Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 20 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Louisiana outlaws cockfights
Published Sunday, August 10, 2008
BATON ROUGE (AP) — Gory and bucolic all at once, cockfights have drawn crowds to small-time pits and full-blown arenas in towns around Louisiana for generations. By next week, they’ll be against the law. Everywhere.
On Friday, Louisiana will become the last state to outlaw the rooster fights, a move that cockfighting enthusiasts say marks the end of a rich rural tradition.
‘‘The culture, the custom of the Cajun people, it’s gone,’’ said Chris Daughdrill, who breeds fighting roosters in Loranger (lor-AHN-zher), a community about 50 miles north of New Orleans. ‘‘It’s another one of the rights that big government has taken away from the people.’’
Maybe so, but supporters and opponents agree that the blood sport won’t be wiped out entirely. Like bootlegging, cockfights will continue on the sly, and getting caught could mean fines or even prison.
‘‘They’re still going to fight, they’re still going to fight for years to come,’’ said Elizabeth Barras, who with husband Dale ran a cockfighting pit in St. Martin Parish for 14 years. ‘‘They’ve still got cockfighting in every state. They just hide it from the law.’’
The fights between specially trained roosters are held in large arenas or in backyards. The birds are fitted with sharp metal blades or curved spikes on their legs, and instinctively attack each other. The match can last over an hour, with one or both animals dead or maimed.
In banning the fights, Louisiana relented after years of pressure from animal-rights groups. For those willing to travel, cockfighting remains legal on American soil in Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam.
and is popular in Mexico, the Philippines and other foreign countries.
High-profile defenders of cockfighting in Louisiana began softening their stance of the fights after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, seeking to improve the state’s backwards reputation.
Then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco — a native of Cajun country, where the fights have deep roots — signed the ban last year, closing a loophole in state law that excluded chickens from animal cruelty laws. First-time offenders caught participating in cockfights will face maximum $1,000 fines and six-month prison terms.
Though the ban on cockfighting takes effect Friday, it has been illegal since last year to gamble on cockfights — a separate law passed last year as a precursor to the total ban. Wagering is part of cockfighting’s appeal, and the threat of state police raids pushed pit owners to close their businesses, Daughdrill said.
‘‘Cockfighting may still be going on with much smaller venues, in the back woods, but my understanding is there hasn’t been any big activity since the gambling ban’’ took effect, said former lawmaker Art Lentini, who led the push in the Legislature to outlaw rooster fights.
Barras said the gambling ban was the reason for shutting down the Atchafalaya Game Club, a Breaux Bridge pit seating hundreds, that she ran with her husband for more than a decade. She said it wasn’t worth the risk of getting arrested if some of her patrons were caught wagering on the fights.
Congress last year toughened federal animal fighting laws and criminalized commerce in cockfighting weapons — razor-like blades attached to roosters’ legs during fights. Transporting roosters or other animals across state lines for fighting was boosted from a misdemeanor to a felony.
The combination of new federal and state laws has combined to sap Louisiana’s cockfighting industry, which supporters said eliminated what used to be a regular source of business for the state’s hotels, restaurants and feed stores.
Daughdrill, head of the Louisiana Gamefowl Breeders Association, said the number of large, active cockfighting pits has dropped from 20 last year to about six now. Membership in the association — breeders fans and the like — has plummeted roughly 90 percent, from 6,000 last year to 600.
‘‘A lot of people are going to quit. They’re just going to shut down,’’ Daughdrill said.
Billy Duplechein, who raised fighting roosters as a boy and never stopped attending the fights, said the new law will criminalize a rich, generations-old Cajun tradition.
‘‘I think it’s a loss for us,’’ said Duplechein, 38, of St. Martinville. ‘‘We’re losing out on an opportunity to keep our heritage and our culture.’’
There’s reason for him to take heart, however: Daughdrill said he’s attended many illegal cockfights in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi and expects they’ll be held in Louisiana, too.
‘‘In all these other states,’’ he said, ‘‘I can go up there on any given weekend and go to a rooster fight and it’s wide open — like it’s not against the law.’’
Comments
Posted by Kaintuck (anonymous) on August 12, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems strange that this activity would be banned at a time when boxing and ultimate fighting man contests attract growing legions to high dollar pay-for-view television. Contests where humans are pitted against one another for entertainment, with the express purpose of causing physical harm to their opponent, are little changed from the bloodsports popular in Roman colosseums at the time of Christ. How is it acceptable for us to condone watching our fellow men bash each others brains out for entertainment, while we worry about chickens?
Posted by dixiemama (anonymous) on August 12, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(Kaintuck)
I agree but you must remember humans have the choice to fight animals are at the mersey of humans.
Posted by Gimmeabreak (anonymous) on August 12, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
humans can choose to fight or not and they dont fight to the death, oh and they get paid too. Big ol difference. Ultimate fighting is nothing like the Roman Colosseum-those people usually didnt have a choice either-slaves or Christians-and they fought to the death, Ultimate Fighting does not fight to the death. Regarding worrying about chickens-how people treat defenseless animals speaks volumes about their character. This is just my opinion.
Posted by GodsChild (anonymous) on August 13, 2008 at 3:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's about time they outlaw this. Humans have a mind of their own. You know how to choose from doing right from wrong and what to do and what not to do. Animals on other hand know how to protect themselves and only do what they are trained to do. So if we as people would not train them to fight as such, they wouldn't do it.
