Saturday, October 1, 2011

COCKFIGHTING

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/C/CO012.html

COCKFIGHTING

The history of cockfighting goes back to classical times. It was practiced by Greeks before battle in order to stimulate the warriors to brave and valorous deeds. The pitting of cocks against each other was brought to Greece by the Persians although most experts agree that it originated in Southeast Asia. The pastime spread in Europe during the Middle Ages and was widely known in England during the early colonial period. An activity enjoyed by both noble and commoner, with a profound element of gambling involved, it migrated with English settlers to the New World colonies, where it found fertile ground. Spanish settlers introduced a variant form in the Southwest even earlier. Historically, Latino cockfighting was quite distinct and separate from that practiced by Anglos throughout the U.S. but in the twentieth century began diffusing along the migration pathways used by immigrants from Mexico and Central America.
Cockfighting was widely practiced on the American frontier and was especially noted in the South. Southerners migrating into Oklahoma brought this pastime with them. Rural Midwesterners were not strangers to the sport and also made contributions to its diffusion throughout the state. However, parts of the state in which cockfighting is especially noted generally have high concentrations of southerners in the population. It is also noteworthy that cockpits are concentrated in counties adjoining those southern states (Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas) with more restrictive laws and that these cockpits have drawn large audiences across state lines into Oklahoma.
Cockfights have historically taken place in cockpits, which are round arenas bounded by wood, plexiglass, or chicken wire. Stadium seating might be offered at more posh facilities, but at "brush pits" the audience might stand or sit on primitive benches or old car seats. Betting would commence before the fight and continue throughout. Gambling has been central to the pastime, despite the common position by apologists to the contrary. Cockfights would usually be arranged in sets called derbies, in which the cockfighter whose birds won the most fights of the day, won the derby.
The birds would be held in the arms of the owners or trainers while they pecked at each other; this was termed billing." Then the birds would be turned loose from lines drawn in the sand and allowed to peck or lash out with their spurs. When they became too entangled to continue, the fight would be stopped and the cocks carefully separated. Then the fight would recommence from lines drawn in the sand. If the action became desultory, the fight might be moved from the central arena to the "drag pits" on the side, where the fight ultimately culminated. The natural spur of the chicken was heeled with artificial metal gaffs, which were slightly curved and sharp like ice picks. Latino cockfighters typically used a "slasher," which looked more like a sharp blade. They also handled a lighter and more mobile bird. Consequently, their fights were quicker, bloodier, and more action packed.
A cockfight almost always ended in the death of one of the chickens and would usually be a bloody affair. They occurred as noisy happenings in which betting, shouting and all sorts of ancillary activity developed on the sidelines. Fights were predominately male situations, with women usually holding the roles of supporters. Sometimes special cockfights allowed women to be handlers in "powder puff derbies," but rarely.
The cockfight continued into the twenty-first century as a spectacle. But it would be a mistake to assume that it acts as simply an excuse to bet and engage in coarse and vulgar lower-class bonhomie. Cockfighting has been a very meaningful activity to its practitioners, who spend untold hours caring for hundreds of birds, studying breeding lines, and engaging in complex networks of trade and reciprocity. Many have held quasi-spiritual beliefs about cockfighting, viewing the cockfight in metaphorical, quasi-Darwinistic terms. It is fair to say that cockfight enthusiasts have been vitalistic, paternalistic, authoritarian, and energetic. Most would qualify as "characters" with extremely singular and memorable personalities.
At the turn of the twenty-first century cockfighting remained legal in Oklahoma despite intense, emotionally charged wrangling to change its status. In 2000 and 2001 attempts to proscribe the activity, both sides engaged in devious and complex parliamentary stratagems in the state legislature and in the courts of public opinion. In this context it was evident that the cockfighters, through their organizations and spokespersons, clearly outmaneuvered their opponents and temporarily won the day. But theirs was a short respite as they continued to fight this battle against the forces of modernity, "progress," and evolutionary meliorism. In 2002 Oklahomans approved State Question 687, which made cockfighting a felony. In 2004 the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the ban.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Frederick Hawley, "Cockfight in the Cotton: A Moral Crusade in Microcosm," Contemporary Crises 13 (1989). Frederick Hawley, "Cockfighting in the Piney Woods: Gameness in the New South" in Baseball, Barns, and Bluegrass: A Geography of American Folklife, ed. George O. Carney (Boulder, Colo.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers,1998). Frederick Hawley, "The Moral and Conceptual Universe of Cockfighters: Symbolism and Rationalization," Society and Animals: Social Scientific Studies of the Human Experience of Other Animals 1 (1993).
Frederick Hawley
© Oklahoma Historical Society

