SC Tethering Bill S833 / Bsl Alert

S. 833
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
Sponsors: Senator Knotts
Introduced in the Senate on June 7, 2007
Currently residing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary
Summary: Dogs

A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 47-1-45 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE TETHERING, FASTENING, CHAINING, TYING, OR RESTRAINING A DOG TO A STATIONARY OBJECT FOR MORE THAN THREE HOURS A DAY OR FOR MORE THAN SIX HOURS A DAY ON A TROLLEY SYSTEM; TO PROVIDE CLASS I MISDEMEANOR CRIMINAL PENALTIES; AND TO AUTHORIZE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY ORDINANCE TO VARY THESE REGULATIONS.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1, Title 47 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 47-1-45. (A) It is unlawful to tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause such restraining of a dog, to a tree, fence, post, dog house, or other stationary object for more than three hours in a twenty-four-hour period. During periods of tethering that are not unlawful under this subsection, any tethering device used must be at least fifteen feet in length and attached in such manner as to prevent strangulation or other injury to the dog and entanglement with objects other than the stationary objects to which the device is attached.
(B) It is unlawful to tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause such restraining of a dog, to a cable trolley system, that allows movement of the restraining device, for more than six hours in a twenty-four-hour period. During periods of tethering that are not unlawful under this subsection, the length of the cable along which the tethering device can move must be at least ten feet, and the tethering device must be of such length that the dog is able to move ten feet away from the cable perpendicularly.
(C) It is unlawful to attach a chain or wire or other tethering device to, or cause such attachment to, a choke-type or pronged collar on a dog.
(D) It is unlawful to attach a chain or wire or other tethering device to a dog in such manner that does not allow the dog access to water and shelter.
(E) A person who knowingly or intentionally violates subsection (A), (B), (C), or (D) is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be punished in the manner prescribed in Section 47-1-40(A).
(F) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (C) and (D), a person may, subject to the provisions of subsections (C) and (D) of this section:
(1) tether and restrain a dog while actively engaged in:
(a) use of the dog in shepherding or herding livestock;
(b) use of the dog in the business of cultivating agricultural products, if the restraining is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog; or
(c) use of the dog in lawful hunting activities if the restraint is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog.
(2) after taking possession of a dog that appears to be a stray dog and after having advised animal control authorities of the capture of the dog, tether and restrain the dog during such time as the person having taken possession of the dog is seeking the identity of the owner of the dog;
(3) walk a dog with a handheld leash.
(G) A county, city, or town may by ordinance:
(1) reduce the time of permissible tethering provided in subsections (B) and (C) of this section, including a prohibition on tethering;
(2) increase the permitted time for tethering on a rope or chain provided in subsection (B) from three to as many as nine hours;
(3) increase the permitted time for tethering on a pulley system provided in subsection (C) from six to as many as twelve hours in any twenty-four-hour period."
SECTION 2. This act becomes effective July 1, 2008.








Despite the claims of those who support S.883 that the tethering of dogs leads to increased levels of animal aggression, Dr. Katherine Houpt, VMD, PhD, Dipl. ACVB, of Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, the country’s leading Animal Behavior Expert and her team of researchers have proven otherwise. The Cornell study found that tethering of dogs is a safe and humane means of confinement. The study concluded that it is socialization, not the method of confinement, that influences canine behavior.

The Centers For Disease Control nor the American Veterinary Medical Association also do not support anti-tethering laws. Dr. Gail Golab of the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Animal Welfare Committee states that the "AVMA has no official position on tethering”. Dr. Golab says, “Based on a review of the scientific literature and requested professional opinions of veterinary and animal behaviorists, it appears that the effects of tethering are situation-dependent". Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the Centers For Disease Control states that cause and effect have not been proven.

Anti-tethering laws are nothing more than mere substitutes for breed-specific legislation which is strongly opposed by every major animal welfare organization as a method in the prevention of dog bites or attacks.
The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Subcommittee will meet Wednesday February 6, 2008 at 10:00 AM in room 308 of the Gressette Building at the Capital in Columbia, South Carolina for a public hearing on S.833.

Please contact the following Senator’s below immediately to express your opposition to S.833:

Senator John M. "Jake" Knotts, Jr. (BILL S.833 sponsor)
SIV@scsenate.org
303 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29202 Bus. (803) 212-6350

Senator John D. Hawkins (Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman)
DH@scsenate.org
P.O. Box 5048, Spartanburg, 29304 Bus. (864) 574-8801 Home (864) 576-9932
602 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29202 Bus. (803) 212-6008

Senator Vincent A. Sheheen
VS@scsenate.org
P.O. Drawer 10, Camden, 29021 Bus. (803) 432-4391
506 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29201 Bus. (803) 212-6124

Senator Joel Lourie
JBL@scsenate.org
P.O. Box 6212, Columbia, 29260 Bus. (803) 779-0939 Home (803) 787-5802
601 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29202 Bus. (803) 212-6116

