Thread: Bill would make cockfighting a felony

What are these poor people going to do for entertainment. This is a very big tradition of the Mexican culture we should respect. Actually I'm wondering what happened to PETA. Usually they are all over anything they consider animal abuse.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0, ... rch=filter

Soto bill would make cockfighting a felony


Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - ONTARIO - Cockfighters could find themselves facing felonies and increased prison time if Sacramento lawmakers approve increasing penalties for the illegal sport.

The bill could change the existing law from a misdemeanor to a felony for second and subsequent violators and includes punishments of up to three years in prison and $25,000 in fines.

The state Senate on Tuesday approved the bill 33-2.

The bill, by Sen. Nell Soto, D-Ontario, also increases penalties for owners or trainers of fighting birds.

Because cockfighting isn't a felony in California, people from other states bring their birds here to fight, said David Miller, Soto's spokesman.

Miller said there's also some concern that cockfighting could have led to the 2002 spread of Exotic Newcastle Disease. The contagious and deadly disease affects all bird species.

About 12 million California chickens were killed by the disease when it broke out in the 1970s. When the disease re-emerged in the fall 2002, more than 75,000 back-yard birds were destroyed to prevent it from spreading.



Copy of the bill.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_ ... _comm.html

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair S
2005-2006 Regular Session B

1
5
6
SB 156 (Soto)
As Amended April 11, 2005
Hearing date: April 19, 2005
Penal Code
MK:mc

ANIMAL FIGHTING EXHIBITIONS

HISTORY

Source: Humane Society of the United States

Prior Legislation: SB 732 (Soto) - Ch. 256, Stats. 2003
SB 196 (Knight) - Ch. 422, Stats. 1997
SB 1587 (Roberti) - 1989, not chaptered

Support: California District Attorneys Association; Fresno
Police Department; Animal Legal Defense Fund; Tehama
County Animal Services; Animal Legal and Veterinary
Medical Consulting Services; City of South Lake Tahoe;
Stanislaus County Animal Services; Yolo County
Sheriff's Department; Alameda County Sheriff's Office;
City of Santa Ana Police Department; Contra Costa
County Office of the Sheriff; California Alliance for
Consumer Protection; Contra Costa Humane Society;
California State Sheriffs' Association; Tehama County
Sheriff's Office; State Human Association of
California; Sheriff of El Dorado County; Los Angeles
County Sheriff; 10 individuals

Opposition:California Public Defenders Association; John R.
Cogorno, Attorney at law; Francine Bradley, Ph.D.,
University of California Cooperative Extension Poultry



SB 156 (Soto)
Page 2


Specialist


KEY ISSUES

SHOULD THE PENALTY FOR A FIRST CONVICTION OF CAUSING OR
PERMITTING THE FIGHTING OR WORRYING OF AN ANIMAL BE A ONE YEAR
MISDEMEANOR?

(CONTINUED)



SHOULD THE PENALTY FOR A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION OF CAUSING
OR PERMITTING THE FIGHTING OR WORRYING OF AN ANIMAL BE A FELONY?

SHOULD THE SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION FOR OWNING, POSSESSING,
KEEPING OR TRAINING ANY BIRD OR ANIMAL THAT IS TO BE USED OR ENGAGED
IN AN EXHIBITION OF FIGHTING BE A FELONY?


PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to increase the penalties for
various sections relating to animal fights.

Existing law provides that peace officers do not need a warrant
to enter a building where there is an exhibition of the fighting
of birds or animals or where preparations are being made for
such an exhibition and may arrest all persons present. (Penal
Code 597d.)

Existing law provides that an officer making an arrest at an
animal fight may take possession of all birds or animals and all
paraphernalia, implements or other property related to the
animal fighting. (Penal Code 599aa.)

Existing law provides that it is a felony to own, possess, or
train a dog for the purpose of fighting or to cause dogs to
fight. The penalty is 16 months, 2 or 3 years and/or a



SB 156 (Soto)
Page 3


$50,000 fine. (Penal Code 597.5.)

