AGDN CALL TO ACTION TO NON-UTAH RESIDENTS RE: UTAH SB 112S01 MAKING COCKFIGHTING A FELONY The AGDN encourages non-Utah residents to send a letter to the sponsor of SB 112S01 in Utah expressing opposition to making cockfighting a felony. There are valid reasons to be concerned, even if you live outside Utah. Remember, what happens in one state effects everyone. 1. Cut and paste the provided letter or send your own letter to the sponsor of Utah SB 112S01, Senator Gene Davis at: [email protected] 2. Dont forget to add contact information at the bottom of the letter. Include Name, email or physical address, phone number and voter ID # if available. 3. Alternately, a physical copy of the letter could be sent to Senator Gene Davis, 865 PARKWAY AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 FORM LETTER :(copy and paste) Senator, Although I am not a citizen of the state of Utah, I am highly concerned about Senate Bill 112S01, a bill you have sponsored regarding Gamefowl Fighting Amendments. What happens in Utah can influence what happens in other states similar to your publicly statements regarding Utah being out of line with surrounding states. I urge you to resist this pressure. Remember, a similar version of this bill was soundly defeated in the Utah House of Representatives in 2013. In addition to agreeing with many Representatives reasoning to reject this idea based on gun rights and jail and/or prison overcrowding, there are many sound reasons to not only reject laws targeting the gamefowl community, but to embrace the policy potential of legalizing cockfighting altogether. Felony bill advocates base their argument on the assertions that cockfighting is cruel and driven by the criminal element and gambling stereotype. Both of these assertions are false. Sound research and logic dictates a policy of legalization based on the idea that cockfighting is less egregious than similar activities that are completely protected in the state of Utah. First, the end result of a felony bill negatively impacts gun rights and results in institutional overcrowding. Being labeled a felon bars future legal gun ownership, weakening 2nd Amendment rights in Utah. Also, felons are sent to jail and/or prison. Adding non-violent inmates to an already overcrowded system further strains resources and facilities. These arguments were advanced and endorsed by Representatives in Utah as justification to defeat similar legislation in 2013. (See Salt LakeTribune, January 27, 2013) Second, cockfighting does not represent cruelty to animals. There are many legally protected activities arguably more brutal than cockfighting. Policymakers should be bound by 14th Amendment requirements to provide equal protection under the laws of Utah. Commercial slaughter is far more brutal than cockfighting. Poultry are excluded from the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, live considerably shorter lives than gamefowl, and even in the best conditions have horrific qualities of life compared to a highly prized gamefowl. Moreover, the sport of hunting is legally protected in Utah, even though the prey has no choice, and even though they are known to suffer.m Many times game are raised in captivity and released exclusively for private hunts. Comparatively, gamefowl live long lives, in relative luxury, before they are harvested through the tradition of cockfighting. Certainly the only differences between these legally protected activities and cockfighting is a matter of taste, which is not a viable policy justifying the hypocritical and unjust application of the law Importantly, the same forces driving anti-cockfighting nationwide would ultimately like to see an end to all animal use activities, even those currently protected. For example, The Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the Humane Society, has been quoted as saying; If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. (Associated Press, Dec 30, 1991). Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change (Bozeman (MT) Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991). We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped....state by state. (Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990). Policymakers should consider the philosophical end-games of advocates when making decisions. I believe that these goals and philosophies are completely inconsistent with the philosophies and policy schematic of this legislature and the people of Utah. Imagine the billions of dollars and impact to the economy if sport hunting were abolished in Utah. Then Imagine the additional revenue that could be generated from a legal and regulated cockfighting system in Utah. Third, the legality of falconry in Utah is an on-point justification for the legalization of cockfighting. As defined by Utah statute, Falconry means, for the purposes of this rule, caring for and training raptors for pursuit of wild game, and hunting wild game with raptors. Falconry includes the taking of raptors from the wild to use in the sport of falconry; and caring for, training, and transporting raptors held for falconry. The law condones pitting predator birds against prey birds and smaller pest animals as a spectator sport. According to falconry experts, what many dont understand is that the falconer doesnt allow the falcon to to kill the prey, only viciously wound it. The falconer must perform the kill or the conditioned appetite control cycle fails and the falcon would not return. The falconer watches the raptor just as carefully. Once the bird has made a kill it will not carry it back to the falconer, as is widely believed. So it is vital that the falconer is on the spot when the quarry is brought down. If all goes well and the falconer is nearby when the bird makes its kill, he or she gives the raptor a reward of food and removes the kill. The reward will be a small amount – a tidbit – so the bird will remain hungry and eager to hunt again. This strategy also reinforces the idea that the falconer is the bird’s