Did South Carolina’s 2008 animal cruelty statute exempt ordinary livestock and farm practices?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked whether a 2008 amendment to South Carolina’s animal cruelty law exempted the activities named in its subsection on fowl, accepted animal husbandry, veterinary medicine, farming, forestry, and wildlife management. The Attorney General concluded that the section’s criminal penalties did not apply to those listed practices.

The legislator also asked whether livestock rearing and ranching counted as agricultural practices. The AG said they did, naming cattle, sheep, horses, goats, dairying, hogs, and similar pursuits. Its answer interpreted the terms in the 2008 statute; it did not decide whether any particular conduct was an accepted practice on the facts of a case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. 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.

Common questions

Q: Did the 2008 animal cruelty section apply to accepted farm animal-husbandry practices? A: The AG said the statute expressly excluded those practices from that section’s penalties.

Q: Did ranching and raising livestock count as agricultural practices? A: The AG said yes, and specifically included cattle, sheep, horses, goats, dairying, hogs, and similar activities.

Q: Did the opinion decide whether a particular alleged act was accepted husbandry? A: No. It interpreted the statutory categories, without determining facts about a specific prosecution.

Background and statutory framework

The request focused on subsection (C) of the amended animal cruelty provision. The AG read its express exclusions and interpreted the otherwise undefined phrase “agricultural practices” to encompass livestock rearing and ranching.

Citations and references

Statutes: The opinion quoted S.C. Code Ann. § 47-1-40 as amended by Act No. 259 of 2008.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-28-2008/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/weeks-j-d-os-8637-8-28-08-agricultural-practices.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 28, 2008

Honorable J. David Weeks
Member, House of Representatives
2 Marlborough Court
Sumter, South Carolina 29154
Dear Representative Weeks:
In a letter to this office you requested an opinion regarding S.C. Code Ann. § 47-1-40 as last amended by Act No. 259 of 2008 which states: (A) [w]hoever knowingly or intentionally overloads, overdrives, overworks, ill-treats any animal, deprives any animal of necessary sustenance or shelter, inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering upon any animal, or by omission or commission knowingly or intentionally causes these things to be done, for every offense is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished by imprisonment not exceeding sixty days or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or both, for a first offense; by imprisonment not exceeding ninety days or by a fine not exceeding eight hundred dollars, or both, for a second offense; or by imprisonment not exceeding two years or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, or both, for a third or subsequent offense. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a first offense under this subsection shall be tried in magistrate's or municipal court. (B) Whoever tortures, torments, needlessly mutilates, cruelly kills, or inflicts excessive or repeated unnecessary pain or suffering upon any animal or by omission or commission causes the acts to be done for any of the offenses is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be punished by imprisonment of not less than one hundred eighty days and not to exceed five years and by a fine of five thousand dollars. (C) This section does not apply to fowl, accepted animal husbandry practices of farm operations and the training of animals, the practice of veterinary medicine, agricultural practices, forestry and silvacultural practices, wildlife management practices, or activity authorized by Title 50, including an activity authorized by the REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING ● POST OFFICE BOX 11549 ● COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 ● TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 ● FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

Honorable J. David Weeks
Page 2
August 28, 2008

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources or an exercise designed for training dogs for hunting, if repeated contact with a dog or dogs and another animal does not occur during this training exercise. Referencing such, you have questioned whether agricultural pursuits and activities involving fowl, accepted animal husbandry practices of farm operations and the training of animals, the practice of veterinary medicine, agricultural practices, forestry and silvacultural practices, wildlife management practices, or activity authorized by Title 50 are exempted from prosecution under Section 47-1-40 by the language set forth in subsection (C)? When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose of limiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning and statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991); Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). Section 47-1-40 provides for a criminal penalty for the violation of its provisions. However, subsection (C) explicitly provides that the criminal penalties are inapplicable to “...fowl, accepted animal husbandry practices of farm operations and the training of animals, the practice of veterinary medicine, agricultural practices, forestry and silvacultural practices, wildlife management practices, or activity authorized by Title 50....” Therefore, the penalty provisions are inapplicable to such practices. See: Op. Atty. Gen. dated March 15, 1993. You also questioned whether the rearing of livestock and ranching businesses which would include but not be limited to cattle, sheep, horses, goats, dairying, hogs, and other similar agricultural pursuits would be included in the term “agricultural practices” as set forth in subsection (C) of Section 47-1-40? In considering your question, it should be noted that also exempted are “accepted animal husbandry practices of farm operations”. However, neither that term or the term “agricultural practices” is separately defined in the Code. The Oregon Court of Appeals in Eugene Sand & Gravel v. Lane County, 74 P.3d 1085 at 1091(2003) noted the definition of the term “accepted farm practice” as set forth in the Oregon statutes as “...a mode of operation that is common to farms of a similar nature, necessary for the operation of such farms to obtain a profit in money, and customarily utilized in conjunction with

Honorable J. David Weeks
Page 3
August 28, 2008

farm use.” The term “farm use” was defined as
...the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof. In an opinion dated January 17, 1991, the Vermont Attorney General defined the term “agricultural practice” as “...an activity pertaining to agriculture.” The term “agriculture” is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, rev’d 4th Ed. as “[t]he art or science of cultivating the ground, including the harvesting of crops, and in a broad sense, the science or art of production of plants and animals useful to man, including in a variable degree, the preparation of these products for man’s use.” The term “agricultural” is defined by that same source as “pertaining to, or dealing with, agriculture; also, characterized by or engaged in farming as the leading pursuit.” Consistent with the above, in the opinion of this office, the rearing of livestock and ranching businesses which would include but not be limited to cattle, sheep, horses, goats, dairying, hogs, and other similar agricultural pursuits would be included in the term “agricultural practices” as set forth in subsection (C) of Section 47-1-40. Therefore, such practices would be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 47-1-40. If there are any further questions, please advise.

Sincerely,
Henry McMaster
Attorney General
By:
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

_______
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General