Cockfighting

A

Art Eatman

Staff in Memoriam
Oklahoma outlawed cockfighting. The punishment for mere possession of a fighting cock includes lengthy prison time and a fine of a serious amount of money. There are punishments for an actual "crime against person" which are not nearly so severe. I guess it's just another datum in the log of the unending decline in societal sanity.

Ergo, a rational person would dispose of such animals, right? How? :) I suppose you could eat them, but you'd wind up with a set of jaw muscles to create jealousy in Jesse Jackson. You'd become capable of hours of oratory, but it is to be hoped you'd be more rational. I have faith in you, however.

Pretend they're pheasants? Release and shoot? :) Legal, unlike allowing the birds to follow their natural proclivities...

Life's little ironies: Consider a potential newspaper headline, "Animal lovers cause death of 2.8 million chickens."

"People of Oklahoma, have you asked your doctor about Ritalin?"

Art
 
A

Armorer-at-Law

New member
Rodeo

These animal "rights" extremists have their sights set on banning rodeo. Impossible! Not in Oklahoma! you say. We'll see. That's the endgame . . . well, votes for wildlife is the end end game.:barf:
 
4

444

New member
The irony of all this is that it is a felony to even own a gamecock, but it is OK to watch two humans beat each other to a bloody pulp and possibly kill the other person in a boxing ring (Boom Boom Mancini vs. Du Ku Kim) . It is Ok to watch a guy hit a wall at 200 mph in a race car, it is Ok to scream with joy at a good football hit even though the person hit might never walk again, it is Ok to get pay for view to watch one guy choke out another guy in "the ultimate fighting challenge", it is OK to watch humans kill each other in actual or make-believe war but if it is a chicken; that is a felony.
 
K

KP95DAO

New member
Who voted for it?

The Daily Oklahoma ran a county map showing who voted for the ban and who voted against it. The metro areas were the ones for it. Though in one of those areas, the wife and I voted against it.

At least one Sheriff has come out and said it "was not a high priority on his things to do list."
 
C

Chris Orndorff

New member
444, humans who engage in "questionable" contests do so voluntarily, and not at the whim of a handler.

I am surprised at the amount of support shown for this type of entertainment.
 
W

whitebear

New member
I voted against the amendment as well. While I have no desire to see two roosters spur one another to death, I do think that this measure was, first, yet another infringement of rights, and second, poorly written.

From the ballot:

Under the measure:
1. It is a felony to instigate or encourage cockfighting.
2. It is a felony to keep places, equipment or facilities for cockfighting.
3. It is a felony to aid or assist in cockfighting.
4. It is a felony to own, possess, keep or train birds for cockfighting.

Under the proposal it is a misdemeanor to knowingly be a spectator at a cockfight.
Click to expand...

As my wife has asked me several times, are there any other legitimate uses for these birds? I thought perhaps showing, as in state and county fairs. So can you own the birds for a purpose OTHER than cockfighting? Inquiring minds want to know.

In addition, the only reason cockfighting was legal in Oklahoma, as staging fights between animals has long been illegal, is that in 1963 the state Supreme Court ruled that chickens are not animals... (I researching the citation.)

I still like living here.
 
4

444

New member
"444, humans who engage in "questionable" contests do so voluntarily, and not at the whim of a handler."

I dont agree. First of all, who is to judge what motivates one person or for that matter a chicken. Granted, I am sure that most people who engage in these sports do so voluntarily. But, one reason for this is that they don't believe that "it' can happen to them. Money is also a significant factor. Would you volunteer to get in the ring with Mike Tyson for nothing ? So, yes, you are doing it voluntarily, but only under certain conditions because you know it won't be fun and you are risking your life in doing so. Also, make no mistake about it, professional boxers have handlers. These guys set up these fights with enough financial incentive to cause someone who knows they are a has-been to step back in the ring. No, he doesn't have to, but the risk to reward ratio seems to be tipped in favor of reward at the time. Do you think a boxers handler is looking out for the boxers best interest or his own ? As far as gamecocks, the reason these partiular birds are used for this activity is becuase they are aggressive to each other. It isn't the handler that is making them fight, they want to or at least their instints tell them to. This is why you don't see robin fighting, two robins won't fight each other. Then we get into the whole concept of why people engage in these sports. Because people will pay to see them. One reason why people will pay to see them is bloodlust. They like the violence and danger involved. Most people try to be civilized and try to be PC and deny this, but they are only fooling themselves. To the spectator (IMO) there is no difference between watching two humans fight than there is watching two chickens fight. The motivation is violence. The fact that the two fighters are willing to do it, makes no difference at all.

What you are missing is that I doubt that anyone here cares about cockfighting. I know I don't. The problem is that it is just another law enacted that takes away freedom, it is another law enacted that has shifted the balance of power away from the people and over to the government. I would be willing to bet that cockfighting is not a significant problem anywhere in the US. However someone sees cause to make it a ballot issue when we should be worrying about more pressing issues. And as Art said, the most pressing issue is that crimes against humans are treated with less severity than crimes agains chickens.
 
F

Futo Inu

New member
I live in the city, but I voted against the ban, for two reasons:

1. The punishment doesn't fit the crime (felony???)
2. the "whether or not knives are attached" part. WTH? I say, fight em all you want without artificial weapons. To me, the daggers are the sine qua non of the cruelty. Why is the utter ban necessary? If two chickens start fighting in your yard on their own volition, are you going to be charged? Stupid, stupid.

I would have voted yes otherwise in all liklihood. If it had failed to pass, it would have been the fault of the people who took the measure to such extremes, but as it happened, it passed. So now we have (another) well-intentioned, yet overly broad, rather extreme, invasive crime on the books. Grrrrr.
 
4

444

New member
This sounds very similar to the marijuana issue here in Nevada. At present, it is a felony to possess any amount of marijuana. One seed is a felony. The inititive was to basically decriminalize up to three ounces. It didn't pass. The reason most people gave for not voting for it was that they felt possession is one thing, but three ounces is another thing. I tried to reason with them, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Three ounces is a lot, but do you think it makes sense to ruin an 18 year olds' life by charging him with a felony because he had one joint ? Besides, if you had one plant and got busted, "they" would carry it out in a flower pot, weigh the whole thing and announce to the news that they kept $10,000 worth of drugs out of the school playground. So three ounces isn't that much in that case.

Whether you agree with the legalization of marijuana or not, I think you would have to agree that a majority of people today, at some point in their lives try marijuana. They may only do it once in their life, but if that one time they get caught, they will never be able to own a gun, they will never be able to vote, every time they look for a job they will have to tell the prospective employer that they are a felon, they will have to register as a felon every time they move. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Again, we are supporting the failed "war on drugs". We are wasting valuable money and law enforcement resourses to enforce ridiculous laws...................... We have a lot more important stuff to worry about than pot smoking.
 
R

Rail Gun

New member
Oklahoma has become the 48th state
to ban cockfighting. The vote was 56-44.

Another nail in the coffin of freedom.

First they came for the fighting cocks
and I did not speak out
because I was not a fighting cock.
Then they came for the guys who make the cocks fight
and I did not speak out
because I was not a guy who makes cocks fight.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top