Stray Holds, Mandatory Registration & Breeder Permits
WINNSBORO – In a divisive discussion at the July 2 Animal Ordinance Ad Hoc Committee meeting regarding returning unsterilized animals to owners, the committee revisited their earlier 5-2 vote to alter existing Animal Ordinance 737, Section 4-16, which requires that dogs picked up by Animal Control and reclaimed by owners must be spayed or neutered prior to release at the owners’ expense.
Committee member Dr. Roger Gaddy challenged the measure. “I just don’t think it’s right that a registered dog gets out one time, and y’all spay and neuter it. That’s just wrong.”
The committee majority agreed and is recommending a change to remove the required spay and neuter requirement, replacing it with a tiered approach. This proposal would allow owners to reclaim unsterilized dogs but impose escalating redemption fees: an initial fee, doubled upon a second offense, with no further opportunity for release after multiple violations.
However, concerns still persisted about what some committee members considered unfairness to responsible owners whose pets escape accidentally.
Aimee Griffith countered, emphasizing the urgency of action. “We have to fix it somehow,” referring to the overpopulation in the county, “we can’t go backwards.”
Stray Hold Times Spark Liability Concerns
One major point of debate was the state-mandated stray hold period for animals with identification. Under South Carolina law (Title 47, Chapter 3, Section 47-3-540), Animal Control must notify owners at their last known address by certified mail that their animal has been impounded. Owners then have up to two weeks to notify Animal Control of their intent to reclaim the animal, with euthanasia allowed only after an additional two-week wait.
“This needs to be a hard and fast, very distinguishable date by which the office is no longer liable if they send this animal out for adoption or humanely euthanize it,” Titus stated, emphasizing legal protection for the shelter.
Animal Control Director Jo Shaw noted operational challenges.
“Bear in mind that the shelters are full, and the longer you stretch out the stray hold, that prevents those animals from going through adoption or going for rescue,” she said.
Mandatory Microchipping Garners Support
In contrast, committee members showed near-universal support for requiring all owned animals to be microchipped.
“It’s another tool in the toolbox,” Griffith said. “Even if the bad owners don’t register, that gives Animal Control a reason to go to their house… it creates accountability.”
Armstrong agreed, adding, “It’s going to be better for everybody.”
Pet Registration: Culture Change or Redundant Regulation?
The committee also debated implementing a one-time mandatory pet registration with Animal Control. While framed as a long-term cultural shift to improve accountability, some members questioned its practicality.
“This is going to be considered by some in this county to be an onerous requirement,” Titus said. “But this is a baby step compared to others. This is not an annual registration, this is not a license. This is a start.”
Griffith emphasized generational change.
“This is not going to be a fast change. It’s going to be a generational change. But five years from now, we should see a substantial dip in the amount of unwanted dogs.”
Committee member Laura Thomas remained skeptical.
“I just don’t see how registering is going to make that much of a difference because the people that are the problem are not going to register.”
Commercial Breeder Permitting on the Horizon
The committee reviewed language requiring breeder permits for anyone owning three or more intact dogs or cats for breeding or stud fee purposes. Titus, who is a breeder, has expressed her opposition to the requirement for breeders to register. She said the intent is to target “those that were truly operating as a business doing this repeatedly for financial reasons, as opposed to kind of the hobbies.”
With tensions evident over how far regulation should reach, the committee plans one more draft meeting before finalizing recommendations.
“Our job is to recommend,” Titus reminded members. “Council will make the decision.”
The next ordinance review meeting was set for Wednesday, July 9 in County Council chambers, following The Voice’s press deadline. The committee was expected to address overpopulation, breeder accountability, and owner responsibility.
