Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Presidential Hopeful Gov. Bill Richardson Doesn't Grok Cock(fighting)
If you doubt for a
second that the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave--the
Pilgrim's Pride and Land Where Ed Muskie Cried and all that--is
fast becoming
an open-air prison with strict no-smoking, no walking with
iPods, and no transfat policies, here's a story that will make
you think twice:
Cockfighting appears to be on its last legs in New Mexico, one of only two states where it is legal. And the reason might have something to do with the race for the White House.
Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat running for president, has come out strongly in favor of a ban on cockfighting. Legislation to outlaw the bloodsport has come up from time to time in New Mexico, but until recently, Richardson refused to take sides.
Some suspect he does not want to look as if he comes from a backward state.
"The bottom line is that if Bill Richardson is not running for president, this wouldn't be an issue," said Leo Lopez, 42, who has been attending matches since he was 12....
Tommy Booth, the 81-year-old owner of [cockfighting arena] Tommy's [Game Fowl Farm], said the governor has done a good job in general, but he feels betrayed: "I'm going to vote for him for president. But I'll hold my nose when I'm doing it.
The other state that allows roosters to tear each other to pieces? Louisiana.
More--including a missing subtitle to the story--right here.
Does former Reasoner Tim Cavanaugh still find Horatio Sanz-lookalike Richardson a lock for the Dem prez nom?
|2.8.07 @ 10:48AM|#
We just banned this in Oklahoma a few years ago. I'd say this is one custom best honored in the breach, along with bear-baiting and dog-fighting.
|2.8.07 @ 10:54AM|#
A prison, I tell ya!
Without cockfighting, we're living in a giant prison.
Mr. Gillespie, I applaud your restraint in not telling me I live in
a concentration camp.
Warren|2.8.07 @ 10:59AM|#
If you doubt for a second that the Land of the Free and the
Home of the Brave--the Pilgrim's Pride and Land Where Ed Muskie
Cried and all that--is fast becoming an open-air prison with strict
no-smoking, no walking with iPods, and no transfat policies, here's
a story that will make you think twice:
You know, there was, a second there when I did doubt it.
Now I'm totally bummed Nick. Dang I need a...
Wait a minute...
Cockfighting??? I don't give a rats ass about cockfighting. I mean
in a free country, yadda yadda yadda. But, I just can't get in a
lather over this.
Keep the cork in the bottle for now Sam.
|2.8.07 @ 10:59AM|#
That's not really a rooster in that pic, is it? Looks more like a dog with a glove on its head.
David|2.8.07 @ 11:08AM|#
You don't have to be an animal rights PETA nut to beleive that there should be basic limits on animal cruelty.
|2.8.07 @ 11:11AM|#
"The bottom line is that if Abe Lincoln is not running for
president, this wouldn't be an issue," said Richard Lewis, 42, who
has been attending slave auctions since he was 12.
(sorry...couldn't resist...)
Dan T.|2.8.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Sorry, but if roosters are property then as long as the two
owners mutually agree to allow them to fight, the government cannot
interfere.
Otherwise, we might as well all be living in San Quienten.
Ashish George|2.8.07 @ 11:17AM|#
"Sorry, but if roosters are property then as long as the two
owners mutually agree to allow them to fight, the government cannot
interfere."
Quite right. But that's a reason to alter our view of roosters (and
animals) in general as property, not to remain merrily insensitive
to the suffering of sentient creatures.
|2.8.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Is cockfighting prohibited because it is cruel to the birds or because it supposedly shows how base humans are? It's BS either way.
|2.8.07 @ 11:20AM|#
All those who think that there is no cock fighting in states which have outlawed it take one giant step forward. The easier to identify all those who should not be allowed to breed.
ebeneezer scrooge|2.8.07 @ 11:23AM|#
This is almost isomorphic to the drug issue. Citizens are going
to have cockfights and dogfights whether it's legal or not. If you
regulate it and make the animal owners licensed you might have
fewer idiot cock owners, idiot dog owners, problems.
No?
