sort of duck or goose meat I eat (a Chicago eatery is charging $60 for a cheap sandwich with which they now have to “give” you some pate’). Would I encourage standards for dogfights? Certainly. Would I ever attend a dogfight? Certainly not, like someone opposed to hunting; just don’t do it yourself but don’t deny others their rights and freedoms and traditions. Would I buy a coat from China that had dog fur trim? Yes I would. Animals are animals: they are property and they (both wild and domestic) must be maintained for OUR benefit, be it economic or traditional. They are NOT private property IF government can dictate their disposition based on the whims of others or powerful coalitions. That is what determines their VALUE and without value they will indeed disappear eventually. The concept that animals have “rights” in their own right, as opposed our benevolence, is repugnant, wrong-headed, and a mortal danger to a free Republic that was created to and exists to provide “Domestic Tranquility” for its citizens.

Just like this issue is difficult and allies are virtually non-existent, so too are many other issues we are dealing with. But I am optimistic that laws that elevate animals to human status are wrong and cannot ultimately persist. If human dignity and common sense standards can be maintained anywhere, I believe it will be in the United   States. Our future is what we make of it and although there are undoubtedly problems, there are reasons for hope. I believe that other animal owners and animal users will understand this when the time comes to reassert the values put forth in The Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution. Communicating with and involving others by explaining THEIR STAKE in all this is no small part of what we must do.

Thank you for having me here and I trust that you have heard some reason for optimism or perhaps some idea that you will find helpful. Our futures are intertwined and our fate depends on our own actions individually and in total.

In conclusion I would like to recall what President Kennedy said by a German Wall that no one thought would ever come down. He said, “I am a Berliner” and I say, “I am a Gamefowl Breeder”. I will work with you to restore your rights because ultimately they are my rights. If we all work at it, we can be just as successful.

Jim Beers
– 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 inNorth Dakota,Minnesota,Nebraska,New York City, andWashingtonDC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and onAdak,Alaska in theAleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor inWashington,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 inCentreville,Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Posted in GAMECOCK ACTIVISM | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Cockfighting laws place a higher value on chickens than human lives

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on May 16, 2012

Cockfighting laws place a higher value on chickens than human lives.

by B.l. Cozad Jr on Saturday, December 11, 2010 at 7:24pm ·

Cockfighting Laws endanger human lives to fill HSUS bank accounts:

Recently I read a newspaper journalist’s (Kate Harrison) article the “timesfreepress” in TN that described cockfighting as “a tradition as ingrained in some rural communities as friday night football”. And “a social event with children consistently present”. The HSUS investigator admitted that the majority of people at the fights are good old boys and polo-wearing guys who just enjoy the sport and some are Doctors and Lawyers” and another person said “they’re not a bunch of crooks they’re tax paying property owners who have been brought up with cockfighting”.  Finally an honest description of cockfighters from the HSUS’s own paid investigator gets printed in an unbiased newspaper by an honest journalist.

Sociology Professors William C. Capel of Clemson University and Professor Clifton Bryant, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, conducted a national study of cockfighters and described cockfighters as “rural highly Patriotic Americans, mostly middle class, christians, family oriented, solid pillars of the community”. They found that “gambling is NOT the, be all, end all of cockfighting, gambling is NOT as intense or on the scale that accompanies other sports and is not the driving force behind cockfighting.”

They also point out that people engaged in a behavior that is so strongly rooted in history with such a long lasting tradition are very unlikely to cease their activity no matter what efforts are made to deprive them of it and the only real effect of criminalizing this activity will be to create criminals of otherwise law-abiding taxpayers.

I am a cockfighter and we are the people that the urban voters and urban legislators in Oklahoma are willing to see killed if necessary to force their opinion against cockfighting on us to defend a chicken that the Humane Society will then get paid to kill.

Every raid by law enforcement officers endangers human lives; this is just an inherent fact. Raids to deprive cockfighters of our culture, heritage, and pursuit of happiness, liberty, our animal agriculture industry and our property create a danger to our lives and to then give our property to the Humane Society so they can get paid for destroying it is a violation of our civil rights and the eminent domain laws of the USA.

