Dog-fighting law broadened
Feb 22 2006
Home >> Legislation

A South Carolina bill targeting bloody hog-dog fighting has been broadened to target any contest involving dogs that harm or kill animals so their owners can make money.

"It's a much more significant bill now," Sen. John Hawkins, R-Spartanburg, said. Hawkins, who chairs the Senate subcommittee handling the legislation, said the bill needed to target more than hog-dog events where animal owners gamble and hogs are mutilated.

The change was needed because people would simply come up with a new blood sport using dogs and some other animal, Hawkins said.

The bill sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee would allow criminal prosecution and property seizure when owners bet or win prizes at events where dogs bite and hold another animal in a way that could maim or kill.

The legislation won't affect raccoon hunts and other legitimate events, Hawkins said.

But John Foley, a Cope resident who opposes the law, told the committee the bill would close commercial plantations that conduct hog hunts and the measure would allow police to seize that property. "My concern is that possible unforeseen consequences ... result in harming legitimate interests," Foley said.

Foley wasn't alone.

"I don't want to include legitimate hunters in this legislation," Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Camden, said.

Sheheen also was worried about applying to animal fighting the same property seizure and forfeiture powers police now have for drug law violations.

"It strikes me as un-American to take somebody's property and then they have to prove to you it wasn't used for a criminal purpose," Sheheen said.
Police need the provision because they are reluctant to handle labor-intensive dogfighting cases, said Trey Walker, spokesman for the attorney general's office.

The "forfeiture provision sort of gives a carrot, if you will, for local law enforcement to work these cases because they get to seize the luxury SUVs, the cash, the property and all of that material that kind of moves around in that industry," Walker said.

"That's exactly the wrong reason," said Sheheen, who said he's dealt with seizure cases and seen people give up property because they could not afford a challenge. "We don't want to give them incentives. They need to do their jobs because they're breaking the law, not because they'll be getting a luxury SUV and get cash to be able to buy all the guns that they want," he said.
Walker disagreed.

"If that's what it takes to get them to work these cases to prevent this barbaric activity, then so be it," Walker said. The seizure and forfeiture threat also is a deterrent that will keep people from getting involved in the first place, he said.

Hawkins said it was time to move the bill forward because what he called sham sports bring "a lot negatives to our state, including the potential for corruption of our public officials."

In January 2005, former Agriculture Commissioner Charles Sharpe admitted in federal court he took $10,000 to protect a cockfighting organization from legal trouble. He is serving a two-year prison sentence.

Source: Myrtle Beach Online - Feb 22, 2006

Edited: Feb 22 2006 at 6:08 pm