Would it be better to have an animal fight warden issuing a ticket
to an uncompliant citizen or a SWAT team going in there guns
ablaze?
|2.8.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Cock fighting is a barbaric hillbilly sport. I defy anyone on the Reason staff to actually attend a cockfight. Last I knew, it was also legal in Oklahoma.
|2.8.07 @ 11:26AM|#
"the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"
See Richardson knows he comes from the Land of the Flea and the
Home of the Plague..."
http://www.health.state.nm.us/plague.html
|2.8.07 @ 11:26AM|#
"Cock fighting is a barbaric hillbilly sport."
Well, we can't all have San Francisco values...
Dan T.|2.8.07 @ 11:32AM|#
This is almost isomorphic to the drug issue. Citizens are
going to have cockfights and dogfights whether it's legal or not.
If you regulate it and make the animal owners licensed you might
have fewer idiot cock owners, idiot dog owners,
problems.
No, in this case making the activity illegal means fewer people
will do it. Why libertarians hold this fantasy that nobody pays
attention to the law is beyond me.
Would it be better to have an animal fight warden issuing a ticket
to an uncompliant citizen or a SWAT team going in there guns
ablaze?
In this case, the SWAT team.
|2.8.07 @ 11:35AM|#
"Would it be better to have an animal fight warden issuing a
ticket to an uncompliant citizen or a SWAT team going in there guns
ablaze?
In this case, the SWAT team."
You'd rather see people get shot than birds fighting? C'mon, that
doesn't even comply with minimum troll standards.
|2.8.07 @ 11:35AM|#
"But that's a reason to alter our view of roosters (and animals)
in general as property, not to remain merrily insensitive to the
suffering of sentient creatures."
Actually, I think it's a reason to alter our view of property.
Right now, asserting that someone has property rights over
something is paired with a belief that that thing cannot have any
rights of its own. In other words, being subject to someone's
property rights voids that thing's status as a moral entity.
That doesn't have to be the case. It is possible to say that
someone owns a chicken, and yet say that he is bound to respect the
chicken's rights.
|2.8.07 @ 11:38AM|#
I picture regulated cock fighting...
Tiny boxing gloves cover the claws.
Head gear to prevent biting.
Judging based on technique.
"Nice Cock Block by the champion."
|2.8.07 @ 11:41AM|#
All those who think that cockfighting is just as common in
states that ban it take one giant step forward.
Obviously, there will be people who will break any law. We have
rapists all over the country. However, the law still serves to
deter rape because that is an activity that the vast majority of
people would not engage in, so those who do can be effectively
isolated.
Prohibition is only doomed when it is aimed at an activity that is
sufficiently commonplace that its participants cannot be
effectively isolated from ordinary people. There is no question
among 10 out of 10 citizens of Chicago that they side with the
police over the rapists; however, in 1928, somewhere between 3 and
9 of any 10 Chicagoites sided with the bootleggers over the
police.
|2.8.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Some suspect he does not want to look as if he comes from a
backward state.
Because it so severely damaged those also-rans Bush, Clinton, and
Carter...
|2.8.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Yes, I'm sure we're all deeply angered by this curtailing of our basic right to have animals tear each other apart in a bloodthirsty ritual. Good call, Nick!
Charlie|2.8.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Cockfighting is cruel and barbaric. NM is right to outlaw this
redneck bullshit.
I'm going to KFC now for some all-white original recipe.
|2.8.07 @ 11:49AM|#
"Yes, I'm sure we're all deeply angered by this curtailing
of our basic right to have animals tear each other apart in a
bloodthirsty ritual. Good call, Nick!"
So, animals do it in nature, it's all good. Animals do it in sight
of human beings, not good?
Guy Montag|2.8.07 @ 11:52AM|#
You don't have to be an animal rights PETA nut to beleive
that there should be basic limits on animal cruelty.
They appear to be concenting animals. Actually, much more than
concenting, they can't wait to get it on!
How can you be so anti-choice for animals? Must every aspect of
nature fall under some National Socialist control for you?
Next thing you know you will be sending the revenuers after my home
made spirits.
|2.8.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Lamar,
Ever throw your neighbor to a lion? And yet, lions attack humans in
nature.
Once you insert human agency into the process, human moral
responsibility follows.
Those birds didn't find each other and decide to fight to the death
in nature.
Guy Montag|2.8.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Those birds didn't find each other and decide to fight to
the death in nature.
Doesn't Fidel need you by his bedside during these troubling times?
He has not banned it yet either and may welcome your ideas.