The HSUS has intentionally misrepresented cockfighters for more than 50 years in their controlled media assault against the gamefowl industry. They have described the cockfighters as barbarians, drug addicts, drug pushers, low life scum, rednecks, hardened criminals, rapists, and child and spouse abusers. They have lied to the urban people, groomed and in some cases intimidated legislators to enact cockfighting laws in every state using the fabricated pretense of defending a chicken. This complete falsehood is exposed with every raid of a cockfight where as the law enforcement officers hand over the gamefowl owners’ property to the humane society and they kill the chickens and charge the government for killing them. But their efforts to milk as much money as possible from every raid does not end there, they also publicize the raid and solicit more donations from the misled masses.

Their newest method of fattening their cash cow is their push for new laws which includes language within the law itself awarding the animal extremists with half (50%) of all fines imposed for every case in which anyone is convicted of animal cruelty and/or cockfighting that they provide any assistance with.

Now the HSUS is pushing to increase every misdemeanor law against cockfighting to felony laws. Of course what is left out of their argument for this is that the fines will be substantially higher and therefore they stand to put another source and more money into their already deep bank accounts.

The cockfighting laws are the financial foundation of their strength and provides the money for their political strength and power that is used to attack, vilify, misrepresent and criminalize the next animal sport and/or agriculture industry on their list of potential targets to reach their openly professed goal to place hunting and fishing in the same category as cockfighting (illegal) and abolish every animal agriculture industry in America.

When these actions are closely examined it is clear that what the HSUS has done and is doing is a violation of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and they are the central organization and sole financial beneficiary.

Our Congressional leaders must have the courage to step up and speak against the animal extremists at the Humane Society of the United States end their tax exempt status.

Our State Legislators must legalize the gamefowl industry and put an end to the HSUS’s ability to use us as their financial foundation to push forward their extremist’s agenda to destroy every animal agriculture industry in the USA. Currently rural Oklahoma residents trying to supplement our incomes and earn a living are finding our civil rights violated, our families attacked and ripped apart, our lives endangered, our property taken and our animal agriculture industry criminalized because of lies and misrepresentations of the Humane Society of the United States. I pray our state legislators will put an end this injustice and support for these well funded out of state animal extremists organizations and their ideology that places a higher value on a chicken than the lives of the men, women and children of rural Oklahoma.

Thank you,

US Army ret SFC B.L. Cozad Jr

Posted in GAMECOCK ACTIVISM | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

This is why we have lost all our rights

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on May 11, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask

Which should bother you more, that half aren’t even there, or what happens when they’re not?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Question to Alaska, Arizona, Colorado Residents: Is This What You Stand For?

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on May 8, 2012

By Darren_U_Talissen

// // // // //

// // I believe thoroughly that a vast number of United States citizens are opposed to cockfighting as a sport. While many of those people have developed their beliefs based upon false information and exaggerated claims, the fact remains that they are opposed. I have seen large amounts of information posted throughout the internet attempting to educate the public regarding cocking, but it has been to little avail.

I am sure that a large number of people will look at the first little bit of this post and dismiss it as another cockfighting advocate who is trying to plead his case to you. That is not the primary purpose of this article. While I may briefly mention my beliefs, the majority of this post will be revealing to you what your beliefs are, as that is the topic at hand.

The fact is that many of these individuals cannot see past the visions of blood, gore and abuse that has been planted in their heads by the animal rights agenda. They have been told countless stories, many of which were perversions of the truth, regarding fowl forced to fight, while their owners cry out with a bloodlust that would rival that of Vlad the Impaler of ancient times. They picture a setting where prostitutes and drug dealers are plying their trade in open view, while advocates of poor personal hygiene beat their wives and children behind the bleachers. They write their checks to the HSUS with a tear in their eye as they picture a cute, cuddly chicken with intelligence rivaling that of a primate, are taught by humans to fight, and tortured if they refuse to do so.

All of those beliefs are far from the truth in most cases, but they give the public a warm, fuzzy feeling as they send in their donations. The donation fills that human need to feel like you have made a difference in the world. It is today that I will tell you what difference some of you have made in this world.

Of course I understand fully why many don’t believe the things they hear from advocates of cockfighting, as cockers would have something to gain by getting the majority to see in their perspective. Ask yourself, what they would have to gain, and the only reasonable answer is that they would regain their right to participate in the sport that they love.

