1. There are more than sufficient protections of animals provided under the present make-up of the Animal Welfare Act as well as the various state laws, ordinances, codes, policies, procedures, rules, and regulations. Therefore, the proposed changes under H.R. 2742 are unnecessary. The passage of 7 U.S.C. Section 2156, in its present form, has been very successful in discouraging violations of said law in that there have been very few Federal prosecutions under 7 U.S.C. Section 2156. Therefore, there is no justification for any change in the law. The apparent intent of these proposed changes in H.R. 2742 is to address "cockfight," which is not specifically defined properly by this statue, or any other statute. Cockfighting is defined: As an ancient "blood sport at least 6,000 years old," once accepted and legal in the United States and its territories, with the intent to cause injury or death, or resulting in the debilitating injury or death of a "pitted" rooster armed to fight with a bare untrimmed natural spur, or knife, gaff, slasher, spear, or other sharp instrument attached to the trimmed natural spur of a rooster specifically referred to as a "gamecock." 

 

1. There are numerous problems with the proposed changes to 7 U.S.C. Section 2156. The changes allow for abuse in enforcement and government over reaching set forth as follows: 

(1) Prohibiting "any broadcasts" from international sources of animal fighting ventures in the United States, undefined and not specific in terms and conditions from international sources extends beyond the Jurisdiction of the United States which makes for further poor relations with other countries and gives credence to the international rhetoric of America's desire to control the world, recently referred to by non-NATO countries, as "Nazis." Furthermore, the proposed changes to the Animal Welfare Act are overbroad and interferes with the First Amendment, impedes interstate and intrastate commerce left up to the individual states, and interferes with interstate or intrastate discussions of sources pertaining to animal fighting ventures in the United States, or U.S. territories; and (2) Lastly, shipments or transport of "certain mature roosters" is subjective unscientific judgment as opposed to "objective" confirmed evidence, susceptible to unfounded assumptions, presumptions, opinion, speculation, supposition, alleged "evidence" based on anecdotes and colloquy, and imprecise determination, vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, which allows for arbitrary and capricious application, vindictive pursuits, abuse, allowing for harassment by various fanatical "animal rights" individuals and wealthy tax exempt nonprofit organizations that can afford to buy and therefore influence government by their lobbying groups who pay for influence, and results in "profiling" from alleged violators motivated by seeking monetary "rewards" and free publicity seeking further donations for their causes, and encourages extortions from "profiteering" by "profiling" people and their "chickens," by civil lawsuits in various American court systems within, and throughout the United States. For the forgoing reasons any changes in 7 U.S.C. Section 2156 would actually result in a weaken of the present "protections" provided animals in the Animal Welfare Act because of the "due process" issues pertaining to the requirement of actual proof are lacking. Animals have no "Constitutional rights." They are "protected" from alleged "abuse" by the various individual laws of each sovereign state exercising their Tenth Amendment rights, duties, and obligations pertaining to their health, safety, and welfare laws.  

 

1. SECTION 1 DEFINITION OF ROOSTER, Section 2 (p):  The term "rooster" means "older than 6 months." A rooster does not reach maturity in only 6 months of its life. In addition to the above, this is very subjective and imprecise leading to arbitrary decision making. In other words, if a government agent, animal "rights" organization claiming to be an "expert" who has an agenda says a rooster is 6 months old for underlying purposes of harassment, how does one counter that. Chickens do not have birth certificates. 

 

1. SECTION 2 USE OF POSTAL SERVICE OR OTHER INTERSTATE INSTRUMENTALITY TO TRANSPORT ROOSTERS: Legally transporting live roosters which are not "per se" illegal to own, possess, keep, raise, breed, or transfer to anyone are not considered "contraband" by any state in the United States. Therefore, transporting roosters for sale interferes with interstate and intrastate commerce. This also interferes with the laws, rules, and regulations of the individual states under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution pertaining to their rights and duties of regulating the health, safety, and welfare of the people within and subject to their jurisdiction.    

 

1. SECTION 3. ANIMAL FIGHTING VENTURE SIMULCASTING PROHIBITED (1), (2), (3): See United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) in its entirety pertaining to the First Amendment violation in that case. H.R. 2742 "sweeps too broadly" and violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

 

1. SECTION 4 CIVIL, CITIZEN SUITS; SEIZURE: This invites, if not outright encourages, "profiteering," "litigious interlopers," and "malicious," and frivolous, unreasonable, vindictive, vexatious, and "bad faith" baseless harassing litigation by anyone in an already crowed federal court system, particularly by wealthy non-profits who have lots of money seeking more money and who have attorneys at their disposal along with self-proclaimed "expert witnesses." Furthermore, there is no guarantee against baseless lawsuits because instead of awarding costs of litigation including reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees to the "prevailing party" Paragraph (E) ATTORNEY'S FEES can be awarded "to any party whenever the court determines such award is appropriate," which leaves the decision to "award" completely to the discretion of the judge. What civil monetary penalty is provided for herein, to protect people from and prevent baseless investigations, litigation and harassment by "individuals," "non-profit organizations," "government agencies," corporations, limited liability Companies, and any other entities foreign and domestic? Without the initial requirement for posting a substantial bond such as $1,000,000.00 with the Federal court in order to properly compensate the cost of defending baseless investigations, litigation and harassment, a provision should be made that the court shall award full reimbursement for all attorney's fees, expert witness fees, witness fees, costs and resulting damages. An example of what the problem here is, look at the California Federal Court filings of alleged ADA and California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim violations. See Brown v. Lucky Stores, 246 F.3d 1182 (9thCir.2001) and Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 133 S.Ct. 1166, 1172, 185 L. Ed. 2d 242 (2013), a prevailing defendant was entitled to costs as the prevailing party. 

 

1. (3)  SEIZURE: There is no statute of limitations included as written herein, and there are a number of United States Constitutional issues that are raised as written such as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and possibly the Ninth and Tenth Amendment issues that are not being addressed in this proposed change. 

 

 

1. SECTION 5 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS: The Agricultural Act of 2014, the Animal Welfare Act - Section 26(h) of the Animal Welfare Act (7U.S.C. 2156(h) CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW would not be a necessary change if the Federal Government would leave it up to the individual states to be allowed under the Tenth Amendment to regulate their independent health, safety and welfare laws as the United States Constitution provides for. The foregoing comments apply to (c) NONMAILABLE MATTER - Section 3001(a) of Title39, United States Code, as amended.