Dan T.|2.8.07 @ 11:57AM|#
You'd rather see people get shot than birds fighting? C'mon,
that doesn't even comply with minimum troll standards.
Who said anything about shooting people? I'm just saying that a
SWAT raid is probably going to be more effective in ending this
ghoulish practice than writing tickets.
Guy Montag|2.8.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Some suspect he does not want to look as if he comes from a
backward state.
Cuba has a 100% literacy rate, cock fighting and national
healthcare. It is also run by a Democrat, so I suspect Richardson
is jumping the gun a little here.
|2.8.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Why am I supposed to care about Fidel, again?
Oh, right - because you're a moonbat wingnut.
|2.8.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Fair enough Joe, I just want everybody to be clear that we hate cockfighting because we despise the humans who enjoy it.
|2.8.07 @ 12:10PM|#
OK, but just don't let him make it illegal to put squirrels down your pants for the purposes of gambling.
|2.8.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Silly arguments that we are not free unless cockfights can take place (Gillespie's) do real damage to the worthy struggles against the eroding freedom that is taking place in this country. It is also bad PR and senseless thoughts like this come back to bite a movement in the ass.
Dan T.|2.8.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Silly arguments that we are not free unless cockfights can
take place (Gillespie's) do real damage to the worthy struggles
against the eroding freedom that is taking place in this country.
It is also bad PR and senseless thoughts like this come back to
bite a movement in the ass.
Reason is bad about this sometimes. If being a libertarian means
that you have to support the legalization of animal torture for
human enjoyment then who in their right mind would want to be
considered one?
|2.8.07 @ 12:22PM|#
As I understand, cock fighting is more than simply allowing the birds to act out their mating instincts. They attatch blades to the legs to assure a relatively quick and ugly death. I'm a capital L Libertarian but this pushes my boundaries. Legal or not, this practice deserves social pariah status along with its practitioners. I care not if that makes me a cultural elitist.
xxx|2.8.07 @ 12:29PM|#
ban it. you do not have a right to be cruel to animals. I think it is more of a latin sport than redneck. In NYC, there are many underground cockfights run by dominicans and others.
|2.8.07 @ 12:31PM|#
"Fair enough Joe, I just want everybody to be clear that we hate
cockfighting because we despise the humans who enjoy it."
I don't know why YOU oppose cockfighting. Lamar. You can despise
anyone you want, for whatever reason you want.
I oppose cockfighting because it violates the rights of the animals
that suffer and die. I don't oppose cockfighting because of how I
feel about the sick bastards who watch it; I feel as I do about
said sick bastards because I oppose cockfighting.
|2.8.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Lamar,
You only oppose torture because you hate the people who practice
it.
You only oppose environmental regulation because of your personal
animosity towards air quality scientists.
You demean yourself and the debate by interjecting with such a
vacuous and unwarranted ad homenim.
|2.8.07 @ 12:37PM|#
joe:
Why do chickens need "rights"?
It isn't enough to simply say that torturing animals just for the
sake of "entertainment" is wrong?
|2.8.07 @ 12:40PM|#
I oppose cockfighting because it violates the rights of the
animals that suffer and die.
While I dislike cockfighting, I'd like you to demonstrate why a
chicken has rights.
Charles|2.8.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Surely, surely, surely Nick Gillespie, you are being ironic, right? A little po-mo parodying of sometimes overzealous libertarian rhetoric? Please tell us that you are.
|2.8.07 @ 1:20PM|#
"You only oppose torture because you hate the people who
practice it."
No, I oppose torture because it infringes on the rights of a
person.
"You only oppose environmental regulation because of your
personal animosity towards air quality scientists."
To the extent that I oppose environmental regulation, it is based
on harm to humans.
Cock-fighting does not infringe on the rights of humans. My point
is that in the regulation of morals, we are not all on the same
page.
Guy Montag|2.8.07 @ 1:32PM|#
They attatch blades to the legs to assure a relatively quick
and ugly death.
If the humans were not there to help the roosters they would never
get the blasted things on. Newsflash: gamecocks do not have
opposing thumbs!
Issues like this really flush you anti-animal rights folk out of
the shrubbery.
