This is an update from AKC Government Relations.
For questions, contact AKC GR at doglaw@akc.org.
Please share this information with animal owners in South Carolina.
The battle to preserve the rights of innocent animal owners in South Carolina continues! Thank you to South Carolinians who contacted their state Representatives and Senators regarding House Bill 3682 and Senate Bill 456, two problematic bills that would make an innocent animal owner responsible for paying for the costs of confiscating and holding their animals on a suspicion of animal cruelty. Your ongoing action is needed.
UPDATE: House Bill 3682 was minimally amended to provide that “in the event that an owner is adjudicated not guilty of all charges, the owner shall receive from the agency that filed the petition a refund of all costs paid by the owner pursuant to the petition.” That means an owner who is found not guilty of all charges gets a refund of the monies paid to a court for costs of seizing and caring for the impounded animals.
However, this amendment to the bill does not change the fact that if House Bill 3682 passes, an innocent person who is financially unable to pay for costs of seizing their animals and keeping the animals impounded throughout the entire trial process will have their property rights severed and lose their animals forever, before a verdict is reached. It also is unclear if the monies paid by the animal owner would be refunded if charges were dropped, or if a person other than the owner of the confiscated animals is found guilty of cruelty.
House Bill 3682 also was amended so that either the animal owner or the confiscating agency may petition a court to adjust the amount of money the animal owner must pay to the court every thirty days so that their animals are not forfeited. (When the bill was first introduced, the owner had no right to challenge the amount of the monthly payment.) However, the bill still does not require that the amounts requested by the confiscating agency are subject to any cap or test of reasonableness.
YOUR CONTINUED ACTION IS NEEDED! Even with amendments, House Bill 3682 fails to protect the rights of innocent animal owners. House Bill 3682 has passed in the House and will next be considered by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Senate Bill 456, which is also assigned to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, has not yet been amended.
If South Carolina Senators do not hear from their constituents in opposition to these harmful bills, this will very likely become state law. Here are three steps you can take immediately:
Step 1.
Contact the Senators who are members of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee (listed below) and respectfully ask them to Vote NO on House Bill 3682 and Senate Bill 456. Begin your message with, “My name is ________, I am a resident of South Carolina, and I strongly oppose House Bill 3682 and Senate Bill 456. I ask you to vote no on these bills.” Please feel free to include additional comments, or just end with, “Thank you.” Scroll down for additional talking points and resources. If you cannot speak directly with the Senator or their staff member, please leave them polite voice mail and email messages. Those messages count! The committee members who will next vote on these bills are: (Click each email individually to automatically open your email app and populate the italicized email text above.)
Senator Wes Climer, wesclimer@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6230
Senator Mike Fanning, mikefanning@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6108
Senator Stephen Goldfinch, stephengoldfinch@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6172
Senator Richard Harpootlian, dickharpootlian@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6148
Senator Michael Johnson, michaeljohnson@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6024
Senator Dwight Loftis, dwightloftis@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6100
Senator A. Shane Massey, shanemassey@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6330
Senator J. Thomas McElveen, thomasmcelveen@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6132
Senator Mike Reichenbach, mikereichenbach@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6016
Senator Ronnie Sabb, ronniesabb@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6032
Senator Vernon Stephens, vernonstephens@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6024
Senator Scott Talley, scotttalley@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6048
Senator Daniel Verdin, dannyverdin@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6250
Senator Kent Williams, kentwilliams@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6000
Senator Josh Kimbrell, joshkimbrell@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6108 (bill sponsor)
Senator Billy Garrett, billygarrett@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6032 (bill sponsor)
Senator Penry Gustafson, penrygustafson@scsenate.gov, (803)212-6040 (bill sponsor)
Step 2.
Contact your state Senator, respectfully state that you strongly oppose House Bill 3682 and Senate Bill 456, and ask them to VOTE NO. You can use the same message noted above in Step 1.
To identify your state Senator, click here, enter your address, and look for “Your South Carolina State Senator Is.” Then click on their name for contact information.
Step 3.
Involve other animal owners in South Carolina. Help them contact committee members and their Senators with polite requests to VOTE NO on House Bill 3682 and Senate Bill 456.
