Did South Carolina law allow cockfighters to “test” birds against each other?

Plain-English summary

An Aiken County sheriff's officer asked whether people could put game birds against each other and describe it as “testing.” The April 2001 informal opinion said that conduct was cockfighting under § 16-17-650. The label did not change the act of engaging in the prohibited fight.

The AG also addressed two statutes the participants had invoked. The Farm Animals and Research Facilities Protection Act imposed penalties for unauthorized entry and harm involving places where animals were kept; the AG found no permission to test animals in it. Although the Animal Fighting and Baiting Act excluded “game fowl,” the opinion said that exclusion did not repeal the separate cockfighting prohibition.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Sheriff and animal control officers

The opinion applied the specific cockfighting prohibition to the proposed bird fights. It did not treat the animal protection statute or the game fowl exclusion as authorization for that activity.

Bird owners

The AG's answer turned on what the participants did with the birds. It concluded that fighting them against each other remained prohibited even when described as a test.

Common questions

Did calling the fight a test make it legal under the opinion?
A: No. The AG said testing birds against each other was engaging in cockfighting under § 16-17-650.

Did the animal fighting law's game fowl exclusion permit cockfighting?
A: No. The letter said § 16-27-60 contained that exclusion, but the separate § 16-17-650 still prohibited cockfighting.

Did the farm animal protection law create a testing exception?
A: No. The AG said that statute did not allow animal testing of this kind; it addressed unauthorized entry and harm involving animal facilities.

Background and statutory framework

The letter quoted the misdemeanor provision in § 16-17-650 and contrasted it with § 47-21-10 et seq. and § 16-27-60. Its answer was limited to the described cockfighting activity and the claimed statutory exceptions.

Citations and references

• The opinion said participants could not “test” birds against each other because doing so would “engage in” cockfighting.

Official title

Asking for clarification of the Farm Animals and Research Facilities Protection Act and the Animal Fighting and Baiting Act as they apply to local cockfighters in the Aiken County area claiming they may “test” their birds against each other.

Requester

Major Jody P. Rowland, Aiken County Sheriff’s Office

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-10-2001/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01april-10-rowland.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

April 10, 2001

Major Jody P. Rowland
Aiken County Sheriff's Office
420 Hampton Ave., NE
Aiken, South Carolina 29801

Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Major Rowland:
Thank you for your letter of March 16, 2001 that was referred to me for response. You have asked for clarification of the Farm Animals and Research Facilities Protection Act and the Animal Fighting and Baiting Act as they apply to local cock fighters in your area claiming they may "test" their birds against each other. Cockfighting is explicitly proscribed by S.C. Code Ann.§ 16-17-650 which states: It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to engage in or be present at cockfighting in this State and any person found guilty shall be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not exceeding thirty days. Therefore, these individuals may not "test" their birds against each other because to do so would be to "engage in" cockfighting which is specifically prohibited by this statute. They may also not claim protection for such activity under S.C. Code Ann.§ 47-21-10 et seq., the Farm Animals and Research Facilities Protection Act, because that statute does not allow for the "testing" of any animals, it only provides penalties for unauthorized entry, damage, control or destruction of a research animal facility or other place where animals are housed. Furthermore, while S.C. Code Ann. § 16-27-10 et seq., the Animal Fighting and Baiting Act does contain an exclusion of "game fowl," in § 16-27-60, cockfighting is specifically prohibited by S.C. Code Ann.
§ 16-17-650. Cockfighting is illegal in this State and to encourage such by claiming one is "testing" these birds, clearly is "engag[ing] in" cockfighting and therefore violates the law of this State. I hope the information provided herein proves helpful. Please contact me if you have any further questions. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by an Assistant Attorney

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING

.J~~

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Major Rowland

Page2
April 10, 2001

General and represents the position of the undersigned as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor published in a manner of a formal opinion.

r

L

tiv,,

I

I

David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General