Guy Montag|2.8.07 @ 1:35PM|#
BTW, I was in Miami for over two weeks and never heard of a cockfight there, so these big brother measures must be working! LOL
|2.8.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Yeah, slaughter is pretty gross, but it's still not in the same category as killing animals for fun.
|2.8.07 @ 2:17PM|#
MNG, AC,
Why would torturing them for entertainment be wrong, if they didn't
have rights?
Lamar,
I agree we are not on the same page, but your point went well
beyond that, to accusing me of opposing cockfighting based on
elitist hostility to a certain grouop of people, and you don't have
a leg to stand on with that argument.
"I'm glad we're all vegetarians and not hypocrites, too." I don't
object to killing animals humanely. I object to torturing them. Not
all slaughter is created equal, and I boycott factory farm meat for
exactly that reason.
Bask in righteousness! You, at the end - you're not basking!
dhex|2.8.07 @ 2:22PM|#
"Why would torturing them for entertainment be wrong, if they
didn't have rights?"
because of the human emotional reaction to it?
it's a thin line that's obvious to people and invisible to the
other participants, i think.
|2.8.07 @ 2:45PM|#
joe:
Inflicting pain on lesser beings for no other reason than
entertainment is nothing less than cruelty. One can be
compassionate towards animals and not grant them "rights".
In fact, giving "rights" to animals is dangerous. This fuels the
fanaticism of animal rights groups who terrorize scientists who
experiment on them.
Guy Montag|2.8.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Yeah, slaughter is pretty gross, but it's still not in the
same category as killing animals for fun.
So, if the person at the Tyson's plant enjoys his job he should be
fined or jailed? Sorry, I am not going along with you on this
one.
Will I be bad when I go wild bore hunting just for the mount, but
give the meat away to the ever growing number of people I know who
want some of it?
Mr. Nice Guy,
Are hunting shows cruel? Would I be a cruel person if I filmed my
hunting trip?
Oh, to the others not quoted or mentioned in this post, I am
missing your outrage to the PETA "Meet your Meat" movie.
Note: I am pretty pissed that I did not get to go hunting on my
Miami trip.
stephen the goldberger|2.8.07 @ 2:51PM|#
instead of having two animals fight each other, why don't we just climb on top of some of them and whip them repeatedly to make them go in circles repeatedly for our amusement.
|2.8.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Inflicting pain on lesser beings for no other reason than
entertainment is nothing less than cruelty.
And considering serial killers tend to start by torturing animals,
I think there's serious cause for concern, even if it is a slippery
slope kind of argument.
|2.8.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Actually, Joe, I think that is what a lot of people base their "anti-cruelty" stance upon. Personally, I don't find chickens cute enough to have rights.
Guy Montag|2.8.07 @ 3:08PM|#
And considering serial killers tend to start by torturing
animals, I think there's serious cause for concern, even if it is a
slippery slope kind of argument.
I suspect a silly rumor by the anti-animal-rights camp.
Roosters should be free to fight!
|2.8.07 @ 3:33PM|#
if the person at the Tyson's plant enjoys his job he should
be fined or jailed?
I don't know if a human being is killing the animals at the Tyson's
plant, but if the guy is taking pleasure from his act of killing
that is his problem alone. If he is deliberately bringing
unnecessary suffering to the animals then yes, he should be fined
or jailed.
|2.8.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Why would torturing them for entertainment be wrong, if they
didn't have rights?
Who said it was wrong? I said I dislike it. There are many things I
dislike, but that doesn't make them wrong.
Guy Montag|2.8.07 @ 3:39PM|#
I don't know if a human being is killing the animals at the
Tyson's plant,
We only eat suicide chickens? Somehow I feel the need for more
evidence.
|2.8.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Mistah Niceguy,
One can be compassionate towards animals without recognizing that
they've got rights, but one cannot insist that other are bound to
show compassion if there is no higher reason than the feelings of
the one who does or does not torture the animal.
The morality of torturing an animal cannot possibly depend on how
it makes this person or that person feel.
"In fact, giving "rights" to animals is dangerous. This fuels the
fanaticism of animal rights groups who terrorize scientists who
experiment on them." One could say the same about giving "rights"
to peasants in France circa 1790. Fanatical political movements can
arise for all sorts of reasons.
|2.8.07 @ 3:50PM|#
We kill the chickens, and the rightness or wrongness of it depends on whether we enjoy it.
|2.8.07 @ 3:53PM|#
swillfredo,
"If he is deliberately bringing unnecessary suffering to the
animals then yes, he should be fined or jailed."
