Cockfighting...

The Facts | The Hillbillies | The Humane Society's Reaction

The Facts

Steve King is actively opposing a bill now before Congress to crack down on staged animal fighting. The bill would upgrade penalties for the crime of shipping animals across state lines for staged dogfights and cockfights – contests in which the animals are placed in pits to tear one another apart for the amusement and illegal wagering of spectators.

Why? King, said he would not support any animal welfare legislation until Roe v. Wade is overturned. To outlaw animal cruelty while abortion is still legal “diminishes human life, and for that reason I will be opposing this bill.”

And, of course, Steve King is one of the favorite members of congress of the pro-cockfighting lobbying group CHETA.

The Hillbillies

Steve King's Beverly Hillbillies
Don't Reflect Iowa's Values

Looks like Iowa Representative Steve King is hell bent on heading up the hill to join Uncle Jed and Jethro for a little R & R – (wink wink). You know, dem der hills where y'all can place bets on cockfighting. Ah shoot, Uncle Jed, don't you worry 'bout havin' no money for dem bets. I gots plenty right here, thanks to my good friends with CHETA. No Jethro, not them monkeys. I'm talkin' about Citizens for the Humane and Ethical Treatment of Animals.

What's that, Miss Ellie May? You thought them folks was "fur" them critters bein' treated kindly? Well, Miss Ellie May, ain't you just a card! Don'tchu know nothin' 'bout how we name our PACs 'round these parts? Whaddya mean what's a PAC? Dadburned, Ellie May, if that don't beat all. I never knowed you had such a sense of humor! Now, what'd you say Granny done with her checkbook?

Iowa Representative Steve King has said he will not support any animal welfare legislation until Roe v. Wade is overturned. Excuse me? Isn't this somewhat of an oxymoronic statement? I mean, King is a republican, and they're the ones who will ensure Roe v. Wade NEVER gets overturned. (And risk losing all those single-issue voters?) I mean, let's be realistic, folks. If they didn't have that to use as a wedge issue, voters might (gulp) actually start paying attention to what and whom the R-Rated Party really stands for. (Sorry Uncle Jed and Jethro, but it ain't you. Nope. Not even you, Miss Ellie May.)

Cockfighting is a popular "sport" in parts of the South, where spectators come to gamble on the outcome. Two roosters – each sporting steel blades on their legs – are pitted against each other in a dual to the end while cheering crowds applause and feast their eyes on blood.

A typical cockfight usually involves eyes getting gouged out, punctured lungs and broken wings. One-third to one-half die on their own; the fate of those still breathing is left in the hands of their barbaric proprietors.

In states where it's illegal (that would be 48, including Iowa), backwoods participants take it underground. Yet a cockfighting bill – the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, aimed at stemming the spread of bird flu to the U.S. – has stalled in the legislature despite support from (most of) the Bush administration and the poultry industry. In fact, three conservative Republicans introduced the bill, and the Senate version had the support of both Iowa Senators, Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin. So why the stall?

Well, for one, Rep. King is on the Judiciary Committee and is the bill's most outspoken opponent. But why is he opposed, you ask? Why, shucks, Ellie May, your guess is as good as mine – depending on the day you ask him and who's doing the asking – but since you brought it up… what's that you say, Ellie May?

Hmm. You got a good point, Miss Ellie May, and you're absolutely right about them CHETAs donating money to Steve King's campaign. And no, I couldn't believe it either. King later returned the money, but what is it with an Iowa congressman taking money from a group that needs some protection from a criminal act that's illegal in the very state he's s'posed to represent?

Well sure, it's not quite a bribe, Miss Ellie May. But just 'cause them CHETAs have money and just 'cause you and Jethro and Uncle Jed and Granny got money and done moved to Beverly Hills, that don't mean the rest of your kinfolk back home have that kind of money.

So no, I don't think King opposes the bill because those ethical cockfighting folks are payin' him to fight for them.

What's that? You think perhaps King is opposed because he thinks it's a state issue, then? Dang! You know what that buzzer means, Ellie May. Even though it couldda been the right answer this time.

'Peers he said that very thing at first – you know, about such matters being left to each state and all, but then Mr. King done shot hisself in the foot when folks found out this weren't the first time "Mista King" came face to face with this issue. Guess it came up back when King was just a spud in the Iowa legislature, and guess what? Yup. You got it. He was agin' it then, too.

Now wait one minute, Miss Ellie May. Just 'cause Rep. King doesn't reflect Iowa values don't mean the rest of us Iowans are guilty of havin' no morals. He just never found his way back once he fell over the fence.

So, since it ain't about them donations he got, and it ain't about the state, guess that means we need yet another new argument. Wait! I know! 'Cause he don't care 'bout that recent report by the New England Journal of Medicine what found most bird flu victims in Southeast Asia were folks who had direct contact with birds? And it included them who handled and groomed fighting cocks!