ONCE POPULAR AND SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE: COCKFIGHTING


http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn08/rooster.cfm

ONCE POPULAR AND SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE:
COCKFIGHTING

by Ed Crews
photos by Dave Doody
In town and country, for merchant and farmhand, cockfighting—a bloody and usually fatal affair—was close to a national sport in eighteenth-century America, with betting a prime part of it. Colonial Williamsburg interpreters gather round the ring, from left: Tom Hay, Dennis Watson, Bill Rose, James Ingram, Mark Hutter, Dan Moore, Ayinde Martin, Carrie McDougal, and Jay Howlett.
In town and country, for merchant and farmhand, cockfighting—a bloody and usually fatal affair—was close to a national sport in eighteenth-century America, with betting a prime part of it. Colonial Williamsburg interpreters gather round the ring, from left: Tom Hay, Dennis Watson, Bill Rose, James Ingram, Mark Hutter, Dan Moore, Ayinde Martin, Carrie McDougal, and Jay Howlett.
The Great Cock Match
Silver spurs, such as this pair in Colonial Williamsburg’s collections, were fixed as deadly weapons to gamecocks’ legs.
Silver spurs, such as this pair in Colonial Williamsburg’s collections, were fixed as deadly weapons to gamecocks’ legs.
Hankie Dean, one of two Colonial Williamsburg gamecocks, in full fighting profile. Such birds were bred and trained for combat.
Hankie Dean, one of two Colonial Williamsburg gamecocks, in full fighting profile. Such birds were bred and trained for combat.
In some Colonial American circles, people crowed about cockfighting. As repugnant as pitting two metal-spurred roosters to slash at one another may seem to us, not a few of our ancestors enjoyed the preparations, the crowds of onlookers, the spectacle of combat to the death, and the gambling. “Cockfighting was the second most popular sport after horse racing. Everyone went. People from every class owned gamecocks,” said Elaine Shirley, manager of rare breeds for Colonial Williamsburg’s coach and livestock department.
Because of cockfighting’s popularity in the second half of the eighteenth century, Colonial Williamsburg keeps two of these combative roosters—Hankie Dean and Lucifer—to show guests. The birds differ from other fowl in the Historic Area in that they are big and strong and have athletic builds. They also have been “dubbed,” a practice in which a bird’s wattles and comb were removed so an opponent could not latch onto them in a fight.
Needless to say, Colonial Williamsburg does not fight the birds. That would be inhumane, and illegal. Nevertheless, the gamecocks allow interpreters to discuss a once-popular and socially acceptable pastime, one of a handful of bloody activities enjoyed in the 1700s. In Win or Lose: A Social History of Gambling in America, Stephen Longstreet wrote:
The colonial people bet on wrestling matches, target shooting, and dog and rat fights. Dog fights were a common sport, specially bred and trained pit dogs; dogs against dogs or dogs in a pit against huge rats. The betting was heavy on some champion rat-killer, or on a dog able to stand against another dog to the death.
Cockfighting is as old as the allure of bloodsport. Roman art portrays it—a Pompeian mosaic shows two roosters squaring off. The status and prestige of cockfighting grew in England beginning in the 1500s thanks to royal patronage. Henry VIII was a “cocker.” So was James I.
Cockfighting reached its zenith in British North America between 1750 and 1800. To a degree, its popularity reflected a desire by colonists to ape the behavior of the English upper class. Most enthusiastic were the Americans living from North Carolina to New York.
The men who raised and fought gamecocks bred the most aggressive animals to produce determined fighters in a strain that became distinctive. “During the 1700s, fighting cocks came to look similar in size and shape, although they had different colors,” Shirley said.
Owners gave their birds such names as Thunder and Lighting to suggest combat prowess. They also fed their fighting roosters a special diet, kept them in specific areas, and exercised them to prepare for matches. They strapped finely honed spurs—small pointed blades, sometimes fashioned from silver—to their gamecocks’ legs for weapons.
The combats often were formal affairs. A bout’s sponsor set a place, a date, and a time, and announced the event in the newspaper. Word of mouth also drew crowds, as the marquis de Chastellux noted in 1782 after watching a fight in Louisa County, Virginia:
When the principal promoters of this diversion propose to match their champions, they take care to announce it to the public, and although there are neither posts nor regular conveyances, this important news spreads with such facility that planters come from 30 or 40 miles around, some with cocks, but all with money for betting, which is sometimes very considerable.
An observer of one contest said the cockfight crowd included “many genteel people, conspicuously mingled with the vulgar and debased.” Tavern yards often served as cockfight sites because tavernkeepers made money on fight fans for food and drink, and accommodations.
In Europe well-built cockpits existed before the New World was settled. Londoners could attend fights at such establishments as the Royal Pit at Westminster. This brick and timber structure operated for 110 years and served as the scene for the William Hogarth engraving Pit Ticket. Westminster fights led to the creation of the “Rules and Order of Cocking.”
American fights typically required no fixed location. Combatants—there are records of events in which fifty to sixty pairs of birds fought—met in areas marked by a rope or in an open space between buildings. If there were few permanent cockpits, Williamsburg nevertheless may have had one. Archeological evidence suggests there may have been one at Shields Tavern.
There were other sites. A Virginia Gazette of February 2, 1752 reports: “On Tuesday next will be fought, at the George and Dragon, in Williamsburg, a Match of Cocks, for Ten Pistoles, the first Battle, Five Pistoles the Second, and Two Pistoles and a Half the Third &c. As likewise several other Matches.”
Another Williamsburg match took place in the spring of 1773, announced in the advertisement below:
A notice in a subsequent issue says: “WILLIAMSBURG, MAY 27. On Tuesday and Wednesday last the great COCK MATCH, between the upland and lowland Gentlemen, was fought in this city, when it was determined, by a majority of one battle, in favour of the former.”
Roosters competed with birds of similar weight, much as boxers and wrestlers do today. Combat lasted until one gamecock killed the other, or neither could fight any longer. The finality of death eliminated questions about the victor or the settling of bets.
At a cockfight people visited old friends and made new ones. Some concluded business transactions. Others attended nearby dances after the competition. During the bouts, spectators cheered, drank, ate, and swore. An onlooker wrote that he saw
...some Gentlemen, who, upon other occasions, behav’d with great Decency, and as if they had been influenced with suitable Impressions of the awful and tremendous name of GOD, did then speak and act, as if the Divine Law had been for that Time abrogated, opening their mouths with horrid Oaths and dreadful Imprecations.
The Fights repelled those colonists who found the violence and blood disgusting. Others disliked the wild atmosphere surrounding the competitions. Eighteenth-century traveler Elkannah Watson said he was
...deeply astonished to find men of character and intelligence giving their countenance to an amusement so frivolous and so scandalous, so abhorrent to every feeling of humanity, and so injurious in its moral influences.
Authorities occasionally tried to suppress cockfighting. In 1752, the College of William and Mary directed its students to avoid them. Georgia prohibited them in 1775. The Continental Congress and several states passed legislation condemning the sport. After the Revolutionary War, some citizens of the new United States looked upon cockfighting as an unsavory vestige of English culture and advocated its abandonment.
New attitudes calling for the kind treatment of animals slowly replaced older, harsher ideas. By about 1830, cockfighting generally was considered cruel and wrong. Nevertheless, cockfighting still goes on in the United States as a clandestine and criminal activity.
When Colonial Williamsburg interpreters display Hankie Dean and Lucifer, and describe the colonialists’ love for cockfighting, to guests, reactions reflect the viewpoints about the sport, if sport it was, that took hold in the 1800s.
“People almost always react uniformly when we talk about cockfighting in colonial America.” Shirley said. “They’re horrified.”
They also are puzzled. They have difficulty reconciling the contradiction between what they think of as the eighteenth century’s refinement, decorum, and idealism, and its attraction to spectator activities epitomized by death and wild revelry. Social historian Longstreet wrote of the era: “A general surface of satin laces, polite bows, and high rhetoric hid a desire for blood sport.”