What if the unnecesary suffering is inherent to the process around
which the plant was designed, and the employees therein have no
ability to meaningfully decrease it?
Would the CEO of Tyson's deserve prison?
How about the shareholders?
|2.8.07 @ 3:59PM|#
AC wrote:
> While I dislike cockfighting, I'd like
> you to demonstrate why a chicken has rights.
AC, I'd like you to demonstrate why humans have rights.
Because we *confer* them, that's why. And as sentient beings,
chickens deserve no less.
Unless you are prepared to argue that, should an advanced species
appear on earth, your rights should disappear and you may be forced
into personal combat against your will.
|2.8.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Because we *confer* them, that's why. And as sentient
beings, chickens deserve no less.
When chickens recognize my rights, I will recognize theirs.
Clearly, sentience isn't enough.
|2.8.07 @ 4:06PM|#
We only eat suicide chickens?
I am blissfully ignorant of the activity on the killing floor, with
chickens I would assume that a machine would be more
efficient.
Don't let the name throw you Jimmy. It's not really a floor, it's
more of a steel grating that allows material to sluice through so
it can be collected and exported.
What if the unnecesary suffering is inherent to the process
around which the plant was designed, and the employees therein have
no ability to meaningfully decrease it?
The issue was what to do with an individual who took pleasure in
bringing unnecessary suffering to an animal (well not exactly but
that is how I chose to frame it). If you can make an argument that
the killing process brings unnecessary suffering (i.e. suffering
above and beyond that normal in parting ways with one's head), and
can be ameliorated with reasonable cost, then I think the plant
should be obligated to make the change, and refusal to do so should
result in consequences for the owners. The devil in the details is
what exactly constitutes reasonable suffering. I have no trouble
admitting that if I had to kill and gut my own food the only meat I
would eat would be fish and fowl. I could not look a mammal in the
eye and kill it, but I will pay someone else to do it. Division of
labor and all of that.
|2.8.07 @ 4:21PM|#
AC wrote:
> When chickens recognize my rights, I will
> recognize theirs.
In fact, I do think chickens recognize your rights. Almost all
animals, domestic or wild, recognize your right to be left alone.
Animals always leave other animals alone, unless they are pursueing
them for food. And pursueing chickens for food isn't what we're
talking about here.
And you didn't answer: if an advanced species appear were to appear
on earth, should your rights disappear and may you be forced into
personal combat against your will?
|2.8.07 @ 4:28PM|#
AC, Lamar;
You guys seem to be stuck on they are chickens and we eat them
anyways train of thought.
What it these were cats? dogs ? etc, Where do you draw the line?
Should a person who enjoys torturing small animals by setting them
on fire or otherwise mutilating them not go to jail? What if the
animal in question is the torturer's pet? Do you beleive that the
various 'cruelty to animals' regulations are frivoulous and
unnecessary?
|2.8.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Side note:
We will know the liberty state initiative (or what the hell ever it
is called) has succeeded when New Hampshire legalizes cock
fighting.
And we will know America is now a libertarian utopia when
Washington state relegalizes horse fucking.
|2.8.07 @ 4:54PM|#
What it these were cats? dogs ? etc, Where do you draw the
line? Should a person who enjoys torturing small animals by setting
them on fire or otherwise mutilating them not go to jail? What if
the animal in question is the torturer's pet? Do you beleive that
the various 'cruelty to animals' regulations are frivoulous and
unnecessary?
Wait who owns the small animal you are setting on fire?
|2.8.07 @ 4:57PM|#
What it these were cats? dogs ? etc
No difference that I can see. They're no more rational actors than
chickens are.
Where do you draw the line?
At rational actors, or at least potential rational actors.
Should a person who enjoys torturing small animals by setting
them on fire or otherwise mutilating them not go to jail? What if
the animal in question is the torturer's pet? Do you beleive that
the various 'cruelty to animals' regulations are frivoulous and
unnecessary?
Cruelty to animals makes me sick. However, why should my visceral
reaction be translated into law?
|2.8.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Apparently I watched too much Star Trek as a child, because I was under the impression that "sentient" only applied to animals that could think.
|2.8.07 @ 5:00PM|#
"What it these were cats? dogs ? etc,"
I tend to think the same for all animals. However, my point is that
people's sense of where the line should be drawn is directly
proportional to how cute the animal is. That's why we say
cockfighting people are sickos, but we worry about the dog when it
gets abused.
