4 Mar
Kentucky Animal Cruelty statutes
Okay, Since I seem to be having to repeat myself in the comments I might as well get a post out of this.
Back in the post titled -More examples of “who are you going to call” – I cited a “gamefowl” (trying to limit the pron searches) fighting ring that was exposed by the Humane Society and the incredible fact that a Kentucky State Police Officer and a local constable were filmed watching the fights.
Since then, I’ve raised the dander of several people trying to convince me I don’t know how to read.
Such as this comment from Kevin:
it is shear ignorance of the masses that puts this dribble on this blog , the cops were at the cockfight to keep order and while jp goodwin states it is illegal in ky to fight chickens the current law only protects a 4 legged animal , so cockfighting isnt lawfully punishable in the state
The claim is that the current law only protects 4 legged animals, so let’s turn to the actual statutes
525.125 Cruelty to animals in the first degree.
(1) The following persons are guilty of cruelty to animals in the first degree whenever a four-legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit:
(a) The owner of the animal;
(b) The owner of the property on which the fight is conducted if the owner knows of the fight;
(c) Anyone who participates in the organization of the fight.
Okay, so 525.125 does address four legged animals and calls it cruelty to animals in the first degree. And states
Cruelty to animals in the first degree is a Class D felony.
That is where the commenters seem to be getting hung up and focused on but there are other statutes that need to be considered, such as
525.130 Cruelty to animals in the second degree — Exemptions.
(1) A person is guilty of cruelty to animals in the second degree when except as authorized by law he intentionally or wantonly:
(a) Subjects any animal to or causes cruel or injurious mistreatment through abandonment, participates other than as provided in KRS 525.125 in causing it to fight for pleasure or profit (including, but not limited to being a spectator or vendor at an event where a four (4) legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit), mutilation, beating, torturing any animal other than a dog or cat, tormenting, failing to provide adequate food, drink, space, or health care, or by any other means;
Now there are several sections of this so let’s break it down
Subjects any animal to or causes cruel or injurious mistreatment through abandonment, participates other than as provided in KRS 525.125 in causing it to fight for pleasure or profit
1. Subjects any animal — there is no limit on the number of legs in this one. The difference is that 4 legs equals 1st degree, more or less then 4 legs equals 2nd degree.
2. So a person who participates other than as provided for in KRS525.125 — the section dealing with 4 legged animals — in causing it to fight for pleasure or profit is guilty of a crime.
3. 525.125 does not “override” 525.130 they are complementary statutes. One deals with 4 legged animals and the other deals with non-4 legged animals.
Get that people, please try to get that. Or explain to me why the statutes are written that way?
Why not just say that it is wrong to fight 4 legged animals, then say nothing about any other animal?
Because they realized that gamefowl and other animal fights should also be illegal and they added a section to cover it.
Note this does not address the spectators of any fight for any non-4 legged animal.
As for as I can tell, there is no specific statute or penalty for being a spectator at a non-4 legged animal fight.
Although the case could be made that being a spectator is participating in ‘causing it to fight’.
From the source cited comes the dismissal of several hundred citations for being spectators
Montgomery District Judge William Lane recently threw out charges against more than 500 people who were issued citations after a raid of a cockfighting operation in April. Lane said that the state statute cited by prosecutors which bans attendance at cockfights was ambiguous and could not sustain the charges against those cited.
The problem appears to be with a practice that is quite common and usually drives animal rights activists through the roof. The statute cited as banning cockfighting is quite clear that it is illegal for spectators and vendors to appear,
. . . at an event where a four (4) legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit.
To my non-lawyer eye, it appears the prosecutors are citing the wrong statute 525.125 instead of the correct one 525.130
To me the judge is right because of this section
(including, but not limited to being a spectator or vendor at an event where a four (4) legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit),
That lets the spectators off the hook, because they are not watching a 4 legged animal fight. But causing chickens to fight is clearly illegal.
Note the article didn’t mention that the organizers or the owners of the birds were let off the hook, only the spectators.
Now, I don’t have a strong opinion the constitutionality of laws regarding animal fights.
I think it is cruel, barbaric and idiotic.
I don’t think it is a “sport”.
I wouldn’t watch it, I wouldn’t participate in it and I probably wouldn’t stay friends with people who did.
That said, there are many things I completely disagree with that shouldn’t be against the law.
The people who engage in this are practicing cruelty to animals, but they are their animals.
Do they have a right to do it?
I think that just because someone has a right to be cruel to animals doesn’t mean they should.
What do you think? Join the discussion.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 04.03.10 at 11:48 AM
The really odd thing about rooster fighting (heh pr0n!) is that Roosters by nature will fight each other to death. From people who raise chickens I guess it’s fairly common to have one rooster kill another in a dominance contest.
So what’s the big deal of adding spectators around what’s generally going to happen anyway?
Just make sure to have some batter and hot grease nearby, is all I’m sayin’.
Posted by Bob S. on 04.03.10 at 11:48 AM
Weer’d,
If it was just nature taking its course and people were watching, i might not have a problem with it.
What I don’t get is the training/conditioning that is done to make them want to fight or to fight better.
Again, I’m ambivalent about it. Not my cup of tea but I’m not the owner of the animals.
Batter and hot grease, sounds like a good end but how tough are those birds at that point? Not sure if they would be fit for a meal
Posted by Tony on 04.03.10 at 11:48 AM
Young roosters do taste good. Most people that raise chickens cull the roosters, and they don’t teach them to fight, but sure do eat them.
See Ya
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 04.03.10 at 11:48 AM
yeah I’d imagine the cortisol and lactic acid from fighting would make the meat stringy and gamey.
Posted by Paladin on 04.03.10 at 11:48 AM
You and I are pretty much on the same page on this issue. Part of my job, of course, is to enforce anti-cruelty laws and investigate instances of potential animal fighting activity. The Kentucky law is pretty clear. People tend to stop reading, though, once they get to the part that supports their particular stance
. I see that all the time in my work, too.
Animal fighting is “bad” (i.e. not desireable behavior), in my opinion. Criminalizing it is not the preferable way of dealing with the situation, though. Might seem like an odd stance coming from someone that does what I do, but there ya go. I certainly don’t let my “opinion” get in the way of enforcing the law as it is written.
As an aside: I’ve seem some pretty interesting images and stories coming out of Afghanistan in recent months in regards to animal fighting. Its a huge cultural thing there. They fight all sorts of stuff – not just dogs and c*cks, but sheep and goats too! I’ll do a post on it some time.
Oddly enough, the Taliban BANNED animal fighting when in power. It’s only since they have been pushed out of areas they controled that the practice has come back full force – now that the people living there are free to do so.
That sort of thing makes you think…. don’t it?