The HumaneWatch Interview: Frank Losey


American dog breeders are known for being a passionate, no-nonsense crowd, and very few of them are fans of HSUS. So it didn’t surprise us when we learned a few months ago that they had a professional legal advocate in their corner with an appetite for combat. His name is Frank Losey.
Frank retired from the U.S. Air Force in 1990 after serving 25 years as a Judge Advocate, including trial work in over 100 courts-martial and a Pentagon stint as Director of Civil Law. He finished his military service with three Legion of Merit Medals, three Meritorious Service Medals, and the Air Force Commendation Medal. The Queen of England even invited him to Buckingham Palace for her Garden Party. (We're not making that up.)
He also had a Yorkie named Chaucer for 18 years. Frank tells us that he got engaged with dog breeders in Missouri (who are doing real battle with HSUS this year) as a way to repay Chaucer for teaching him the value of loyalty. Is that cool or is that cool?
If you’ve seen an Internet campaign called “How to Spay and Neuter the HSUS” (clever...), you’re already familiar with Frank’s work. He seems to be a really smart grassroots organizer, so we thought HumaneWatch readers would appreciate hearing from him.
Frank Losey was kind enough to answer a half-dozen of our questions last week.
Frank, thanks for tapping out some thoughts for all the other HumaneWatchers out there. We first came across your name in conjunction with an e-mail that at least five different people forwarded to us. The gist of it was that you were looking for an army of "dog people" to send letters to the IRS, asking for an investigation into the Humane Society of the United States. How did that effort get started, and what can you tell us about its progress?
Over two years ago, I sent Wayne Pacelle a letter asking HSUS to acknowledge the fact that the Missouri Pet Breeders Association had publicly condemned substandard dog kennels in 2006. I also made a request that HSUS publicly condemn those who explicitly violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
The idea for this campaign originated when I got non-responsive letters back from Pacelle, which confirmed in my mind that neither he nor HSUS would ever tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” about the overwhelming majority of responsible dog breeders. HSUS would rather aggressively lobby under false pretenses for new laws at the federal and state level.
So he really motivated me to begin researching and compiling documentation that would show that HSUS is not in compliance with the IRS Tax Code (and its implementing regulations) with respect to limitations on lobbying activities by public charities. I examined HSUS's tax returns for 2004-2008 and downloaded more than 400 pages of documents from the HSUS Website. Then I prepared a 14-page summary and began distributing it to breeders in different states with a request that they send letters to the IRS Tax Fraud Office in Fresno, CA and urge others to do the same.
The letter-writing campaign spread like wildfire. It has now generated over 4,000 letters from all 50 States. These letters request that the IRS audit the lobbying activities of HSUS. Significantly, over 1,200 of those letters were sent by certified mail. This effort also generated e-mails to members of Congress, and I have received confirmation that at least four Congressmen have contacted the IRS, asking that it address the concerns of their respective constituents.
Yep—There's nothing like the guys who approve your budget giving you a marching order. But what about all this lobbying that HSUS does? We know you have an extensive dossier of compelling information, but can you boil it down to a few sentences for readers who don’t know much about lobbying laws? What exactly is HSUS doing that’s wrong?
IRS regulations expressly state that if a public charity engages in “too much lobbying,” its public charity status may be revoked. The regulations also explicitly prohibit a public charity from actively campaigning for or against political candidates.
Documents from the HSUS Website, along with incriminating admissions made on HSUS's tax returns, confirm that HSUS has been involved in more than 2,000 distinctly different lobbying activities at the federal, state and local levels during the last five tax years. This includes claiming credit for the enactment of nearly 700 Federal and State Laws. [ed.: HSUS's own Articles of Incorporation alsoprohibit it from trying to "influence legislation."]
Additionally, HSUS has published online biographies for its two most senior officials, claiming credit for the defeat of several members of Congress. That’s a mega-major “no-no” for a public charity.
One other glaring misrepresentation that HSUS repeatedly made on its tax returns for 2004-2007 is that none—I repeat, none—of its "volunteers" or "paid staff or management" did any lobbying whatsoever. This despite incriminating admissions and boastful claims that contradict what those HSUS tax returns say. Such egregious misrepresentations call into question the credibility of everything else HSUS says on its official filings with the government.
But it's not like HSUS is an island; there are several other groups in the mix. What do you make of that whole alphabet soup? There's HSUS, the HSLF, the HSVA, NAHEE, the Humane USA PAC, etc… How many of those are allowed to lobby? Can't HSUS just spread the accounting around so no single organization goes beyond what’s legally allowable?