sole source of food. Only when the bird is returned to its home base will it be allowed a real meal. (See wingmasters.net, Julie Anne Collier and Jim Parks, raptor education specialists licensed in raptor rehabilitation, Massachusetts) This means that falconry, by definition, prolongs suffering and death, the legal definition advanced as cruelty by opponents of cockfighting. And remember, falconry is protected largely due to its historical and traditional value dating back thousands of years. The tradition of Cockfighting was incontrovertibly engrained in the culture of America and even embraced by the Founding Fathers as a matter of course. (See Oklahoma Historical Society) Cockfighting certainly deserves the same protection as falconry in Utah. Indeed, amending falconry statutes in Utah to accommodate gamefowl would be an efficient mechanism to protect this important rights base in Utah. Fourth, specious assertions that cockfighting promotes gambling and a criminal element are patently false. The only comprehensive study concerning game-cocking in America proves that people engaged in this recreational form are basically conservative, highly concerned with health and outdoor life, strongly patriotic and strongly in favor of obeying laws and preservation of public order. (Professor William C. Capel, Clemson University and Professor Clifton Bryant, VA Poly-technical Institute and State University, AMERICAN COCKERS: RESULTS FROM A NATIONAL SURVEY CONDUCTED IN 1974 THROUGH 1991) Also, gambling issues addressed within the context of regulation would be a superior alternative to embracing unconstitutional policies based on the non-unique issue of illegal gambling on sporting activities. Remember, billions of dollars are illegally wagered on legal sporting events every year. This fact has not led to the abolition of football, for example. If there is any legitimacy to the claims of illegal gambling and a criminal element related to cockfighting, then those claims are made worse by driving the activity underground where it remains hidden from public scrutiny and potential regulation. The majority of cock-fighters are patriotic and law abiding citizens. The arbitrary legislative targeting of cockfighting only risks turning ethical US citizens into felons and leaves the sport vulnerable to the criminal element because many law abiding citizens are being driven out of the sport. The Utah Senate plays a critical role in defining and establishing the rights base of Utah citizens. The courts have clearly placed gamefowl policy in the hands of the legislature. The freedoms of thousands of individuals and millions of dollars in potential revenue rest on this honorable institutions decisions. Utah should assert itself and eliminate the hypocritical and arguably unconstitutional practice of targeting cockfighting and serve as a model for other states. Sincerely, Like · · January 31 at 12:48pm 3 people like this. . Ron Hurley AGDN CALL TO ACTION TO NON-UTAH RESIDENTS RE: UTAH SB 112S01 MAKING COCKFIGHTING A FELONY The AGDN encourages non-Utah residents to send a letter to the sponsor of SB 112S01 in Utah expressing opposition to making cockfighting a felony. There are valid reasons to be concerned, even if you live outside Utah. Remember, what happens in one state effects everyone. 1. Cut and paste the provided letter or send your own letter to the sponsor of Utah SB 112S01, Senator Gene Davis at: [email protected] 2. Dont forget to add contact information at the bottom of the letter. Include Name, email or physical address, phone number and voter ID # if available. 3. Alternately, a physical copy of the letter could be sent to Senator Gene Davis, 865 PARKWAY AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 FORM LETTER :(copy and paste) Senator, Although I am not a citizen of the state of Utah, I am highly concerned about Senate Bill 112S01, a bill you have sponsored regarding Gamefowl Fighting Amendments. What happens in Utah can influence what happens in other states similar to your publicly statements regarding Utah being out of line with surrounding states. I urge you to resist this pressure. Remember, a similar version of this bill was soundly defeated in the Utah House of Representatives in 2013. In addition to agreeing with many Representatives reasoning to reject this idea based on gun rights and jail and/or prison overcrowding, there are many sound reasons to not only reject laws targeting the gamefowl community, but to embrace the policy potential of legalizing cockfighting altogether. Felony bill advocates base their argument on the assertions that cockfighting is cruel and driven by the criminal element and gambling stereotype. Both of these assertions are false. Sound research and logic dictates a policy of legalization based on the idea that cockfighting is less egregious than similar activities that are completely protected in the state of Utah. First, the end result of a felony bill negatively impacts gun rights and results in institutional overcrowding. Being labeled a felon bars future legal gun ownership, weakening 2nd Amendment rights in Utah. Also, felons are sent to jail and/or prison. Adding non-violent inmates to an already overcrowded system further strains resources and facilities. These arguments were advanced and endorsed by Representatives in Utah as justification to defeat similar legislation in 2013. (See Salt LakeTribune, January 27, 2013) Second, cockfighting does not represent cruelty to animals. There are many legally protected activities arguably more brutal than cockfighting. Policymakers should be bound by 14th Amendment requirements to provide equal protection under the laws of Utah. Commercial slaughter is far more brutal than cockfighting. Poultry are excluded from the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, live considerably shorter lives than gamefowl, and even in the best conditions have horrific qualities of life compared to a highly prized gamefowl. Moreover, the sport of hunting is legally protected in Utah, even though the prey has no choice, and even though they are known to suffer.m Many times game are raised in captivity and released exclusively for private hunts. Comparatively, gamefowl live long lives, in relative luxury, before they are harvested through the tradition of cockfighting. Certainly the only differences between these legally protected activities and cockfighting is a matter of taste, which is not a viable policy justifying the hypocritical and unjust application of the law Importantly, the same forces driving anti-cockfighting nationwide would ultimately like to see an end to all animal use activities, even those currently protected. For example, The Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the Humane Society, has been quoted as saying; If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. (Associated Press, Dec 30, 1991). Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change (Bozeman (MT) Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991). We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped....state by state. (Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990). Policymakers should consider the philosophical end-games of advocates when making decisions. I believe that these goals and philosophies are completely inconsistent with the philosophies and policy schematic of this legislature and the people of Utah. Imagine the billions of dollars and impact to the economy if sport hunting were abolished in Utah. Then Imagine the additional revenue that could be generated from a legal and regulated cockfighting system in Utah. Third, the legality of falconry in Utah is an on-point justification for the legalization of cockfighting. As defined by Utah statute, Falconry means, for the purposes of this rule, caring for and training raptors for pursuit of wild game, and hunting wild game with raptors. Falconry includes the taking of raptors from the wild to use in the sport of falconry; and caring for, training, and transporting raptors held for falconry. The law condones pitting predator birds against prey birds and smaller pest animals as a spectator sport. According to falconry experts, what many dont understand is that the falconer doesnt allow the falcon to to kill the prey, only viciously wound it. The falconer must perform the kill or the conditioned appetite control cycle fails and the falcon would not return. The falconer watches the raptor just as carefully. Once the bird has made a kill it will not carry it back to the falconer, as is widely believed. So it is vital that the falconer is on the spot when the quarry is brought down. If all goes well and the falconer is nearby when the bird makes its kill, he or she gives the raptor a reward of food and removes the kill. The reward will be a small amount – a tidbit – so the bird will remain hungry and eager to hunt again. This strategy also reinforces the idea that the falconer is the bird’s sole source of food. Only when the bird is returned to its home base will it be allowed a real meal. (See wingmasters.net, Julie Anne Collier and Jim Parks, raptor education specialists licensed in raptor rehabilitation, Massachusetts) This means that falconry, by definition, prolongs suffering and death, the legal definition advanced as cruelty by opponents of cockfighting. And remember, falconry is protected largely due to its historical and traditional value dating back thousands of years. The tradition of Cockfighting was incontrovertibly engrained in the culture of America and even embraced by the Founding Fathers as a matter of course. (See Oklahoma Historical Society) Cockfighting certainly deserves the same protection as falconry in Utah. Indeed, amending falconry statutes in Utah to accommodate gamefowl would be an efficient mechanism to protect this important rights base in Utah. Fourth, specious assertions that cockfighting promotes gambling and a criminal element are patently false. The only comprehensive study concerning game-cocking in America proves that people engaged in this recreational form are basically conservative, highly concerned with health and outdoor life, strongly patriotic and strongly in favor of obeying laws and preservation of public order. (Professor William C. Capel, Clemson University and Professor Clifton Bryant, VA Poly-technical Institute and State University, AMERICAN COCKERS: RESULTS FROM A NATIONAL SURVEY CONDUCTED IN 1974 THROUGH 1991) Also, gambling issues addressed within the context of regulation would be a superior alternative to embracing unconstitutional policies based on the non-unique issue of illegal gambling on sporting activities. Remember, billions of dollars are illegally wagered on legal sporting events every year. This fact has not led to the abolition of football, for example. If there is any legitimacy to the claims of illegal gambling and a criminal element related to cockfighting, then those claims are made worse by driving the activity underground where it remains hidden from public scrutiny and potential regulation. The majority of cock-fighters are patriotic and law abiding citizens. The arbitrary legislative targeting of cockfighting only risks turning ethical US citizens into felons and leaves the sport vulnerable to the criminal element because many law abiding citizens are being driven out of the sport. The Utah Senate plays a critical role in defining and establishing the rights base of Utah citizens. The courts have clearly placed gamefowl policy in the hands of the legislature. The freedoms of thousands of individuals and millions of dollars in potential revenue rest on this honorable institutions decisions. Utah should assert itself and eliminate the hypocritical and arguably unconstitutional practice of targeting cockfighting and serve as a model for other states. Sincerely, Like · · January 31 at 12:48pm 3 people like this. . Ron Hurley
Posted on: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:23:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015