The Associated Press reports that a bill proposing to make dog fighting and cock fighting felonies in Idaho, instead of misdemeanors, died in the State House today.

However, HB 233, didn't just propose to make dog fighting a felony. It expanded the definition of dogfighting to include those people who may not have been engaged in staging dogfights, but were remotely tied to it. For example, the pet store owner that sold dogs to dogfight organizers, or a contractor that built a structure that was used for dogfighting, or even the teenager who posted signs advertising a dogfight, these people would have faced up to two years in prison.

I can understand the thinking of animal activists, that a "spade is a spade". And true, this law would have put more people in prison. But putting more people in prison is not what we want. What we want is to stop dog fighting. Punishing these other people won't achieve that.

It would have been much more sensible to leave the definition of dogfighting alone, and simply turn it into a felony. That way, the only people targeted by this law, are the actual organizers of dogfights. If the State of Idaho enacted this bill, then it would have sent a lot of people to jail who had nothing directly to do with dogfighting.

That in itself would not have stopped the dogfighters. It would have simply forced citizens to be vigilant. And therein the fault of this legislation. Whose job is it to enforce laws?

If law enforcement were more effective in finding, arresting, and convicting the dogfighters, then citizens would not have to have HB 233. Thus, I would much rather see lawmakers create legislation that gives law enforcement more tools and resources to catch the bad guys.