The master illusionist David Copperfield would marvel at how HSUS has used all of its affiliated organizations in the last five or six years in order to create the illusion that it only does minimal lobbying.
I've researched the timing when those affiliated organizations were created. I've also considered that the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of HSUS [ed: that's Michael Markarian] is simultaneously supervising the Government Affairs Office, which is responsible for HSUS's lobbying activities of the HSUS; he's also the President of the Humane Society Legislative Fund. This is the “officially” designated lobbying arm of HSUS, and it controls the Humane USA PAC. Put this all together, and you can reach an almost irrefutable conclusion that this COO has a blatant conflict of interest. And the IRS may determine that the totality of the cumulative lobbying activities of HSUS' senior management is excessive—and under-reported.
The IRS would also quite possibly conclude that these affiliated organizations were created as part of an effort to mask the breadth, magnitude, and pervasiveness of HSUS's lobbying activities, in order to circumvent the IRS's explicit limitations on lobbying by public charities.
Here's the bottom line: The IRS has the authority and responsibility to enforce the tax code, and to determine if HSUS's books are being "cooked" through the use of multiple affiliated organizations that HSUS controls. If HSUS has nothing to hide, it should welcome an IRS audit to validate its total compliance with tax laws, and to explain (to the IRS's satisfaction, anyway) that HSUS has not exceeded the lobbying limitation threshold for a public charity.
Just between us, Frank, we don't expect them to put out a press release or throw the IRS a "welcome" party. But let's get back to that grassroots army. Now that you’ve assembled thousands of peasants with pitchforks—and we mean that as a compliment—what’s next? Are you going to keep in touch with this new network and “activate” them for other issues related to the animal rights movement?
Absolutely yes. The genie is out of the bottle, and the thousands of grassroots soldiers (so to speak) are now in a better position to tell the American public the true story about the caring breeders who are responsible for bringing so much love and joy into the homes of appreciative pet owners. This story is beginning to be told, and will continue to be told. Work is also under way to use this network to increase awareness among breeders, as well as in the FBI, about how best to document violations of the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act by overzealous animal rights activists.
What happens next with your IRS efforts? How will you know if you’ve had an impact? Are people inside the Treasury Department talking to you, or is all of this communication pretty much a one-way street?
One IRS representative has told me that if the IRS were to investigate allegations about HSUS, such an investigation could take more than a year—and that the IRS would never discuss details of any ongoing investigation.
Having said that, I am confident that the issue of an audit and investigation of HSUS's lobbying activities is now being internally discussed within the IRS, and the urgency for the initiation of such an audit and investigation will intensify when a senior official in the Department of Treasury asks the IRS: “When will the investigation be completed?”
And yes, I do believe the stage is being set for such a senior Treasury official to ask that question in the next few months.
You lawyers are always talking in code. (We guess it's one of those "need to know" things.) So what has this whole effort taught you about grassroots organizing? Did any single tactic work far better (or far worse) than you expected?
Here are some of the lessons I've taken away from this experience:
1. The first two words that immediately come to my mind are these: "Numbers matter." 
2. A grassroots effort must be well thought out and planned before it's launched.
3. Never underestimate the “power of one,” which has a greater multiplier effect than I thought possible. Once this campaign began, grassroots members began using their own networks to spread the word and recruit new members, who in turn recruited still more members. (This is why HSUS has been so successful in its own grassroots lobbying efforts.)
4. The best way to generate a "critical mass" of grassroots members is through the Internet.
5. Develop and polish a message that's easy to understand and follow, so others will not just think and say "Right on," but also actually send letters.
6. Establish realistic goals.  Mine were for at least one person in every U.S. state to write the IRS, for the IRS to receive several thousand letters, and for at least 1,000 of those letters to be sent by certified mail for added impact. We met or exceeded all these goals.
7. Perhaps most importantly, never underestimate the importance of “follow-up, follow-up, and follow-up” to sustain your momentum.
Thanks for being a HumaneWatcher, Frank. We all wish you well.
Posted on 03/03/2010 at 09:14 AM by the HumaneWatch Team
Interviews • Gov't, Lobbying, Politics • Pets • (13) Comments