"Where do you draw the line?"
Monkeys and marine mammals. Not sure why.
"Should a person who enjoys torturing small animals by setting
them on fire or otherwise mutilating them not go to
jail?"
Like frying ants with a magnifying glass?
|2.8.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Funny story: I work for a federally funded research and
development center and we have people that have worked with the
Department of Agriculture on controlling the spread of avian
disease. (It spreads a lot through chickens for a lot of reasons,
some of which are very gross.)
Cockfighting can be a problem when it comes to the spread of avian
disease. Newcastle disease spread in California in 2002 precisely
because of cockfighting. So you might think that there's an
argument for banning cockfighting.
But here's the twist. Cockfighting,as we know, is legal in New
Mexico, but a lot of the gambling on cockfighting is controlled by
organized crime in New Mexico. When New Mexico was threatened by
Newcastle disease, the organized criminals, not wanting to kill the
cocks that lay the golden eggs, were very cooperative with public
health officials (through intermediaries of course) about
preventing the spread of Newcastle disease. They'd cancel matches
and such based on input from federal public health officials to
prevent the spread of the disease.
So I think there are some things we can learn from this.
Generally, libertarians are most right in their opposition to
outright bans. A ban, after all is an attempt to implement a tax of
infinity, and infinite taxes are rarely the optimal tax (except for
a very narrow range of activities). Bans most often create a
disconnect and opposition between government and civil
society.
I think libertarians tend to underestimate the complementary roles
that governments and civil society play. Without the information
from federal public health officials, the cockfighters would not
have know when to cancel cockfights, and the disease would have
spread. Government, even beyond an extremely limited role, plays a
vital role in expanding and enabling civil society.
And Richardson's not doing anybody any favors by trying to ban
cockfighting.
Charles|2.8.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Who gives a goddamn about the taxes? I mean, this is animal cruelty. That this is even an issue says terrible, terrible things about the libertarian movement and the people in it (which I count myself among).
|2.8.07 @ 9:08PM|#
Has anyone bothered to ask the cocks how they feel
about this?
I own a cock, as it happens. It's a hard, lean cock. A
bantam red. Feisty. Full of spunk.
And it's just itchin' for action. I defy any of you to look my cock
in the eye and say otherwise.
What's more, I'll put my cock up against yours any day of the
week!
|2.8.07 @ 9:27PM|#
And Richardson's not doing anybody any favors by trying to
ban cockfighting.
He's doing his presidential aspirations a favor. Richardson is a
political whore, and a petty tyrant. Look up the book "Frozen
Lightning" sometime.
|2.9.07 @ 8:20AM|#
Guy:
I would say that hunting shows serve some good by instructing folks
how to be safe, and to hopefully make cleaner (thus more humane)
kills.
The biggest problem I have with hunting is the amatuer factor. I
don't like the idea of city boys getting pissed drunk and then
shooting anything that moves. I'm sure real hunters have a beef
about this, too.
I think a hunter should have a basic reverence towards life and the
natural world. I think they should always strive to make clean
kills, and know how to track so the animal isn't suffering
needlessly. I would hate to shoot something, have it run off, and
know it's somewhere slowly bleeding to death.
I think a hunter should make the best possible use of their kills
(eating and clothing) besides putting some head on a wall.
I think it's ridiculous someone would sneak up on a bear taking a
crap, shoot it from 2,000 yards away, and then stuff it making it
look like its last moment was in pitched battle with the
hunter.
|2.9.07 @ 8:47AM|#
(Gross Alert)
I know first-hand what happens in a chicken processing plant. The
birds are strung up upside-down on a conveyer belt. Obviously, they
don't seem to enjoy this, but this is the way chickens have been
handled for thousands of years (grabbing by feet and carrying
upside-down).
They first go through a machine that administers an electric shock,
supposedly stunning them. They then go through a decapitator that
makes quick work of them (you can't see this happening because it's
inside a machine).