On the other hand, the animal rights agenda would have something to gain by winning you over to their side. What they have to gain is not a liberty, or preservation of their heritage, but cold, hard cash. The almighty dollar has historically brought many men and women to commit many dastardly deeds. It would be nothing more than farce to tell yourselves that no one would stoop to spreading false information in an effort to gain your hard earned dollars.

While many of you were enjoying your warm, fuzzy feeling, your state legislature was hijacked by individuals with some seriously distorted priorities. I do not intend to, in this post, discuss my beliefs any further. Instead I am going to discuss your beliefs, as a group. I am not going to make assumptions, but discuss documented facts.

When you elect a state legislator or representative, you choose that person to do their best to fill your needs, and extend your beliefs into the halls of your state capitol. These individuals are representing you in their actions, in their votes and in their statements. You are implying your approval of their performance when you re-elect them, or when you do not protest their actions.

It is my belief that you do not know what it is that your representatives are telling the world that you stand for. Most of you are not attorneys or otherwise employed in the legal profession, so you join the age old practice of just being a good, decent citizen as a means of steering clear of legal problems, and this works most of the time. Most of you have not seen the inside of a courtroom, other than possibly for answering a speeding ticket, performing jury duty, or maybe for divorce proceedings. As a result, you do not have vast knowledge regarding your state’s laws. I think that many of you will be appalled at what you find here today, and will be very surprised if you agree with what you learn. Even if you are an opponent of cockfighting, surely many of you will not like what you learn.

I will now discuss some laws from Alaska, Arizona, and Colorado. I will not spend much time commenting, but presenting facts. I believe any human being with reasonable priorities will be outraged at these facts, and hope that maybe someone in those states will demand that their representatives start making sense. Again, I am not asking you to support cockfighting here, I am asking you to reflect upon your order of priorities.

In Alaska, cockfighting is a class C felony. Of course many aren’t quite sure what that means other than the obvious, which is that it is a crime. To help you gain a better perspective, I will list for you a partial list of other crimes that are a class C felony in Alaska. This list includes:

  1. 3rd degree assault
  2. 1st degree stalking
  3. 1st degree custodial interference (taking a child across state lines without parental permission)
  4. 3rd degree sexual assault
  5. 3rd degree sexual abuse of a minor
  6. Incest
  7. 2nd degree theft
  8. 2nd degree burglary
  9. 2nd degree forgery
  10. 1st degree endangering the welfare of a child
  11. 3rd degree escape (breaking out of jail)
  12. Riot
  13. Indecent viewing of photography (child pornography specifically)
  14. Recruiting a gang member 1st degree
  15. 3rd degree misconduct involving weapons
  16. Unlawful furnishing of explosives

Now, ask yourself if you consider cockfighters to be equal to pedophiles, gang-bangers, thieves, and violent criminals. If your answer is yes, then I am very surprised. If the answer is no, then maybe you should choose someone who will represent your beliefs a little better when the next election occurs. In the meantime, I believe that if I were in your shoes, my state representative would have a lot of explaining to do. Maybe he should explain why a gamecock is as deserving of protection as your child.

Now on to Arizona. In Arizona, cockfighting is a Class 5 felony. What is a class 5 felony? Below you will find some examples of other Class 5 felonies:

  1. Aggravated assault
  2. Aggravated criminal damage
  3. Theft of property ($2,000 – $3,000 value)
  4. Promoting prison contraband (smuggling drugs into a prison)
  5. Surreptitious photographing, videotaping, filming, digitally recording, or viewing (hidden cameras in public bathrooms, dressing rooms etc.)
  6. Child or vulnerable adult abuse
  7. Unlawful sexual conduct
  8. Arson of a structure or property
  9. Unlawful introduction of a disease or parasite (germ warfare/domestic terrorism)
  10. Unlawfully administering intoxicating liquors, narcotic drug, or dangerous drug to a minor
  11. Sexual abuse of a victim under 15 years old
  12. Stalking
  13. Firearm possession by an adjudicated delinquent
  14. Public sexual indecency to a minor (forcing a child to watch sex acts committed by you)
  15. Escape in the second degree (jailbreak)
  16. Abandonment or concealment of a dead body
  17. Causing spouse to become a prostitute
  18. Detention of persons in a house of prostitution for debt
  19. Aggravated domestic violence
  20. Unlawful sale or purchase of children (this is not a misprint)