I mean, after all, Miss Ellie May, in one place, an 18-year-old man who raised fighting cocks already done died from avian flu! And Ag Secretary Mike Johanns – bless his heart – even expressed support for the bill during his confirmation hearings. Said that deterrin' cockfighting could prevent the introduction and spread of exotic poultry diseases, and said the bill made sense from "an animal welfare standpoint."

For heaven's sake, Ellie May. Here's a tissue. Well of course it choked me up, too! But I already done told you King don't think any more like republicans than he does democrats. Ain't you ever heard about Planet Kiron?

We gots to keep thinkin' 'bout this, Ellie May. If it's not about bein' bribed with donations, and not about it bein' a state thing, and it ain't about protecting us folks from bird flu neither, then what? Wait! I know!

Abortion!

Dang-it all to heck! Who's pounding on that blasted buzzer when I was so certain this time! What the heck d'ya mean, King said he wouldn't support ANY animal welfare legislation until Roe v. Wade is overturned? He said what? That to outlaw animal cruelty while abortion is still legal "diminishes human life, and for that reason I will be opposing this bill?"

So his abortion excuse ain't gonna fly either? Darnnit, Ellie May! Nobody told me this was gonna be a test! How was I supposed to know he done gave a dozen different excuses already for opposing this bill? Hmm, let me think some more.

Okay, since it's not about bein' bribed with donations, and it's not some nonsense about bein' a state issue, and it's not about protecting folks from a pandemic and it's not about the "No Choice" thing for women, what else is there?

Hah! Thought I wouldn't figure it out. Now I remember another of his pretexts! The Sacred Species theory. You know, the one where he said the law should not "set up a species in this country that sets it up as a sacred species." And let's not forget when King took the floor and declared in his most authoritative voice that slaughtering horses "is a great way for us to start to repair the balance of trade."

What's that? You mean to tell me nobody told King there are already hundreds of local, state AND federal statutes protecting "sacred species" against specific forms of abuse and cruelty? So, has anyone told him yet? I bet them other congress folks 'bout died of embarrassment. I bet theys even sorry they done picked him up at the bottom of those steps when that turnip truck made the sharp turn and he done fell off right at their feet.

So now that we've got that issue settled, I . . . excuse me? No way! Now you're telling me the Sacred Species ideology isn't the reason he opposes the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act? (That's H.R. 817 to Mr. King, who only briefly attended college before majoring as a Drop-Out and who is entitled to his own personal reasons for being the least educated in the U.S. Congress and to his not wanting to disclose that little tidbit on his U.S. House website.)

Luckily for him, Ellie May, his voters put far more emphasis on keepin' women in their place than they do on education, but alas, I digress.

So, if King opposes H.R. 817 and it's not about financial bribes and it's not about whether it's a state issue and it's not about folks gettin' sick and dyin' from bird flu and it's not about letting a woman control her own body and it's not about slaughtering horses when they're not a sacred species, then why does King oppose the animal fighting prohibition act?

What's that you say, Ellie May? His forehead? Well, if that don't cook my goose! So that's what caused that flat mark there! He done remembered the buzzword of TODAY. Immigration. Now it all makes sense! Why, Ellie May, I'll bet Granny will be so happy we finally figured it out she'll make us a whole kettle of her famous possum stew!

Yessirre. Immigration. Illegal immigration. Don'cha remember that e-mail interview King done with NewsMax.com? Poor ol' Steve. Guess he don't know that there dot com at the end makes what he says available to all us hillbillies who actually got computers. Let's see, what did it say? Yes, here it is. Uh hum... that "three million human illegal aliens pour across our southern border every year. We can't control our borders. What are we doing trying to regulate chicken travel?"

Chicken travel? Chicken travel?? I swear to God, Ellie May, that's what he said. Me, I don't understand what the heck chicken travel even is. Nor do I know what other kinds of illegal aliens we have except the human kind. Guess I done grew up on the wrong side of Steve King's morality fence.

What's that Ellie May? Granny didn't tell you about the morality fence? That's the one you cross when you need a name like Citizens for the Humane and Ethical Treatment of Animals when what you're doin' is really anything but ethical or humane.

My granny always encouraged us to climb that fence, 'cause she said it's important to see what kind of values are takin' shape with words on the other side. Then again, I knew better than to cross over, 'cause she said once one abandons their Iowa Democratic principles and values for a run on the other side, they're likely to become just another morality fatality. And then, their words don't mean nothin'.

Don't worry, Granny. I've already seen the other side. I'm stayin' right here with Ellie May. 'Sides that, Uncle Jed and Jethro promised they're coming back to this place in Iowa we call our Field of Dreams.

Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?

Back to Top

The Human Society's Reaction

Wayne Pacelle, president & CEO of The Humane Society of the United States
wrote this for the May 10, 2006 Sioux City Journal:

Over the years, I’ve put in a lot of time at the U.S. Capitol as an advocate for the Humane Society of the United States, and usually find that members of Congress from both political parties share a concern for animal welfare. But every now and then you come across a politician who just cannot bring himself to support any animal-protection bill whatsoever. Lately, the most strident opponent of animal-welfare has been Rep. Steve King, a Republican from the 5th District, and it’s about time he explained why.