As far as workers "enjoying" seeing this, nothing could be further
from the truth (from what I've seen). The packing side of the plant
was bright, bustling and lively, and people smiled. However, the
slaughter side was a complete ghost town. They keep it almost
pitch-black because this supposedly calms the birds. There were
only a handful of workers who tied the feet and hung up the birds
on the conveyer belt. Otherwise, there was not a soul there.
Federal and local agencies are charged to ensure humane handling,
from transport to dispatch, and it seems adequate from my
observations. However, I am not 100% happy with it.
That's why I think processors who market a higher standard of
raising and dispatch is a very good thing, and people who have the
resouces to support them is getting something of real value. Plus
the more popular these alternatives get, the cheaper they'll become
(from demand and innovations), and it would be good all around.
|2.9.07 @ 9:59AM|#
rational actors, or at least potential rational
actors.
The severely retarded and/or mentaly disabled are fair game by your
reasoning then. PPV-Event: Retard Rumble?
Like frying ants with a magnifying glass?
Well for one those are insects. They are also pests. And if I had
kids I would definetely discourage that behavior.
Cruelty to animals makes me sick. However, why should my
visceral reaction be translated into law?
The law should have zero to do with you visceral reaction, it's
there to protect the animal.
You know the general libertarian concensus is that laws should only
be in place to prevent harm to others. Regulations and such only
where the market and individualistic forces cannot self-regulate.
How would you propose we deal with Animal Abuse if not through the
judicial system?
|2.9.07 @ 10:53AM|#
val says: Well for one those are insects. They are also
pests.
"Pests" is kind of vague, and includes some children.
And what difference does it make if they're insects? They still
fall under Kingdom Animalia (as do sponges). I could just as easily
defend cockfighting with, "Well for one those are birds." How is
that line in the sand any less arbitrary than yours?
Guy Montag|2.9.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
I don't like the idea of city boys getting pissed drunk and
then shooting anything that moves.
I don't like the urban urchins driving my Jeep either, but that
somehow made me a Nazi (oops, KKK member) in Manhattan. Discussed
in a thread weeks or months ago. Anyway, nobody should be unsafe
with deadly tools.
I think they should always strive to make clean kills, and know
how to track so the animal isn't suffering needlessly.
Thank goodness the only thing I plan on 'hunting' will be hunting
me as soon as I get into it's territory. I will be defending,
hopefully better than the Bears did last weekend.
Yes, the mount will be in scary mode, no matter what the look on
his face was when the 12 GA slug when into his body.
On the chicken killing process, your chicken plant example sounds
like the chickens are reluctant. In a rooster fight, the roosters
appear quite excited to go beat the crap out of each other.
Certainly no shyness about the event from them.
Sounds like cockfights are more 'humane' and 'natural' than a
Tyson's plant. Thanks for clearing things up!
|2.9.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Pests as in the kind you exterminate enmasse when they invade
your domicile. Could still be some kids.
I mean animals as in CHORDATES, backbone on the inside skin on the
outside.
And yes Im aware that the line is fairly arbitrary. Like I said in
my earlier post are the severely retarded fair game? If not, why?
Because you chose to draw a line at species rather then my line at
sub-phylum?
|2.9.07 @ 2:05PM|#
If phylum chordata is the arbitrary line, fishing is out the
door.
Thats fine, fishing is boring anyways. But seriosuly I wasnt
talking about consuming animals for food etc... I was refering to
torturing animals simply for the sakes of torturing them.
Monkeys and marine mammals. Not sure why
Pffft, at least my line is nice and straight, your is all squiggly
and shit.
A serious question for you, do you beleive we should strike all
'Animal Cruelty' laws from the books?
|2.9.07 @ 4:09PM|#
It needs to be debated. I don't know the answer, and I'm pretty sure my line wouldn't be the majority line. However, I see no acknowledgement that animals are both beings and property. I see no philosophical foundation to guide us on the questions of "why protect a hummingbird but not a hummingbird moth" etc. I also don't see a consistent practical foundation. I think "animal cruelty" hinges on how cute an animal is and how "redneck" we think the person is. There's too much subjective feeling in the debate. Take the horse eating example. Some humans have developed an emotion bond with the horse. Other humans have financial interest in the horse. Neither is pure, e.g., people with emotional attachments also have financial interest and vice versa. However, their interests are in conflict because serving the interests of person 1 harms person 2. Animal cruelty laws can easily venture into that terrority.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245