Could the Spartanburg Humane Society require owners to pay for microchipping when redeeming their dogs?

Plain-English summary

Spartanburg County asked whether the local Humane Society could require an owner redeeming a dog to pay for an implanted microchip. The AG answered yes under the 2004 statute it reviewed. It read the provision saying an owner “must elect” implantation as controlling over the statute's more permissive language saying a shelter employee or veterinarian “may” implant a chip in an adopted or redeemed animal.

The opinion resolved that apparent tension through a statutory construction rule favoring the later provision in the same act. Its answer concerned the specific redemption and microchip question, not other shelter fees.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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: Could the humane society make microchipping a condition of redeeming a dog?
A: The AG said yes under the provision it interpreted, with the expense borne by the owner.

Q: Why did the AG treat the requirement as mandatory when another part said “may implant”?
A: It saw an apparent conflict and applied a rule that the later expression of legislative will in the same statute controlled.

Q: Did the opinion address adopted animals as well as redeemed animals?
A: It quoted a provision mentioning both adoption and redemption, but its conclusion answered the request about dogs being redeemed by their owners.

Background and statutory framework

Section 47-3-55 contained both the permissive implantation language and the separate language the AG treated as requiring the redeeming owner to elect implantation. The opinion cited Feldman v. S.C. Tax Commission for the rule used to reconcile those provisions.

Citations

• Section 47-3-55
• Feldman v. S.C. Tax Commission

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-6-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04feb6arnold.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER
A1TORNEY GENER.AL

February 6, 2004

I
I
I

Mr. Don Arnold
Spartanburg County Environmental Enforcement
298 Broadcast Drive
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29303
Dear Mr. Arnold:

In a letter to this office you questioned whether the Spartanburg Humane Society may require that a microchip be implanted in redeemed dogs at the owner's expense. Reference was made to S.C. Code Ann. Section 47-3-55 (E) (Supp. 2003) which provides that "(t)he owner redeeming his dog or cat must elect to have a microchip implanted." Such provision is included in a statute which generally provides for the use of microchip technology in identifying pets. In responding to your question, several principles ofstatutory construction are relevant. First is the fundamental rule of construction that requires that legislative intent must be ascertained and given effect. State v. M~ 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Such legislative intent must prevail if it can reasonably be discovered from the language used. The legislative wording is construed in light ofthe General Assembly's intended purpose. State ex re. McLeod v. Montgomery, 244 S.C. 308, 136 S.E.2d 778 (1964). The statute as a whole must receive a reasonable, practical and fair interpretation consistent with the purpose, design and policy of the lawmakers. Caughman v. Columbia Y.M.C.A., 212 S.C. 337, 47 S.E.2d 788 (1948). Section 47-3-55(0) in stating that the owner redeeming his dog or cat "must elect to have a microchip implanted" is included in a statute which also states in subsection (C) that "(i)f a dog or cat is adopted or redeemed from an animal shelter, a licensed veterinarian or animal shelter employee ...may implant a microchip in the dog or cat adopted or redeemed". Any ambiguity in resolving the apparent conflict between the two provisions in the same act may be resolved by the statutory rule that the last expression oflegislative will is law where conflicting provisions are found in the same statute. Therefore, the last in point of time or order of arrangement, in this instance, Subsection (D) would prevail. Feldman v. S.C. Tax Commission, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).

~ERi'.~.

qeoos_Byu»ING • POST 0mcE Box 11549 • CoWMBIA. S.C. 2921 1·I549 • l'aEPRONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Mr. Arnold
Page2
February 6, 2004
Section 4 7-3-5 5(D) is quite specific in providing that an owner redeeming a cat or dog ''must elect to have a microchip implanted." Consistent with such, the Humane Society may require that a microchip be implanted in redeemed dogs at the owner's expense. Sincerely,

d~LJJ2~
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

I
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Assistant Deputy Attorney General

I

r
l

\