Is this what you stand for? Is a cockfighter comparable to someone selling children on the black market, someone holding a woman prisoner forcing her to be a prostitute, or someone who forces a child to have sex with him or her? If your answer is yes, then you should commend your representative, since he or she is doing their job and representing your beliefs. If your answer is no, then please ask yourself why your legislator is still in office. I hope you will make your beliefs known either way.

Now on to Colorado. In Colorado, cockfighting is a Class 5 felony with the first offense, and a class 4 felony on subsequent offenses. Without further adieu, here is a list of crimes in Colorado that are class 4 and class 5 felonies:

  1. Escape
  2. Unlawful dispensing, distribution, manufacturing or sale of a schedule 1 or 2 controlled substance.
  3. Possession, control, manufacture, sending or mailing an explosive device
  4. Possession of a dangerous weapon by previous offender
  5. Child abuse resulting in serious injury to child
  6. Inducing consumption of a controlled substance by fraudulent means (giving someone a drug without their knowledge, commonly followed up by date rape)
  7. Dueling
  8. Unlawfully providing a juvenile with a handgun
  9. Internet sexual exploitation of a child
  10. 2nd and 3rd degree arson
  11. Internet luring of a child for purpose of sexual exploitation
  12. Death by negligence
  13. Enticement of a child for purpose of sexual assault or sexual misconduct
  14. Unlawful sexual contact (sex with an adult who is unconscious)
  15. Identity theft
  16. Sexual assault on a child
  17. Sexual assault on a client by a psychotherapist
  18. Vehicular eluding with results in bodily injury to another person
  19. Engaging in a riot
  20. Contraband in 1st degree involving a dangerous instrument (smuggling weapons to a prisoner)
  21. Criminal extortion
  22. Incest
  23. 2nd degree assault
  24. Criminal abortion
  25. Stalking
  26. Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust (schoolteacher, parent, etc)
  27. 2nd degree kidnapping
  28. Child abuse
  29. Manslaughter
  30. Vehicular homicide

Is this what Coloradoresidents stand for? Are killers of humans, pedophiles, and kidnappers no more dangerous or heinous than cockfighters? Your state’s laws say that your answer is yes to both questions. If your answer is no, here is your opportunity to make a difference.

If you live in one of these states, and you don’t protest, and if you re-elect your current representatives you are telling the world that these are the things you stand for. You believe that allowing a chicken to fight another chicken is as heinous as all of the crimes listed above. You also believe that humans deserve no more protection than a chicken. I will be very surprised if that is the case, as I have faith in the human race. I do not believe that the general population has such a twisted list of priorities.

I was personally both surprised and disgusted when I researched this information, and I hope that you share those feelings. I also hope that you do something to change it. If you don’t do something, I sincerely hope that you are never the victim of one of those crimes that are equal to cockfighting.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and we have not covered the most outrageous of my finds in my research. More states will follow, and I am Darren U. Talissen

Be as game as a gamecock, and fight for what’s right.

Posted in GAMECOCK ACTIVISM | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

50 Ways To Protect Gamefowl & Poultry

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on May 8, 2012

By Darren_U_Talissen

September 21st, 2007

I would like to precede the following article by giving credit to the man who’s writing inspired me to write this entry. Earlier today, I was reading the blog of Wayne Pacelle and realized that what he was writing, could in many ways be beneficial to the gamefowl community if it were viewed properly.

I have, on many occasions, stated that too many gamefowl enthusiasts provide our enemies with ammunition to use against us. I frequently contemplate this, and wonder why it is so. It was after reading the above mentioned blog on the HSUS website that I realized that in many occasions, we can do just as they do, which is to use their information to further our own cause. In the following paragraphs I will demonstrate to you how this can be done.

For the following, very much of the information from Mr. Pacelle’s blog will be used. I openly admit that many of the below statements will be quoted from the above named page, and in some cases, I will provide links directly to HSUS pages that can be used to further our cause without any translation. It is through this post that I hope to introduce many to my way of thinking that the enemy can provide us with ammunition if we know where to find it.