Plus it's not like the animal is getting paid to fight, the owners are along with the sick individuals that are side betting are.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on August 13, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fighting for sport is a sick way of enjoying a recreation . It's cruel and downright mean !
Posted by southernlady1776 (anonymous) on August 13, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is something to think on... the indians used to scalp people, the italians had people whacked, people were hanged and beheaded but we are all very thankful they no longer do that otherwise we would all be in trouble... sometimes things need to be changed and done away with to protect society as a whole... what might have been common place 200 years ago is no longer accepted and in some cases outlawed ... sometimes the rules do tend to get over exagerated but rules are rules none the less ... just because it was heritage dos not necessarily mean it is a good or acceptable action....
chickens were placed here as a food source for humans not to entertain us... boxing never did make any sense to me... why anyone would get the stuffing beat out of them for a little money is beyound me..
Posted by iconoclast (anonymous) on August 13, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with the last statement by Gimmeabreak. Ghandi said that you could judge the character of a nation by the way it treats animals.
Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on August 14, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Save the chickens.....so we can kill and eat them!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 14, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think anyone who knows how chickens are treated to get their eggs would think that fighting chickens is a big deal.
Fights are a bit brutal, but millions upon millions of chickens are horribly mistreated every moment without a thought of it. I bet a lot of those chickens would love to be free to have a fight.
Don't get me wrong -- I am a peacenik. But this is a hypocritical prohibition of a traditional sport in a culture that cheers on military annihilations, and excuses more "accidental" deaths than terrorists cause in favor of our national economic interests. Many of us also favor the death penalty knowing that mistakes are made.
If I was an average slave chicken I would be an anarchist. They would do better to let me fight than to let me out cuz I would peck the first human I saw in the eye and foment revolution. He,he!
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on August 14, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i love animals...they are delicious.
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on August 15, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know chickens get abused in those slaughterhouses. Why do I get bruised chicken all the time? Or why is its leg broken when I get ready to fry him up? Those poor chickens are getting beat up at the slaughterhouse (ever seen film footage of this? Gross) and then fried to a golden brown in my chicken frying skillet.
Of course they're getting thrown around pre/post death or else the chickens I buy would have bows tied to their tails instead of being bruised and broken.
What's the difference in fighting roosters to the death or slaughtering chickens for us to fry or barbeque? Chickens/roosters are a food product. I'm not for beating on chickens, but goodness, ya gotta kill 'em to eat 'em!
Posted by willis1982 (anonymous) on August 15, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not an animal activist and I'm not encouraging cock fights, but I can promise you those chickens used for fights have a much more humane life than those that are used for food purposes. At least they have a chance to live. They are fed well, kept in their own are in a climate controlled environment. From birth, with no "special training" these birds will fight to the death if they are not kept separate.
If you ever went into a chicken house at a poultry farm you might realize that having to fight to the death is a far better sentence than spending your entire life cycle walking in waste and other dead chickens.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't eat chicken. I eat it all the time and I love it. But somewhere there seems to be a disconnect between "Oh those poor birds used for fighting, how inhumane" and "Man this is a good chicken sandwich".
Posted by aak1972 (anonymous) on August 15, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
willis1982 you are so correct. Who is gonna miss a chicken when its gone???? I worked at tyson in the 90's we killed 45,000 every day!!!!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 16, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is how it works --
Legislators find something only a minority engages in that is viewed as "icky" or risky behavior.
They prohibit it. They "sell" it as evil and use public funds to publicize their position.
This silences the opposition lest they bring scrutiny upon themselves. Dumbest citizens figure if they made it illegal it must be bad.
State employees, lawyers, prison owners, etc make money on the process. Legislators get re-elected.
Legislature proves they get tough on evil.
Activity becomes more evil the longer the prohibition stands.
Taxpayers pay, life becomes drabber and more politically correct.
Nobody does this worse than conservatives who say they stand for freedom.
Posted by ice_empress (anonymous) on August 16, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Louisiana, welcome to the 21 century.
Yes, raising and slaughtering chickens for human consumption creates immense cruelty too. But that does not mean that cockfighting should continue to be legal because it is somewhat less cruel than factory farming. Two evil does not make it right to allow atrocities against living, feeling beings!
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on August 16, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alright yall...let's cut out chickens...that's just too dadgum cruel! Cows, too...ever seen how they're slaughtered?
Upon reading the Bible in Genesis, when God told Adam all the critters were his to eat and use for his advantage, I don't remember the part about "now don't eat no chickens, cows, fish, etc...because that would be inhumane to kill 'em. You stay away from killing to eat, Adam." Nope, don't believe it was there. He didn't doom us to forage for roots and berries.
I can't say much on cockfighting...it's not part of my culture. That doesn't make me superior over those who do, though. My mawmaw used to wring chicken's heads off then cook 'em up. That was part of her culture. And she was the most humane lady I ever knew!
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on August 16, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kpage, Please read it again. The Lord God told Adam he could eat the plants, fruits, etc. He told Noah and his family they could eat the animals.
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on August 17, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Old GrandDad...you're right! At first I read it as God gave the plants and fruits...then the animals. I guess in my haste to prove a point, I made a blooper. Thanks. And thanks for urging me to pick up my Bible on this Sunday morning.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on August 17, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kpage, Blessings to you.
Posted by ice_empress (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Good Lord said: "Thou shalt not kill."
He didn't say: "Thou shalt not kill humans."
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)