Animal Cruelty & Care Act

Animal Cruelty and Care Act

Written by Hali Selert,Vice President of Eunoia Rescue

Gov McMaster receiving some love from Ruby after signing the Animal Cruelty & Care Act Photo by Dede Biles

On August 8, 2019 Governor Henry McMaster held a press conference to publicly sign in an animal welfare law, which he called “a great step forward.” While it is great that the South Carolina legislature has recognized that the animals of our state need protection, should we applaud this move and move on with our lives, or should we use it as a springboard to demand further protections for the voiceless members of our communities? The answer is that we must be louder in our efforts, and not back down because the government has thrown us a bone. The law, Senate Bill 105, or the “Animal Cruelty and Care Act” was initially passed in May, 2019, and became effective immediately. S.105 is broad and touches on a lot of the major points animal advocates have been calling for. I have an interesting perspective when reading the bill, as I am a recent graduate of the University of South Carolina School of Law, and I am also the Vice President of Eunoia Rescue.

Animal cruelty happens every day in South Carolina. Hopefully the ACCA will aid in holding offenders accountable

From a rescue perspective, I view the provisions regarding spaying and neutering one of the most important. One of the cornerstones of rescue organizations is preventing unwanted animals from entering the world, and the only way to prevent unwanted litters is simple: sterilization. Section 8 of the new law requires that a shelter or rescue organization have an animal sterilized before allowing the animal to leave their care. The alternative allows for the organization to have a written agreement with the adopter guaranteeing the animal will be sterilized within a specified period. Although this provision is nothing earth shattering or groundbreaking, and most shelters and rescues have had similar provisions already in place, what is important is that the law now specifies that the cost of the sterilization is on the person adopting, and that there are legally enforceable penalties for failure to comply. In the event an adopter fails to uphold their end of the contract, the shelter or rescue may demand the animal be returned, and also that the adopter pay $200. Despite some public perception, shelters and rescues are not made of money, and most have to consult outside veterinarians for basic vetting, such as spay and neuter surgeries. This mandated $200 is a significant step in the right direction not only in terms of funding to the agencies, but also in holding adopters accountable for their actions in a real way. The other aspect of the law that I find the most helpful would be the provision regarding the reimbursement to organizations when caring for animals that have been seized after their owners have been arrested on charges relating to animal cruelty. Shelters often go on “code red” (i.e. any animal may be killed at any moment to create space) because of the burden animals on court holds pose. These animals not only take up a vast majority of much needed space (see the 42 dogs held in York County following a fighting ring bust, holding up over half of their 70 something kennels) but also place a significant financial strain on the already underfunded shelters. It is required that the animals seized in these situations must be held while the defendant’s case is ongoing. This means dogs and puppies are kept in the shelters for an indefinite amount of time. It means that the shelters must pay to feed and house these animals for an indefinite amount of time. It also means that the shelters must pay to treat these animals for any illnesses for an indefinite amount of time. When speaking with Michelle Reid from Valiant Animal Rescue about this specific part of the law, she said “this is absolutely what needs to happen.” And added that in her work, one large-scale case can set the nonprofit back upwards of $50,000. She said that in years past, when seeking restitution for those cases, “we tend to only see tiny fractions of that lump sum owed and it takes years” to get the money. She’s hopeful that the new laws will protect the animals, but expressed that enforcement of the laws will really determine their efficacy. S. 105 mandates that a shelter or rescue organization that is awarded custody of seized animals may petition the court for reimbursement for these costs. If the defendant is found guilty, the court may require they pay the fees, and if found not guilty, the county or municipality may reimburse the shelters.

As much as I would like to celebrate this advancement in South Carolina’s animal welfare laws, the legal side of my brain kicks in and asks “so what?” There are plenty of laws on the books that appear great on the surface, but does that mean they are actually upheld? Does that mean that the laws will be implemented efficiently and across the board? Is this just a band-aid on a broken system that is not properly set up to help the state’s animals? As a rescue, if an adopter failed to uphold their end of our spay/neuter agreement, could I successfully raise the issue in court and know with utter confidence we would get our animal back, and the now mandated $200? Is it really that revolutionary that a shelter can ask the court to hold someone accountable? The bill seemingly touches on these suspicions as well, as it includes provisions regarding training for judges. The law requires that magistrate and municipal court judges receive at least two hours of training on issues concerning animal cruelty every four years. Although I do applaud those who advocated so fiercely for this law to be passed, I must say I expect, and demand, more. Governor McMaster himself said there is “still a lot of work to be done” when it comes to the rights and welfare of animals in our state, and I must say I wholeheartedly agree. The initial version of the bill included a provision that would have set guidelines for the tethering of animals, but unfortunately this provision was dropped before the final bill was passed.

If we want to show how great South Carolina is in protecting our animals, why not pack as much punch as we can into this law? Why stop short of doing everything we can to make a real impact?Areas in our state like York County are setting an example of what we should all be doing— turning the volume UP in our advocacy efforts. Following the passage of S. 105, York passed an ordinance regarding tethering. Similar efforts have been happening in areas such as Myrtle Beach and Spartanburg. Looking forward, I am hopeful South Carolina will continue the momentum in regards to animal welfare laws. Kelsey Gilmore-Futeral, with the Humane Society of the United States told me that she anticipates working with South Carolina’s lawmakers on anti-tethering laws, as well as a commercial breeder bill at the state level. She noted “I would love to see local communities start to work on pet store sale bans to stop the sale of dogs raised in puppy mills from storefronts.” I agree with her, and hope activists across the state demand more for animals, in every situation. While we should be proud of our state for beginning address the rights of the animals in our state, we must not stop here, we must demand more. To find out how you can get involved to advocate for the animals of South Carolina, reach out to your local shelter or rescue, or send me an email at hali@eunoiarescue.com.