Perhaps Rep. King assumes that by opposing every animal-welfare bill, he is somehow doing conservative yeoman’s work and holding the line against the liberal Democrats. If so, then the first question he ought to ask himself is why so many of the animal-welfare bills he reflexively, and often bitterly, opposes are sponsored by his fellow conservative Republicans.

Consider, for example, a bill now before Congress to crack down on staged animal fighting. Entitled the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (H.R. 817), the bill would upgrade penalties for the crime of shipping animals across state lines for staged dogfights and cockfights – contests in which the animals are placed in pits to tear one another apart for the amusement and illegal wagering of spectators.

Not only is animal fighting a vicious and disgusting spectacle; it’s a breeder of other crimes as well, such as narcotics trafficking, illegal gambling, and violence against people. You would think Rep. King would disapprove of it on that account alone.

In the House, the animal-fighting bill was introduced by three conservative Republicans, and the Senate version of the bill had the support of both of Iowa’s Senators, Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin, and passed by a unanimous vote in April of last year. It now awaits action in the House, carrying the support of 228 cosponsors – a majority of the chamber.

As if all this were not enough to get Rep. King’s attention, 500 different organizations have endorsed the bill – including the sheriffs’ offices of Clay, Guthrie, and Sioux counties right there in Mr. King’s own district. Agricultural groups such as the National Chicken Council also have endorsed the legislation, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farmers rightly fear that illegal shipments of fighting birds will spread avian influenza and other diseases to poultry and egg-laying hen flocks, and devastate these industries.

Rep. King was first heard from when he denounced the bill in the Judiciary Committee, and has stated since that he will actively oppose it when it next comes up for consideration. Why? Well, at first he argued that such matters are best left to each state. But it turned out that this very same issue of animal fighting had come up when Rep. King served in the Iowa State Legislature -- and he was adamantly against it then, too.

That left him in need of another argument, and he came up with a memorable one. Henceforth, declared Rep. King, he would not support any animal welfare legislation until Roe v. Wade is overturned. To outlaw animal cruelty while abortion is still legal “diminishes human life, and for that reason I will be opposing this bill.”

Here again, we could readily point to other conservative Republicans who reject Rep. King’s peculiar line of thinking. Representatives Henry Hyde of Illinois, Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, and Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio – all of them leaders of the pro-life cause. And all of them have distinguished records in support of the cause of animal welfare.

Far from seeing any contradiction in this, many pro-life conservatives argue that there is a moral consistency in their positions. It is cruelty to animals, as they see it, that “diminishes” humanity; and a compassionate regard for animals is a natural extension of our concern for vulnerable and innocent human life. Indeed, it might interest the congressman to know that America’s earliest humane societies and SPCA’s were founded by the very same groups devoted to protecting children from violence and exploitation.

Yet even to bother with such points is probably giving Rep. King’s position more credit than it deserves. It’s not really an argument at all – it’s just an excuse. He invokes a serious moral issue, abortion, as a pretext for avoiding another moral problem, cruelty to animals -- as if the two issues cannot be addressed separately and on their own merits. He should consider the possibility that, by using his pro-life convictions to conceal his lack of conviction against cruelty to animals, he does equal insult to both causes.

Similarly, Rep. King has stubbornly opposed efforts to stop the slaughter of horses for export for human consumption -- another cause popular among Republicans and Democrats in the Congress.

Every year, about 90,000 horses are loaded into cattle trucks and shipped, sometimes 1,000 miles or more, to one of three horse slaughterhouses in the United States. It is illegal to consume horse flesh in America – a good law borne of our sense of respect and gratitude to these noble creatures and their place in our country’s history. But gourmands in France, Belgium, and Japan can’t get enough of the stuff, and so the horses are dragged to slaughter here and the meat exported.

The law passed by overwhelming margins in the House and Senate, but not before Rep. King took to the floor to declare that slaughtering horses “is a great way for us to start to repair the balance of trade.” What’s more, he explained, the law should not “set up a species in this country that sets it up as a sacred species.”

Of course, the trade balance and this ridiculous notion of "sacred species" are both beside the point. Hundreds of statutes -- federal, state, and local -- provide protections to specific species of animals against specific forms of cruelty. When the law says that a dog may not be doused with gasoline and immolated, or a cat deliberately starved to death, or a labor horse mercilessly whipped, are we "setting up a sacred species." Or are we just applying the decent and honorable standards of a civilized society?

But however he chooses to vote on cruelty issues, Rep. King should at least spare us further obfuscation and excuse-making. He's a serious and capable man who should know better that that. And if he doesn't, then now would be a good time for his constituents to show him that they expect a lot better of their congressman.

Wayne Pacelle is President & CEO of The Humane Society of the United States.

Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to www.hsus.org/join.

Back to Top