H.R. 9309.

[Chickenguygreg]

Hey I’m just trying to bring to the exhibition community info on HR 9309. This bill was written targeting the gamefowl people. However it is going to affect all of us who exhibit, show, or ship poultry. Oppose this legislation with your congressman ASAP.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117/house-bill/9309

 

[U_Stormcrow]

It would help if you linked the bill so people could view the proposed legislation for themselves (and see its sponsors).

We would also benefit if you would explain your thinking. I've glanced at the bill, and your objection is not immediately and specifically obvious to me.

Yes, my little "l" libertarian tendencies raise a reflexive obejection every time I see a new piece of legislation proposed, but this doesn't seem to impose any significant change on those who exhibit, show, or ship poultry.

 

[Chickenman1994]

This bill needs stopped. They are taking freedom once again step by step. Pretty soon they will have gamefowl extinct. Then it will move on to other poultry. The radical AR groups want to be above the law.

 

[JacinLarkwell]

It would help if you linked the bill so people could view the proposed legislation for themselves (and see its sponsors).

We would also benefit if you would explain your thinking. I've glanced at the bill, and your objection is not immediately and specifically obvious to me.

Yes, my little "l" libertarian tendencies raise a reflexive obejection every time I see a new piece of legislation proposed, but this doesn't seem to impose any significant change on those who exhibit, show, or ship poultry.

I've gotta agree. Maybe I'm reading the wrong thing, but I dont see anything other than a few rewordings that seem to just clarify a bit more

 

[U_Stormcrow]

This bill needs stopped. They are taking freedom once again step by step. Pretty soon they will have gamefowl extinct. Then it will move on to other poultry. The radical AR groups want to be above the law.

I am more politically active than many of my friends, certainly more politically aware, but I have a finite number of resources (including time) with which to devote to politcal activity.

Of all the things "they" are doing to "take away freedom" (largely with the support and accliam of the electorate), this is one of the very least concerning to me.

This defines "rooster" to mean any male member of Gallus Domesticus species older than 6 months.

It then says the USPS can't ship Roosters (now defined as make chickens over six months of age) for purposes of animal fights.

Regardless of how you feel (personally, OPPOSED) to paying to watch animals fight, USPS doesn't ship any birds other than day olds - so this changes the situation on the ground not at all. The other commercial carriers (DHL, FedEx, UPS) don't carry poultry at all. Again, no functional change. That leaves private instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

If you have a side gig privately transporting roosters for purposes of animal fights across State lines (and I somehow suspect those are not coming from NPIP participating breeders with 9-3 forms and associated records), you are already breaking a number of State laws. Making it a Federal crime as well doesn't really change much.

That's all the time I'm willing to spend on analyzing this bill, unless you have something of substance to add that might warrant more attention by the BYC community? I don't relish the idea of Citizen Suits as qui tam claims, but SCOTUS is about to tear a hole in the qui tam theory itself in a case of far greater significance. I'll not waste time seeking to tilt at a windmill not yet erected when a giant is already knocking windmills of similar design down by ripping out their foundation.

 

[Sally PB]

SCOTUS is about to tear a hole in the qui tam theory itself in a case of far greater significance

Which case is this?

(I'm not trying to turn this thread into a political debate/rant...)

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Which case is this?

(I'm not trying to turn this thread into a political debate/rant...)

What can I say, I have strange reading habits. To get at the question here, SCOTUS will have to look at the underpinnings of current Qui Tam litigation, which has gone far from its historical underpinnings. I expect a moderately broad ruling returning significant power to the Gov't to reign these in somewhat. I also expect a fractured decision, which will result in yet more litigation. I also expect, contra claims of the media pundits, that the decision will not break across an easy conservative/liberal political divide.

 

[MysteryChicken]

Is this what we're discussing?
https://www.wattagnet.com/blogs/27-...ockfighting-legislation-sounds-good-but-is-it

 

[JacinLarkwell]

other than day olds

I thought they also ship mature birds? Otherwise how do places ship trios and pol pullets and all that?

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Is this what we're discussing?
https://www.wattagnet.com/blogs/27-...ockfighting-legislation-sounds-good-but-is-it

Yes, that's the one. I've linked the text above.

Its not even in committee yet, and is forecast with less than 2% chance of passage - most of the Ag commitee members are already identified as opposed. I expect it to be refered to committee and die there w/o further action.