Ways to protect poultry, and the gamefowl community from animal rights activists.

In Your Community:

Personal Behavior:

  • Eat what you want without worrying about what someone else might think. If you enjoy eating meat, then do so. If you prefer a vegetarian diet, then that is your right as well.
  • Do not use cruelty free cosmetics and household products.  Only patronize companies who dare to make a stand against the animal rights terrorists.
  • Adopt an animal that is due to be murdered by an animal shelter or humane society.
  • Report to your state Department of Fish and Wildlife any problems that you have with wildlife destroying your property or killing your livestock so that they will see the need for control of wildlife.
  • I.D. your animals and encourage others to do the same. If your animals are not identified they may be impounded by animal control officers and turned over to the local humane society, or PETA. Many animals who wind up in the hands of these agencies become the victims of murder, or suffer the loss of their reproductive organs.
  • Keep your hunting dogs safe indoors, where animal rights activists cannot steal them.
  • Prepare a will to bequeath your fowl to a fellow enthusiast to make sure that they don’t wind up in the hands of PETA or the HSUS.
  • Prepare a disaster kit for your fowl. This kit should contain at least one gas mask per chicken so that their chances of surviving the HSUS gas chamber will be improved.
  • Distribute the petition to revoke the non-profit status of the HSUS.
  • Ask your local restaurants and grocery stores to sell farm fresh eggs from a local producer.
  • Visit this blog regularly.
  • Add links and banners for pro-poultry and anti-animal rights websites to your website, blog, or social networking page.
  • Sign up to receive newsletters from The Center for Consumer Freedom.

Get Training – Get Activated:

  • Study about diseases of fowl and how to combat them.
  • Encourage local veterinarians to learn as much as possible about care of poultry and ask them to speak to your local poultry club, or state GBA.
  • Help a beginner learn about poultry and gamefowl.  If you are a beginner yourself, share what information you have learned.
  • Attend as many meetings of the UGBA or your state GBA as possible.
  • Do online research and learn about the fraudulent tactics of the HSUS so that you may share the information with others before they are duped into supporting such an organization.
  • Organize a poultry club in your community.

Volunteer To Help Animals:

  • Monitor your property for trespassing animal rights activists who might mean to do your fowl harm.
  • Volunteer to help an injured, elderly, or ill poultry farmer tend his flock.
  • Volunteer your time and skills to help the poultry/gamefowl community.
  • Volunteer at the UGBA annual meeting or other event.
  • Hold a benefit auction and encourage others to do so and see that proceeds go to an organization who has our interests in mind.

Political Activities:

  • Determine which elected officials represent you at the local, state, and federal levels.
  • Contact your federal and state legislators about animal protection laws which may violate your civil rights.
  • Consult the Humane Scorecard to determine how your members of congress perform on animal issues.
  • Contact the UGBA and offer to help pass legislation in our favor, or block legislation that is against us.
  • Attend your lawmakers’ town meetings and urge them to protect your rights as a livestock producer.
  • Register to vote.
  • Gather signatures for any petitions that may further our cause.

Work With Local Schools:

  • Work to block the adoption of HSUS propaganda in local classrooms.
  • Educate parents about the true nature of most animal rights organizations and urge them to refuse to allow their children to be recruited to these immoral groups through the schools.
  • Educate young people who have fallen victim to the lies and have been drawn into the influence of people like JP Goodwin
  • Work to prevent schools from allowing PETA representatives from contacting your children
  • Work to have your local schools banned from allowing criminal organizations from influencing your children.

Boycott HSUS Sponsors:

Fundraising and Networking:

  • Make an annual gift or monthly pledge to the CCF
  • Hold a memorial poultry show in the name of a friend or favorite broodfowl.
  • Give gift subscriptions to the gamefowl journals to friends and family members.
  • Host a house party and ask an accomplished breeder to speak at it.
  • Hold an event to raise awareness for the poultry community.
  • Arrange coffee or lunch dates to expose the truth about the HSUS & PETA to people who care about animals.
  • Ensure that the HSUS loses it’s eligibility for tax exempt status.
  • Donate a trio to your local GBA charity auction.