Senator Lewis R. Vaughn
LRV@scsenate.org
623 Ashley Commons Ct., Greer, 29651 Bus. (864) 848-0368 Home (864) 848-0368
501 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29202 Bus. (803) 212-6100


Jack Turner
Canine Lobbyist
sccaninelobbyist@comcast.net
P.O. Box 1216
Ladson, South Carolina 29456-1216
843-709-2354

 

Regardless of whether you Tether or Kennel your dog(s), PLEASE take a few minutes of your time to e-mail as many South Carolina Senator's as possible and voice your objection to S833.

http://www.adbadog.com/p_pdetails.asp?fpid=306&pg=306


Thank you,
Jack T.
Canine Lobbyist

 

interesting:
"The Centers For Disease Control nor the American Veterinary Medical Association also do not support anti-tethering laws. Dr. Gail Golab of the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Animal Welfare Committee states that the "AVMA has no official position on tethering”. Dr. Golab says, “Based on a review of the scientific literature and requested professional opinions of veterinary and animal behaviorists, it appears that the effects of tethering are situation-dependent". Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the Centers For Disease Control states that cause and effect have not been proven"

because here: http://theanimaladvocateblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/city-bans-tethering-chaining-dogs.html
One study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that animals that are kept roped or chained are 2.8 times more likely to bite people than dogs not kept roped or chained. In addition, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends never tethering or chaining a dog, because it can contribute to aggressive behavior. Anti-tethering campaigns are also endorsed by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Humane Society of the United States.
it seems as tho there is a contradiction....

i agree, it should be on a case by case ruling, as i truly wonder about all these supposed "studies" and what not. i'd like to see something legit and tangible to read regarding the effects of tethering, instead of a bunch of folks assuming to know its effects....
good luck in SC. i hope it does not pass...

 

SC Senate Committee Removes Time Limit on Tethering Bill (S.833)

The hourly time limits were scrapped on S.833 after Sen. Chip Campsen warned lawmakers that it would hurt hunters and people who take dogs to field trials. The Isle of Palms Republican said those dog owners would be force to choose between breaking the law or confining their animals to small transport kennels.

The bill (S.833) now says it is illegal to restrain a dog in a way that "may endanger the dog's health, safety or well being."

That includes, using a tether or chain that restricts movement for an unreasonable time, weighs too much, injures or chokes an animal, is too short to allow the dog to get away from its own waste or doesn't let a dog have access to food and shelter. It also says pet owners can't tie pets with collars that have prongs that bite into a dog's neck or choke collars.

The bill sets a fine of up to $500 and up to 60 days in jail for a first offense. A third offense can bring a two years in prison and a fine of up to $2,000.

Alicia Schwartz of "Dogs Deserve Better" said her group isn't happy with the proposal because they wanted it to have specific time limits on how long pets can be chained outside but still supports the bill, even with the changes. She said anyone who feels they have to tether a dog for long hours shouldn't have a pet at all.

"It's a choice to have a dog," Schwartz said. "It's about owner responsibility."


Jack T.
Canine Lobbyist

Ladson, South Carolina

 

UPDATE on S833 for everyone. The hourly time limits are still scrapped and this Bill has been ammended to now read that, "It is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally confine or restrain an animal in a cruel manner or knowingly or intentionally cause such cruel confinement or restraining of an animal". Read the full at the link text below.

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/prever/833_20080320.htm

A little FYI for you also, S833 was introduced by Senator Jake Knotts who was charged and fined back in 2003 for neglect and abandonment of his own dog after he left it in an unproperly ventilated vehicle while he was in a Columbia restaurant.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/7407/SC/US/

Senator Jake Knotts, West Columbia Republican, says he will pay the fine for leaving his dog in his car while in a restaurant but doesn't think the dog was in any danger.

Knotts was ticketed last week. He also will be donating money to a local animal facility.

When Senator Jake Knotts came out of a Cayce restaurant he found an animal control officer standing near his Lincoln with a bowl of water, trying to give his dog, Boom Boom, a drink.

Knotts said he rolled down all the windows in the car and left the Maltese dog alone for just 25 minutes, he had to pay $40 to take his dog home.

Knotts said, "In my case, I sincerely believe that I was not negligent because the time frame of my absence from my vehicle was indeed very short and no harm was done to our family pet. In reflection, I can see where a pet left in an automobile for any length of time should not be condoned."

What this article left out and didn't tell the public is that Senator Knotts also refused to come out of the restaurant after a patron repeatedly brought the dog's distress to his attention.

Senator Knotts' fine is what inspired municipalities across South Carolina to pass legislation that now makes it illegal to leave a dog unattended in a vehicle for any amount of time for any reason, INCLUDING crated dogs in ventilated/shaded vehicles at dog events.

Most South Carolina canine fanciers believe that Senator Knotts is actually trying to sway favor with his constituents who still haven't forgiven for his actions in 2003. I agree 100%.