Could Richland County require every dog or cat to be sterilized before returning it to its owner in 2000?

Plain-English summary

Richland County asked whether South Carolina's animal-shelter statute prevented it from requiring sterilization of dogs and cats in custody before releasing them to owners. The May 2000 informal opinion drew a limit. Section 47-3-480 did not prohibit a political subdivision from adopting sterilization procedures generally, but its subsection (B) excepted privately owned animals whose owners claimed or established ownership.

The AG read that exception to mean a shelter's general sterilization procedure could not be applied to a reclaimed pet merely because it had been in custody. The letter did not decide every other possible basis for local animal-control regulation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. 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 statute forbid all local sterilization procedures?
A: No. The AG said it did not prohibit political subdivisions from adopting them generally.

Q: What happened when an owner reclaimed a privately owned pet?
A: The opinion said the statute's exception applied when the owner claimed or showed that the animal was their property.

Q: Did the AG say every animal in shelter custody could be sterilized before release?
A: No. That reading would ignore the subsection (B) exception for claimed or proven privately owned animals.

Background and statutory framework

Section 47-3-480 set out sterilization requirements for animals acquired from shelters and similar agencies. The AG read subsection (B) alongside that general rule and the statute's title, which referred to exceptions. Its answer distinguished acquisition from return of a privately owned animal to its owner.

Citations and references

• Section 47-3-480, shelter sterilization and the privately owned animal exception.

Official title

Asking whether “the provisions of S.C. Code Section 47-3-480(B) prohibit a political subdivision from adopting procedures requiring the mandatory sterilization of all dogs and cats in its custody prior to releasing such animal back to its owner.”

Requester

Amelia R. Linder, Staff Attorney, Richland County Legal Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-30-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00may30linder.pdf

Original opinion text

.,

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CH A RLE S M . C ON D ON
ATTOR N EY G EN E RA L

May 30, 2000

Amelia R. Linder, Staff Attorney
Richland County Legal Department
2020 Hampton Street, Suite 4018
Columbia, South Carolina 29204

RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Ms. Linder:
On behalf of Richland County Council, you have asked whether "the provisions of S.C. Code Section 47-3-480(8) prohibit a political subdivision from adopting procedures requiring the mandatory sterilization of all dogs and cats in its custody prior to releasing such animal back to its owner." As discussed below, in my opinion subparagraph (B) does not prohibit the adoption of mandatory sterilization procedures, but rather provides an exception from such procedures for those privately owned animals whose owners either claim or establish ownership of the animal in question.

.,

As you know, Section 47-3-480 provides in relevant part: (A) A public or private animal shelter, animal control agency operated by a political subdivision of this State, humane society, or public or private animal refuge shall make provisions for the sterilization of all dogs and cats

acquired from the shelter, agency, society, or refuge by: (1) providing sterilization by a licensed veterinarian before relinquishing custody of the animal; or (2) entering into a written agreement with the person acquiring the animal guaranteeing that sterilization will be performed by a licensed veterinarian within thirty days after acquisition of a sexually mature animal or

Amelia R. Linder, Esq.
May 30, 2000
Page2

no later than six months of age except upon a written statement issued by a licensed veterinarian stating that such surgery would threaten the life of the animal. (B) This section does not apply to a privately owned animal which the shelter, agency, society, or refuge may have in its possession for any reason if

the owner of the animal claims or presents evidence that the animal is his property. (Emphasis added.)

I

I

The following rules of statutory construction are relevant here. "In interpreting any statute, the primary purpose is to ascertain the intent of the legislature." State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). The court must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of the statute according to their literal meaning. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991 ). If the intent of the legislature be clearly apparent from the language, the court may not embark upon a search for it outside the statute. Timmons v. South Carolina Tricentennial Commission, 254 S.C. 175 S.E.2d 805 (1975). The title or caption of an act may be properly considered to aid in the construction of a statute and to show the intent of the Legislature. Lindsay v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 258 S.C. 272, 188 S.E.2d 374 (1972). Giving the words in Section 4 7-3-480 their plain and ordinary meaning, I must advise that in my judgment the legislature did not intend to prohibit political subdivisions from adopting mandatory sterilization procedures. Instead, the legislature merely intended to except from mandatory sterilization a dog or cat whose owner either claims or proves that the animal in question is his property. This reading seems consistent with the statute's title, which provides in pertinent part as follows: "Provisions for sterilization: exceptions .... '' (Emphasis added.) Therefore. consistent with the foregoing principles of statutory construction, it is my opinion that S.C. Code Ann. §47-3-480 does not prohibit a political subdivision from adopting procedures requiring the mandatory sterilization of all dogs and cats in its custody prior to releasing such animal back to its owner. Subparagraph ( B ). however, provides an exception from such procedures for those privately owned animals whose owners either claim or establish ownership of the animal in question. This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific

Amelia R. Linder, Esq.
May 30, 2000
Page 3

question asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I am Sincerely yours,

Zeb C. Williams, III
Deputy Attorney General
ZCW/an

I

I