I am well aware that some of the above ideas were mentioned more than once, and some were comedic. The point is to show you how we can use their words against them in the same way that they have used our words against us.

These are my suggestions and I am Darren U. Talissen

Be as game as your roosters, and keep fighting the good fight.

http://darrenutalissen.hubpages.com/hub/ways-to-protect-poultry

Posted in GAMECOCK ACTIVISM | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Queen Elizabeth I: “people have the right to enjoy cockfighting”

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on May 8, 2012

Queen Elizabeth I: “people have the right to enjoy cockfighting”.

Queen Elizabeth I

Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn was born in 1533. While Henry was furious about having another daughter, the supporters of his first wife, Catherine of Aragon were delighted and claimed that it proved God was punishing Henry for his illegal marriage to Anne.

In January 1536 Anne Boleyn had a son. Unfortunately the child was born dead. Later that year Henry accused Anne of committing adultery with five different men. Anne and the men were all executed. Ten days later Henry married Jane Seymour.

Unlike her sister Mary, Elizabeth was brought up in the Protestant faith. In 1549, during the reign of Edward VI, she rejected the advances of Thomas Seymour, Lord High Admiral of England.

On Edward’s death she sided with her half-sister, Mary, against Lady Jane Grey. However, her Protestantism aroused suspicions in her Catholic sister and she was imprisoned in the Tower of London.

In 1558 Mary died and Elizabeth became queen of England. Pope Paul IV was unhappy that a Protestant monarch was once again in power. However, he suggested that if Elizabeth begged for his permission to be queen he would consider the matter. When she refused, the Pope excommunicated Elizabeth and ordered her subjects not to obey her.

Elizabeth, with the help of her chief minister, William Cecil, set about making England a Protestant nation. Catholic bishops appointed by Mary Tudor were replaced by Protestant bishops, and in 1559 Parliament passed the Act of Uniformity. Now everybody in England had to attend Protestant church services.

The Catholic kings of France and Spain were opposed to Elizabeth becoming queen of England. King Henry II of France claimed that the true heir to the throne was Mary Stuart, the queen of Scotland and the wife of his son, Francis.

After the death of her husband in 1560, Mary left France and went to Scotland to claim her throne. People in Scotland who were Protestants were unhappy with having a Catholic queen. However, with the support of France, Mary was able to hold on to power.

Elizabeth believed that Mary posed a threat to her throne. To counter this she suggested that her friend, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, should marry Mary. Attempts were made to arrange this but in 1565 Mary married Henry Darnley, the son of Lady Margaret Douglas, the granddaughter of Henry VII. The marriage therefore strengthened her descendants’ claim to the English throne.

In 1566 Mary Stuart gave birth to a son named James. The marriage was not a happy one and when Darnley was mysteriously killed while recovering from smallpox at Glasgow in January 1567, when the house in which he was in was blown up by gunpowder.

Suspicion fell on Mary and her close friend, the Earl of Bothwell. When Mary married Bothwell two months later, the Protestant lords rebelled against their queen. After her army was defeated at Langside in 1567, Mary fled to England. Mary asked Elizabeth for protection from her enemies in Scotland. However, Elizabeth was highly suspicious of the woman who in the past had claimed she was the rightful queen of England. Elizabeth feared that the arrival of Mary might encourage the Catholics in England to rebel against her rule.

Elizabeth therefore decided to imprison Mary. During the next nineteen years while Mary was in prison, Elizabeth’s officials discovered several Catholic plots that attempted to make Mary queen of England.

Soon after Elizabeth became queen of England, Protestants gained full control of Parliament. It now became very important to Parliament that Elizabeth should marry and produce a Protestant heir to the throne. Elizabeth had many favourites in her own court. At various times rumours circulated that Elizabeth would marry men such as Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, Sir Charles Hatton, and Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk.

In October 1562 Elizabeth caught smallpox. For a while, doctors thought that Elizabeth would die. This illness made Parliament realise how dangerous the situation was. Therefore, after she recovered, they asked her once again to consider marriage. Elizabeth replied that she would think about it but she refused to make a decision.