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to cause, for amusement or
gain, an animal to fight a like or different animal. The
penalty for a first offense is up to one year in county jail
and/or a fine of $5,000. A second or subsequent violation of
this section or Penal Code sections 597c or 597j is a
misdemeanor with a penalty of up to one year in county jail
and/or a fine up to $25,000. (Penal Code 597b.)

This bill makes:
A first offense for the above violation a misdemeanor
punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a
fine not to exceed $5,000.
A second or subsequent violation of the above a felony
with a penalty of 16 months, 2 or 3 years and/or a fine
up to $25,000.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for any person to own,
possess, keep or train any bird or animal with the intent that
such bird or animal shall be engaged in an exhibition of
fighting. The penalty for a first offense is up to one year in
county jail and/or a fine of $5,000. A second or subsequent
violation of this section or Penal Code sections 597b or 597j is
a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to one year in county jail
and/or a fine up to $25,000. (Penal Code 597c.)

This bill deletes the above section and creates a new section
providing that any person who is knowingly present as a
spectator at any place, building or tenement for an exhibition
of animal fighting or who is knowingly present at that
exhibition or is knowingly present where preparations are being
made for a fight is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine
not to exceed $5,000 or by both that imprisonment and fine.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for any person to own,
possess, keep, or train any bird or animal with the intent that
it be used in an exhibition of fighting. The penalty for a
first offense is up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of
$5,000. A second or subsequent violation of this section or



SB 156 (Soto)
Page 4


Penal Code sections 597b or 597c is a misdemeanor with a penalty
of up to one year in county jail and/or a fine up to $25,000.
(Penal Code 597j.)

This bill makes a second or subsequent violation of the above
a felony with a penalty of 16 months, 2 or 3 years and/or a
fine up to $25,000.

COMMENTS

1.Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Cockfighting is an unacceptable form of animal cruelty
that is widely practiced even though it is illegal in
almost all jurisdictions. Cockfighting is illegal in 48
states and in 31 of those states and the District of
Columbia, cockfighting is a felony crime.

In 2003, we passed legislation that increased the
penalties for engaging in this cruel and inhumane
activity. Unfortunately, California's anti-cockfighting
law still lags behind our neighboring states. Arizona,
Nevada and Oregon have established felony-level
penalties for cockfighting, making California, with its
simple misdemeanor-level cockfighting penalties, a
regional refuge for illegal cockfighting activity.

There is an undeniable connection between cockfighting
and other significant issues such as illegal gambling,
drug trafficking, violence toward people and, as
evidenced by the outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease in
2002, the spread of deadly and devastating diseases.

To discourage cockfighters from other states coming to
California, and to stop these cockfighters in the state
from breaking the law, this bill will adopt felony-level
penalties for specified second and subsequent violations
of California's cockfighting laws.



SB 156 (Soto)
Page 5




2. Increased Penalty for Repeat Cockfighting Violations

Existing law provides that all the following are misdemeanors
with a penalty of up to one year in jail, a $5,000 fine or both:
Causing a cock to fight;
Permitting a cock to fight on property in a person's
possession or control;
Aiding or abetting in the fighting of a cock;
Owning, possessing, keeping or training any animal or
bird with the intent that the animal shall be engaged in an
exhibition of fighting;
Being present at any place, building or tenement where
preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting
animals with the intent to be present at the fighting;
Being present at an exhibition of fighting animals.
(See Penal Code 597b; 597c and 597j.)

A second or subsequent violation of any of the above is a
misdemeanor with a penalty up to one year in the county jail and
a fine of $25,000 or both.

The existing penalties for cock-fighting took effect on
January 1, 2004, with the enactment of SB 732 (Soto) Chapter
256, Statutes 2003. Prior to that bill the penalty was a six
month misdemeanor.

This bill would make the second or subsequent violation of Penal
Code sections 597b or 597j a felony punishable by 16 months, 2
or 3 years in county jail, a $25,000 fine, or both.

This bill also separates spectators into a separate section and
provides that a person providing that any person who is
knowingly present as a spectator at any place, building or
tenement for an exhibition of animal fighting or who is
knowingly present at that exhibition or is knowingly present
where preparations are being made for a fight is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000 or by both
that imprisonment and fine.


SB 156 (Soto)
Page 6



IS A YEAR ENOUGH TIME TO SEE IF THE PENALTY INCREASES THAT TOOK
EFFECT IN 2004 ARE A SUFFICIENT DETERRENT?

SHOULD A PERSON WITH A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION FOR A
COCK-FIGHTING RELATED OFFENSE BE SUBJECT TO A FELONY?

3. Arguments in Support

The supporters argue that cockfighting is an "unacceptable act
of animal cruelty." The supporters further argue that even with
the increased penalties that took effect in January 2004, the
current penalties for cockfighting are not a sufficient
deterrent in part because neighboring states have higher
penalties. The Fresno Police Department states:

It is clear from the number of raids on illegal
cockfighting operations in California in 2004 and so
far this year that the existing misdemeanor
penalties do not serve as a sufficient deterrent. I
am therefore appreciative of your efforts in seeing
that California adopts felony-level penalties for
specified second and subsequent offenses. I believe
the enactment of felony legislation will provide
sufficient deterrent to curb such illegal conduct.

4. Arguments in Opposition

The opposition argues that cockfighting is culturally ingrained
in many immigrant communities and that they do not realize it is
a serious offense. They further argue that those who have a
first offense will now be subject to a felony without
understanding the consequences.

Francine A. Bradley, Ph.D., University of California Cooperative
Extension Poultry Specialist also opposes this bill stating:

With the encouragement of Dr. Richard Brietmeyer, our
State Veterinarian, Dr. David Castellan and I have
developed a Game Fowl Health Assurance (GFHA) Program.
Game Fowl breeders across California are voluntarily
testing their flocks for END and Avian Influenza,
attending educational sessions, submitting cull birds
and mortality to our diagnostic labs, and vaccinating
their birds against the Newcastle Disease Virus. We
strongly believe the best approach for having healthy
birds in California is for ALL those who raised birds to
be educated and work together.

5. Three-Strikes

This bill creates a felony for a repeat violation of specified
sections relating to animal fighting. As explained below, the
creation of this new felony expands the reach of the
Three-Strikes law. Since the enactment of the Three-Strikes law
in 1994, a majority of the members of this Committee has been
reluctant to create new felonies for conduct that does not
involve violence.

Under the Three-Strikes law, a defendant with two prior serious
or violent felonies must receive a term of at least 25 years to
life in the sentence for the commission of any new felony.
Where the defendant has a single prior serious or violent
felony, he or she shall receive a doubled term in the sentence
imposed upon conviction of any new felony.


SB 156 (Soto)
Page 8



Where a defendant has been convicted of an alternate felony
misdemeanor that has been charged and prosecuted by the District
Attorney as a felony, the sentencing court has the discretion to
deem the offense to be a misdemeanor pursuant to the decision of
the Court in People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1996) 14
Cal.4th 968 and Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), unless
the court's action is arbitrary and contrary to substantial
justice.

Where a defendant has been convicted of a straight felony, or
where the court has declined to deem a wobbler to be a
misdemeanor, the court's ability to ameliorate the severity of
the Three-Strikes law is much more limited. A court has
discretion to dismiss one or more prior "strikes," but only
where the defendant's record and the current conviction
establish that the defendant should be treated as though he or
she does not fall under the terms of the Three-Strikes law.
(People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th
497-530-531; People v. Williams (199 17 Cal.4th 198.)

6. Technical Amendment

There is a technical amendment. On page 4 line 19 "how" should
be "who."

I'm telling you - Bull Fighting- is going to be next! Then there will be soccor games-but called Futbol. That's a game where everybody kills people, by trampeling all over them to get to the best seats.

Oh great, cockfighting will be a felony, but illegally entering the United States is not even a misdemeanor!

Methinks there is something askew.

As Rush Limbaugh says, if you want to see how animals should be treated, watch how they treat each other in the wild.