You may have heard about Representative Steve King’s (R-IA) opposition to amendments to the current Farm Bill that would expand federal criminal laws regarding dog fighting. The Dog Files has a good summary of the proposed amendment and Rep. King’s objections:

During a tele-townhall event last week, King complained about an amendment to the farm bill that prohibits attendance at organized animal fights and imposes additional penalties for bringing a child to these bloody and horrific displays. Staging fights, possessing and/or training animals or moving animals for fighting purposes is already a federal crime. This amendment to the US Farm Bill would extend that to anyone spectating and wagering on animal fighting.

Congressman King went as far to say in his live town hall video broadcast that “it’s a federal crime to watch animals fight or to induce someone else to watch an animal fight but it’s not a federal crime to induce somebody to watch people fighting, there’s something wrong with the priorities of people that think like that.”

When I first read this yesterday, my initial impulse was to post a link to the Dog Files story on my Facebook page with a snarky note asking Republicans to please pick up their trash, but two things made me pause before shooting off at the mouth (or keyboard.) First, I’m trying to respond to ideas and arguments that shock my conscience with slightly more restraint, out of a “catch more flies with honey sentiment,” although I admit it is difficult. I will still call stupid “stupid” to its face. And that was the second thing that gave me pause: while I believe Rep. King is 100% wrong, something about the rhetoric he employed prevents me from outright calling it any of my usual deserved slurs. The false equivalence that Rep. King uses here calls for a nuanced response, followed up by an analogy that is both more apt and more inflammatory. In short, Rep. King compares dog fighting to boxing, when I posit that he should be comparing it to child pornography. The following is my open letter to Rep. King.

Dear Representative King:

I am writing to you as a taxpayer concerned with issues of animal welfare, particularly dog fighting. I am a resident of the state of Texas, not Iowa, so I am not writing to you as a voter but rather as a citizen in a matter of national importance. The other day, you apparently commented on a pending bill that would add watching and wagering on illegal dog fighting to the list of prohibited dog fighting-related activities. You reportedly stated that “it’s a federal crime to watch animals fight or to induce someone else to watch an animal fight but it’s not a federal crime to induce somebody to watch people fighting, there’s something wrong with the priorities of people that think like that.”

With all due respect, Rep. King, your analysis of the issue is mistaken. There may be a debate to be had as to whether or not watching or betting on a dogfight should be criminalized at the federal level, but your comment overlooks that question in favor of a false equivalence between dog fighting and boxing. I am assuming that, when you refer to “watch[ing] people fighting,” you are referring to boxing, MMA, or other related sports (I will use “boxing” as a shorthand, but this analysis could apply to other fighting-related sports as well.) There is a key difference between boxing and dog fighting, and there is a better legal analogy for dog fighting.

Boxing is a sport that requires not only training, but the informed consent of the participants. If a participant is a minor, it requires the informed consent of a parent or guardian. Boxers and other fighters go into a ring knowing what they are doing and prepared to fight. Fights have one or more referees whose job is to enforce the rules of the fight and to end the fight if a fighter is too injured. The goal of a fight is to win points or knock the other fighter down, but not to cause unnecessary damage or death. Putting someone into a ring against their will is a clear-cut criminal offense. Forcing someone to watch a fight against their will is a criminal offense. A breach of the rules by a fighter that unnecessarily causes serious injury or death may, in some circumstances, also constitute a criminal offense.

Dogs, in contrast to human boxers or fighters, cannot consent. They do as their masters have trained them to do. They do not understand fighting rules. A dog in a fight is not a willing and knowing participant. The dog’s only motivation is pleasing its master. Preparing a dog for a fight often requires deliberate traumatization to overcome a dog’s innate desire to not harm others. The goal of a fight may not be the death of the opponent dog, but few precautions exist to prevent such an outcome. This is why nearly every state in the United States and the federal government prohibit dog fighting.

Attending and watching a dog fight encourages, promotes, and rewards blatantly illegal behavior. Attending and watching a boxing match, provided it complies with the law, promotes a legal activity. There is simply no comparison between the two beyond a superficial resemblance. As I said earlier, there may be honest disagreement over whether federal law should criminalize such conduct, and I for one would welcome such a discussion. We must move beyond false equivalencies first.

I would suggest that there is a better analogy for dog fighting already criminalized by federal law. Dog fighting inherently involves the exploitation of, if you will, a dependent that is incapable of consenting to an activity (specifically, a dog.) We have laws protecting dogs from abuse and neglect because dogs are dependent on humans and cannot make informed decisions for their own care. We have laws protecting children from abuse and neglect for analogous reasons. While children will eventually become adults, dogs remain dependent for the entire span of their lives. Laws at the federal and state level prohibit many varieties of exploitation of children. Looking beyond labor and wage laws affecting children, the clear analogy for dog fighting laws are the laws that criminalize the exploitation of children for prurient purposes. I doubt anyone in this country would openly oppose these laws. They criminalize not only the production and distribution of sexually explicit materials involving children, but also its possession, because possession promotes, encourages, and rewards highly illegal conduct.

Again, this is only an analogy. I am not attempting to draw a direct equivalence between the two crimes, but rather to show that your stated reasons for opposing the amendments to the U.S. Farm Bill are misplaced. I sincerely hope that you reconsider your views.

Sincerely,

<Signature>

Who knows if he’ll read it.

My good canine friend Coco Puffin has some good commentary about this on her Facebook page (as translated by her human mom.) She uses some very graphic imagery, so be warned.