In 1566 members of Parliament tried to force Elizabeth into action by discussing the subject in the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Elizabeth was furious with Parliament for doing this. She ordered thirty members from each House to attend a meeting at Whitehall Palace. Elizabeth read out a long speech where she pointed out that whether she got married or not was something that she would decide. She added that for Parliament to decide this question was like “the feet directing the head”.

The members of Parliament at the meeting agreed not to mention the issue again. However, some members were unwilling to remain quiet on the subject. One politician, Peter Wentworth, claimed that members of Parliament had the right to discuss any subject they wanted. Elizabeth responded by ordering him to be sent to the Tower of London.

In 1579 Elizabeth began having talks about the possibility of marrying the Duke of Anjou from France. John Stubbs wrote a pamphlet criticizing the proposed marriage. Stubbs objected to the fact that the Duke of Anjou was a Catholic. He also argued that, at forty-six, Elizabeth was too old to have children and so had no need to get married.

Elizabeth held fewer Parliaments than her father. On average, she held a Parliament once every four years. Elizabeth made it clear that members of the House of Commons had complete freedom of speech. However, she believed that certain issues such as religion or foreign policy were best left to her and her Privy Council.

On thirty-six occasions Elizabeth vetoed laws passed by Parliament. For example, in 1585 Parliament passed a bill that banned hunting, cock-fighting and bear-baiting from taking place on Sunday. Elizabeth believed that people had the right to enjoy themselves on their one day of rest and refused to allow the bill to become law.

In 1586, the English government uncovered the Babington Plot. The plan involved the murder of Elizabeth and an invasion of England by Spanish troops. A letter was found that suggested Mary was involved in the plot. Mary was tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. For some time Elizabeth was unwilling to sign Mary’s death warrant. Although reluctant to do so, Elizabeth’s ministers eventually persuaded her to agree to Mary’s execution.

After the death of his wife, Mary Tudor, King Philip II of Spain asked Queen Elizabeth to be his bride. Philip was upset when Elizabeth refused. He also became angry when Elizabeth did nothing to stop English sea captains from robbing his ships bringing gold back from his newly acquired territories in South America.

Elizabeth and Philip were also in conflict over religion. Elizabeth disagreed with the way Philip persecuted Protestants who lived under his control. Philip objected to the way Elizabeth had forced English Catholics to attend Protestant church services.

When Philip began persecuting Protestants living in the Netherlands, Elizabeth sent English soldiers to help protect them. In February 1587 Elizabeth agreed to the execution of Mary Stuart. Philip had hoped that Mary would eventually become the Catholic queen of England. Philip now decided to conquer England and bring an end to Elizabeth and her Protestant government.

The invasion took a lot of preparation and it was not until July 1588 that the 131 ships in the Spanish Armada left for England. The large Spanish galleons were filled with 17,000 well-armed soldiers and 180 Catholic priests. The plan was to sail to Dunkirk in France where the Armada would pick up another 16,000 Spanish soldiers.

On 6 August the Armada anchored at Calais Harbour. The English now filled eight old ships with materials that would burn fiercely. At midnight, the fire-ships were lighted and left to sail by themselves towards the Spanish ships in Calais Harbour. The plan worked and the Spanish ships fled to the open sea.

With their formation broken, the Spanish ships were easy targets for the English ships loaded with guns that could fire very large cannon balls. The Spanish captains tried to get their ships in close so that their soldiers could board the English ships. However, the English ships were quicker than the Spanish galleons and were able to keep their distance.

The English bombardment sank many Spanish galleons. Those that survived headed north. The English ships did not follow as they had run out of gunpowder. After the Armada rounded Scotland it headed south for home. However, a strong gale drove many of the ships onto the Irish rocks. Thousands of Spaniards drowned and even those that reached land were often killed by English soldiers and settlers. Of the 25,000 men that had set out in the Armada, less than 10,000 arrived home safely.

Philip II spent the next ten years supporting a series of plots to overthrow Elizabeth. All these schemes ended in failure and when Philip II died in 1598, Elizabeth was still queen of England.

When Elizabeth died in March, 1603, the Tudor dynasty came to an end and the throne was passed to James VI of Scotland.

http://networkedblogs.com/xmfcT

Posted in GAMECOCK HERITAGE | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: