Blogging About Critters Since 2007

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Members of Congress Who Support Animals Killing Each Other For Entertainment

Here is a list of the Members of Congress who opposed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act, which was signed into law by our Glorious Leader back on May 3rd. Geez, I bet even Dick Cheney supported this one (does anyone think it would have been signed if he opposed it?).

Ron Paul is one of those that opposed it as well. Maybe someone should ask him on the campaign trail why he supports animals ripping each other apart for fun and profit.

Here is the bill summary:

Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code to impose a fine and/or prison term of up to three years for violations of the Animal Welfare Act relating to: (1) sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture; (2) buying, selling, transporting, delivering, or receiving for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal for participation in an animal fighting venture; and (3) using the mails or other instrumentality of interstate commerce to promote or further an animal fighting venture.

Amends the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit knowingly selling, buying, transporting, or delivering, in interstate or foreign commerce, a knife, a gaffe, or any other sharp instrument for attachment to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture.

Joe Barton Texas District 6
Roy Blunt Missouri District 7
John Boehner Ohio District 8
Dan Boren Oklahoma District 2
Kevin Brady Texas District 8
Chris Cannon Utah District 3
Eric Cantor District 7
Tom Cole Oklahoma District 4
Michael Conaway Texas District 11
David Davis Tennessee District 1
Diaz-Balart, L. Florida District 21
Diaz-Balart, M. Florida District 25
John Doolittle California District 4
Virginia Foxx North Carolina District 5
Scott Garrett NJ District 5
Louis Gohmert Texas District 1
Sam Graves Missouri District 6
Robin Hayes North Carolina District 8
Jeb Hensarling Texas District 5
Ruben Hinojosa Texas District 15
Sam Johnson Texas District 3
Steve King Iowa District 5
Jack Kingston Georgia District1
Doug Lamborn Colorado District 5
John Lewis Kentucky District 5
Frank Lucas Oklahoma District 5
Connie Mack Florida District 14
Randy Neugebauer Texas District 19
Ron Paul Texas District 14
Ted Poe Texas District 2
Mike Rogers Alabama District 3
Bill Sali Idaho District 1
James F Sensenbrenner Wisconsin District 5
Adrian Smith Nebraska District 3
Cliff Stearns Florida District 6
John Sullivan Oklahoma District 1
Mac Thornberry Texas District 13
Lynn Westmoreland Georgia District 3rd
Don Young Alaska At Large


Anonymous said...

Entertainment is outside Federal jurisdiction. Read your constitution.

Anonymous said...

The question is not about entertainment, but about animal cruelty.

As an analogy, surely you'd agree that it should be illegal to conduct a mass murder (which is unquestionably illegal outside the realm of entertainment) expressly for the purpose of filming it to put on television.

If you likewise agree that bloodsports constitute animal cruelty, how can it be acceptable if the purpose is for entertainment?

Anonymous said...

Again, this is outside Federal jurisdiction. It should be left up to the States. You do understand the difference, right?

Anonymous said...

Isn't the act of actually fighting the animals already illegal? why do we need more laws? If there are still fights, isn't that an enforcement problem? Or is this another "War on XYZ" where we'll pile on legislation to give the illusion that we care about a problem without actually having to show any results?

Anonymous said...

I ran against Bill Sali in Idaho and will do so again. He voted against this legislation for the reasons stated by some of these posters (why are they anonymous?) that he thought it was a state crime and the feds should butt out. Idaho is one of the few states where dogfighting is only a misdemeanor.

The reason for federal law in this case is the interstate nature of the crime, not only the crossing of state lines for the actual fighting or transportation of animals, but the gambling and gang-related violence that goes along with this kind of activity. The sheriff's association and many police organizations supported the bill. They want federal assistance in prosecuting this kind of cruelty.

Dan B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan B said...

"Idaho is one of the few states where dogfighting is only a misdemeanor."

Sounds like an Idaho problem to me... You can't get the legislation passed at home so you need to add to the pile of laws at the federal level? sounds lazy to me.

Anonymous said...

Voting with Bill Sali against the Federal Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act was Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-5th CD), who like Bill Sali, won his primary race after being endorsed by the Club for Growth who slimed and smeared their opponents in the primary, and both of whom have been voting with the Club for Growth on legislation most Americans would take for granted as being prudent to support, not attempt to defeat. Take this as a partial example. Some in the Great Lakes area might say the only Colorado Congressman in favor of polluting the Great Lakes would be Doug Lamborn. This week, in House Congressional Resolution 187, Expressing the Sense of Congress regarding the dumping of industrial waste into the Great Lakes, 6 of Colorado's 7 Congressman voted in favor of the resolution, with Lamborn being the only one voting against it. 162 Republicans voted for the bill. Only 26 Republicans voted against it, including Doug Lamborn. H. Con. Res. 187 recognizes the importance of the Great Lakes as the largest surface freshwater system on earth, and source of drinking water for 30 million Americans. The resolution also recognized the serious problem of ammonia pollution in the Great Lakes, creating dead zones and fouling lake beaches. Finally, the resolution called upon the STATE OF INDIANA to stop the plan of British Petroleum to dump 1,584 pounds of ammonia into Lake Michigan every day. Note that Bill Sali was "present" but did not vote on the bill. Why? I submit that he was not wanting to anger Congressman Mike Pence, a rabid Club for Growth Congressman from INDIANA, but Doug Lamborn was willing to vote openly against the resolution to curry favor with the Club for Growth.

Anonymous said...

So if someone doesn't support the legislation he/she is automatically FOR Dog / animal fighting.

Its that kind of logic that gets us into trouble in the US.

Either you are for/against abortion.

Either you are for/against flag burning.

Either you are for/against immigration policies.

Either you are for/against the poor

The list can continue ad infinitum.

If we want the federal government to be in charge of everything, lets just get rid of City Councils, County Comm./Parish leaders/aldermen, State Representatives and Governors etc.

Wouldn't that make everything easier? My goodness, these guys and gals can't do it without the Feds already interfering now, we just as well take them out of the loop.

Needless to say, thats about as dumb as the feds interfering in states when it comes to animal fighting

Anonymous said...

This is an issue for the states and not for the general government (federal). Ron Paul ALWAYS votes against unconstitutional bills, no matter how noble they may be. If you want such laws, see your state legislature!

Anonymous said...

Federalism is a cool concept that is outlined in the constitution and one that Ron Paul fervently supports.

Perhaps we should pay attention to the Constitution? The states were given the power to pass laws against this kind of stuff for a reason.

Anonymous said...

Well, sometimes the Federal Government needs to step in on issues. You can't always leave things to the States because progress is slow and then you have unequal rights in different states.

We fought a civil war over federalism and the Federal Government won. Whatever anyone says, this war started over the the power of the Federal Government vs. States Rights and not over the abolition of slavery.

In this case, it was a very good thing that the Federal Government won because otherwise slavery would have continued in some states and not in others. Looking back, I think we all agree that the decision should not have taken as long as it did. But at the time, a major obstacle to stepping in was the protection of State Rights.

So, in other words, sometimes you can't just devolve issues to the States. On certain issues, you need to govern from the top. It's a matter of determining what those issues are.


Anonymous said...

Thank goodness people in Texas can influence the all-powerful Federal Govenrment to prohibit local matters like same-sex union in places like San Francisco.

All hail Federalism!

blog stats