Resources:
Click here to read AKC’s recent blog on Bond for Care? Animal Forfeiture? Due Process? What does it all mean?
Click here to read AKC’s Due Process Protections for Dog Owners position statement.
Click here to view a brief animated explainer video on “cost of care” legislation.
Click here to view AKC’s one-page flyer on “cost of care” legislation.
Talking Points:
Under House Bill 3682/Senate Bill 456, an owner could permanently lose their animals absent any finding of guilt. These bills address disposition of animals confiscated due to alleged cruelty. Under these bills, a court could be required to order an animal owner to pay the costs of seizure and costs of care for their confiscated animals throughout the trial process. If unable to pay, the owner would permanently forfeit ownership of their animals, even if the owner is not the person charged with a crime, and even if no person is ever found guilty.
An innocent owner would bear all costs of impoundment from date of seizure through the verdict. As noted above, the bill was amended to provide that the owner would get a refund if found not guilty of all charges, but it remains unclear if the owner would get a refund if charges were dropped or if a different person was found guilty of cruelty against the owner’s animals.
Under current South Carolina law, an owner convicted of cruelty can be required to pay costs of care for impounded animals following a verdict. This is reasonable. House Bill 3682/Senate Bill 456 would delete and replace this current law with troubling provisions.
House Bill 3682/Senate Bill 456 trample the due process rights of animal owners. It would require a court to order an animal owner to pay costs of care for confiscated animals based on a determination explicitly limited to whether seizure of the animals was authorized.
Under House Bill 3682/Senate Bill 456, the owner of confiscated animals has to pay, even if the owner is not accused of an offense. For example, if animals were confiscated because of an accusation against an animal caretaker, such as a stable worker, trainer, boarding kennel operator, etc., it would be the owner who must pay costs of care. These bills also fail to protect the rights of innocent co-owners of confiscated animals who were not in possession of the animals at the time of confiscation.
House Bill 3682/Senate Bill 456 provide no caps on the costs that an animal owner would be required to pay while animals remain confiscated. Costs should be limited to the costs related to the direct care of the animals.
House Bill 3682/Senate Bill 456 do not prohibit elective, non-therapeutic procedures or surgeries (such as spay/neuter) from being performed on seized animals. No permanent alteration of confiscated animals should be performed without the owner’s written consent.
House Bill 3682/Senate Bill 456 do not consider the unintended consequences, including that the bills potentially incentivize animal sheltering organizations to promote confiscations of animals. If confiscation was authorized, sheltering organization then could—and likely would—receive the confiscated animals, and a court could be mandated to require costs of care be paid to the sheltering organization by the animal owner, absent any criminal charges, a determination of probable cause that a crime occurred, or a finding of guilt against the animal owner or any other person. Consequently, even if no person is found guilty, the sheltering organization would receive uncapped costs of care, and if the owner cannot keep up payments, be awarded ownership of the animals to be sold/adopted for additional fees.
For additional information, please contact AKC Government Relations at 919-816-3720 or email doglaw@akc.org.
Below are proposed national laws affecting all dog breeders in the USA. Click the AKC banner or here to read more on the AKC website and to subscribe to alerts from AKC.
Below are proposed bills affecting all dog owners in South Carolina. Click the AKC banner or here to read more about legislative alerts broken down by state on the AKC website. Scroll below for National alerts.
This is an update from AKC Government Relations.
For questions, contact AKC GR at doglaw@akc.org.
The AKC is asking for our help on pending legislation. See below:
Dear Club Officers, Legislative Liaisons, and Delegates,
Please share this message with your club members.
We are reaching out to you because your representative in the U.S. Congress sponsored the Puppy Protection Act last year. This bill to restrict dog breeding has been re-introduced in Congress again this year. Your action is urgently needed to contact your member of Congress and respectfully ask them to not sponsor or support the Puppy Protection Act again.
Many lawmakers signed on to this animal-rights-supported bill (H.R. 1624) without realizing that its one-size-fits-all requirements are harmful to best practices, and disproportionately impact small hobby breeders. Contacting your Member of Congress now can help protect the rights of responsible dog breeders and the future of purpose-bred dogs.