COMMENTS 

I think of Frank Losey as the “Elliot Ness” of the 21st century.
Posted by Alan on 03/03 at 10:46 AM
GRAND, and a BIG THANK YOU to all of you for your help!
Posted by Mary Lou on 03/03 at 10:59 AM
Thank you so much for this interview.  Everyday when I get up and turn my computer on I come to this page and learn so much.  Please know that I will keep passing on this information and try to open as many eyes as I possibly can.
Posted by Angel on 03/03 at 12:21 PM
Withdrawal of tax exempt status would be a devastating body blow to HSUS.
HSUS, in fact, maintains lobbyists in most states in the US and works hard at building influence with key politicians. In California, for example, The state Senate Majority Leader, Dean Flores (D-Fresno) has worked openly with the HSUS lobbyist, socialized with Wayne Pacelle, and has introduced many bills that were born of the AR agenda. A lot of money was spent. Senator Flores is currently planning a run at the Lieutenant Governorship.
Posted by Mike Spies on 03/03 at 07:56 PM
Frank Losey is da bomb!
Posted by Sharyn Hutchens on 03/03 at 09:22 PM
An HSUS lobbyist from Oklahoma has been very visible in the past 30 days, successfully garnering support for 6 new legislative bills before the House and Senate, giving news interviews, organizing a “lobby day” etc.  This website is a valuable resource for informed debate for those of us who value our family pet or show dog.  We can gather some real arguments to ask our elected officials to consider the source of the current unrelenting pressure to pass these bills.  Thanks.
Posted by Ellen Kelley on 03/03 at 09:45 PM
David, both you and Frank have mounted pro-active attacks that I truly believe will result in the exposure of HSUS for the frauds they are.  Getting the word out to the media, politicians and the public is snowballing, and their DEMISE is in the foreseeable future.  I’m glad to have had a hand in it and wish EVERYBODY the best in exposing a group that wants to take down the American economy thru their lobbying efforts and misleading advertising.  They can claim ownership of one of the biggest SCAMS in the world.  A scam we aim to SQUASH.  The power of the people ROCKS!
Posted by Judy Kelsey on 03/04 at 01:07 PM
Every “lobby day’ should be attended..  every single one.. Know thy enemy”.. and also get a chance to really educate your legislators.. nothing is better than going into an office and watching the face of the person when you say.. Hi.. I am here for “lobby day” and I would like to give you some information about the HSUS…. lobbying isn’t just for the HSUS
Posted by bestuvall on 03/04 at 02:11 PM
I am thrilled to see http://www.humanewatch.org and thrilled about the letters to the IRS. The threats posed by the HSUS to ALL animal owners and breeders and users is being exposed. This is a difficult project because of the tremendous propaganda machine of the HSUS, but, little by little, people are waking up. I inform all my clients and friends and relatives and urge them to inform others.
We must work together and fight the animal rights agenda for the sake of our animals.
Thanks to Frank Losey for the HSUS/IRS project and thanks to David forhttp://www.humanewatch.org!!!!
Posted by Tragopan on 03/04 at 05:15 PM
Many thanks to Frank Losey for making it easy for us “peasants with pitchforks” to participate, and to Judy Kelsey for informing us of this grassroots effort.  I’m looking forward to news of a successful outcome.
Posted by Cynthia Webster on 03/05 at 03:30 PM
Thank you for posting this interview and helping others to learn more about “How to spay/neuter the H$U$”. I’m thrilled to be a part of this by posting information presented by Frank Losey on my web log and keeping in close communication with Judy Kelsey along with sending letters. Slowly more and more exposure of the true H$U$ is becoming known and for that they are beginning to lose some of their own followers. Keep the heat on H$US and in due time there will only be ashes left behind.
Posted by Wendy Wendt on 03/06 at 12:32 PM
Again, another way to exploit and gain wealth from animals that have no voice.  Thank you being that voice
Posted by Lane Shelton on 06/20 at 10:04 AM
From all of us dog lovers in the UK, we wish Frank all the best in his campaign against the H$U$ and hope that he can stop their poison from not only infecting the USA but Europe as well.
Posted by Mike Davidsohn on 08/19 at 10:35 PM