Cockfighting; reducing penalties for certain cockfighting offenses; effective date.
HB1313 amends Oklahoma’s cockfighting statutes to change how several cockfighting-related offenses are defined and punished. The bill broadens the definition of “cockfight” to expressly include training fights where birds are intended or encouraged to attack one another, and it clarifies that equipment used to train or handle fighting birds—such as knives, gaffs, cages, pens, feeding apparatuses, and training pens—is contraband subject to seizure. It also updates statutory references throughout the cockfighting code.
The bill’s main substantive change is to reduce the severity of penalties for several offenses. Conduct that is currently treated as a felony under the affected provisions would instead be classified as a misdemeanor, including instigating or encouraging a cockfight, keeping a pit or providing equipment or facilities, and performing acts or services that facilitate a cockfight such as promoting, refereeing, advertising, or holding wagers. The bill retains criminal penalties but lowers the maximum punishment for these offenses and creates escalating fines for repeat convictions. The act would take effect November 1, 2025.
HB1313 would amend 21 O.S. 2021 Sections 1692.1, 1692.2, 1692.3, 1692.4, and 1692.8, altering Oklahoma’s criminal code provisions on cockfighting. It expands the statutory definition of cockfighting, preserves seizure authority over related equipment, and changes several offenses from felony treatment to misdemeanor treatment with lower jail and fine exposure. The bill would affect prosecutors, courts, law enforcement, and individuals involved in cockfighting operations, including organizers, facilitators, and those possessing related equipment.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a penalty-reduction and statutory cleanup bill rather than a new prohibition on cockfighting. There is no committee transcript or recorded vote information provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. The caption and introduced text suggest the sponsor’s intent was to reduce penalties for certain cockfighting offenses while keeping the underlying offenses criminalized.
The likely point of contention is the bill’s reduction of certain cockfighting offenses from felony to misdemeanor status, which could be viewed by opponents as weakening animal-cruelty enforcement and by supporters as a proportional sentencing change. Another possible issue is that the bill still expands and clarifies the definition of cockfighting to include training fights, which may be seen as broadening enforcement authority even as penalties are reduced. No specific stakeholder positions are documented in the provided materials, but the affected parties would likely include animal welfare advocates, law enforcement, prosecutors, and individuals involved in cockfighting activities.