Scroll down for information on how to contact your lawmakers.
Background: The Puppy Protection Act has been introduced in each of the last two Congresses. Last year, animal rights groups obtained more than 200 sponsors on the bill, vastly over-representing support for the bill and increasing likelihood of passage this year. Your voice is especially important because your Congressman sponsored the bill last year, and has likely been asked by animal rights groups to support it again this year.
Scroll down for talking points and more information on how to contact your lawmakers.
Puppy Protection Act Government Mandates Include:
Prohibiting the breeding of a female dog:
Unless pre-screened by a veterinarian
Based arbitrarily on the age and size of the dog.
If it would produce more than two litters in an 18-month period.
Additional arbitrary requirements include but are not limited to:
Mandated unfettered access from dogs’ primary enclosures to an outdoor exercise area large enough that it “allows dogs to extend to full stride”. This would create a potentially dangerous environment for multiple dogs.
Mandated annual dental exams.
Mandated indoor space sufficient to allow the tallest dog in an enclosure to stand on his or her hind legs without touching the roof of the enclosure. For family dogs that live in their owner’s homes, the primary enclosure may be considered the dog’s sleeping crate.
Mandated pre-breeding screenings. No specific details are provided for what the screening would involve or who would make these decisions.
Prohibition on the keeping of dogs in enclosures above 85 degrees or below 45 degrees F, regardless of breed or acclimation needs for dogs that hunt, sled, detect explosives, or do other work and thrive in cooler temperatures, or that must be acclimated to cooler or warmer temperatures for their safety.
Completely solid flooring, despite scientific recognition that multiple types of high-quality flooring, including engineered slatted flooring, is beneficial in certain types of kennels and with certain breeds.
Why This is a Problem
While some portions of the measures include reasonable generalized guidelines for canine care, arbitrary requirements that ignore best practices for individual outcomes are not appropriate for federal mandates. One-size-fits-all requirements do not take into account the broad range of breeds and types of dogs, or best health and breeding practices. They also do not allow for creative approaches that permit expert breeders and owners to provide optimal care for their individual dogs and advance the art and science of responsible dog breeding. Arbitrary restrictions can be expensive and undermine small hobby breeding programs because of an overly-broad definition of “breeding female” that impacts who is subject to federal requirements.
To learn more, see and share Breeder Expertise, Thoughtful Analysis Demonstrate Dangerous Flaws in ‘Feel Good’ Dog Law.
Who This Applies To
Anyone subject to USDA breeder/dealer licensing. Breeders are subject to USDA licensing if they maintain more than 4 “breeding females” (a term that is undefined but is generally considered to mean an intact female) and transfer even one of the offspring “sight unseen”. “Breeding females” include any combination ofcats, dogs, or other small pet mammals such as hamsters, guinea pigs, etc. (Learn more).
What You Can Do
Your member of Congress needs to hear from you. Please call, email, or write to your member of Congress today. (Visit AKC’s Legislative Action Center and type your address in the “Find Your Elected Officials” box to find out who represents you and get their contact information. )
Respectfully urge them to not sponsor or support the Puppy Protection Act again. Tell them:
H.R. 1624 is bad policy because it mandates arbitrary one-size-fits-all requirements for temperatures, kennel engineering standards, and breeding bans that are not appropriate for all types or breeds of dogs and could actually harm some dogs.
Explain you are a constituent. Respectfully share your experience and concerns as a dog owner/breeder/expert and based on the talking points above. Breeders: Relying on your experience, explain in practical terms how the new mandates could adversely impact your breeding program.
Ask them to not support advancing the bill out of committee or in the Farm Bill.
Ask them to instead support additional financial resources for USDA so they can appropriately enforce the requirements they already have.
If you can, let the AKC GR team (doglaw@akc.org) know you contacted your lawmakers and if you received any response.
For questions or more information, contact doglaw@akc.org, visit www.akcgr.org or contact 919-816-3720.
Thank you for your action to protect the future of our breeds and the integrity of responsible, expert breeders.