BSL Hits South Carolina Hard!

This is an Email I got this morning.

​

From: NoBSL@adba.cc [mailto:NoBSL@adba.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:16 AM
To: Tim cogan
Subject: ANIMAL LAW ALERT; SOUTH CAROLINA STATE - 8/6/07


PLEASE TAKE THE TIME AND MAKE THE CALL! The future of your dogs depends on it!

Please be courteous, contact these officials about this proposed regulation. Stay alert for any spread of this Bad Legislation. ​

I attended the first reading of two dog-related proposals currently before
Sumter County(South Carolina)Council, both being pushed by Councilman Gene
Baten, a piece of work if ever I've seen one. Both are his solution to
combat dog-fighting in the country, spurred on by the recent high-profile
busts of dog-fighting in the county and nearby counties, and the Michael
Vick case. His solution is to limit a person to keeping no more than five
American Pit Terriers over the age of three months, requiring anyone who
has more than one of any dog known as a "pit bull" to have a breeder's
license(there is currently no such thing in Sumter County or the state of
South Carolina, so a whole new set of rules would have to be drawn up just
for that), which is contingent upon having a business license, EVEN IF NONE
OF THE DOGS ARE INTACT or used for breeding! He wants to extend that
requirement even to anyone who does Pit Bull rescue!

 

Maintaining a license to keep/breed Pit Bulls would also mean that the
individual would be forced to submit to random property searches by law
enforcement, namely, the Sumter Co. Sheriff's Dept., without a search
warrent or probable cause, simply so that the deputies could act as kennel
inspectors and determine that the dogs were properly contained and not used
for fighting! Yes, you read that right, folks.

He also wants to impliment a separate version of the state's
non-breed-specific Dangerous Animal Act so that anyone with even ONE Pit
Bull or American Pit Bull Terrier would automatically have to register it
as a "dangerous or vicious" animal with the county, pay an additional
Dangerous animal fee, and follow up with all the requirements for the
keeping of a dangerous animal that the state imposes, only based on breed
alone, something that the state law specifically says is NOT to be used as
a crition for determining if an animal is dangerous. Mr. Baten kept
insisting that he "loves all dogs" and is only doing this in the interest
of the poor Pit Bulls (more of that "kill'em all for their own good"
mentality, a 'la PETA), since they are the most frequent target of animal
abusers, and by limiting how many a person can have, making it difficult to
breed or sell them, or bring any into the county, he's doing them a big
favor by keeping them out of the hands of dogfighters!

He is absolutely convinced that making it difficult to obtain/keep certain
dogs is the way to prevent a HUMAN activity from taking place. When I got
the chance to speak with him, he kept cutting me off, insinuating that he
couldn't fathom why an intelligent woman like myself would want to put
these dogs into the hands of dogfighters, unless it was because I was
profiting from the activity myself! When I told him that if someone waved
a magic wand today and every Pit Bull on the planet disappeared, the
dogfighters would just keep switching to other breeds, he made it perfectly
clear by repeatedly stating that when that happened, he'd just keep adding
those other breeds to the list of restricted dogs, and that every time an
incident with a dog biting someone or attacking another animal or human was
made public, THAT breed would be added, too, if it wasn't a "pit bull"
already. When I asked him what he intended to do when EVERY dog wound up
on the list, he insisted that if that were the case, ALL DOGS would be
restricted, ALL DOG BREEDERS, ALL OWNERS of up to five dogs-would be placed
under the same restrictions that he currently proposes for "pit bulls". He
also made the public comment that "nobody can take care of more than five
dogs of any kind, anyway, let alone 15 or 20 or so dogs" and that anyone
who had that many dogs HAD to be involved in illegal activities! The guy is
clearly a nut-case, plain and simple, though he wants to do it for the good
of the dogs, of course.

He was not interested in hearing of cases in which BSL singling out any one
breed of dog has been struck down as unconstitutional by any other state's
Supreme Court-as he told the lawyer present, when informed that BSL had
been recently found unconstitutional by Ohio's Supreme Court, he replied,
"This is NOT Ohio or Ohio's Supreme Court, this is Sumter, South Carolina!"
He basically could care less about the Constitution of the United States,
and plainly told me that it WAS the business of government to protect the
people from themselves, whether they liked it or not!

Fortunately, there are some bright spots, and it is clear that not everyone
on the Council agrees with Mr. Baten. One of these bright spots is the
County Chairwoman, Ms. Vivian Fleming McGhaney. This is a woman of common
sense, something so lacking in many politicians and public office-holders
these days. She voiced a great deal of concern over the legality and
constitutionality of the proposal, and was on record as believing it to
unfairly target a particular dog and dog owners who were not involved with
dogfighting, despite Mr. Baten's insistance that anyone who had multiple


Pit Bulls HAD to be either fighting them, or knowingly selling them to
dogfighters. She stated that she had close friends who had several Pit
Bulls, that were very sweet, well-mannered dogs, and she herself used to
own a Pit Bull. She also stated that in the right circumstances, ANY dog
could be a dangerous dog, and had problems with the part of the Dangerous
Animal proposal that even a dog that chased other animals, like cats, would
be classified as dangerous. As she put it, "Every child knows that dogs
chase cats!" She just seems to be a very reasonable person, and I intend
to call her personally and speak with her to let her know how much I
appreciate her common sense approach. There were two other Council members
who were also very concerned about the proposal, and like her, they felt
that existing state and Federal
laws, if enforced, would go about as far towards putting a dent in
dogfighting as is possible to do, without targeting any one or more
breeds/types. They were Arthur Baker and James Byrd. Both realized also,
that by putting such restrictions on one breed or type of dog, you leave
the door open to eventually eliminate ALL dogs in the county, which is
exactly what Mr. Baten said he intended to do if it became known that other
dogs were being used for fighting or were attacking people. I spoke with
both of those gentlemen after the meeting, and neither of them supported
the proposal, though there are several Council members who are undecided at
this point.

Mr. Baten also kept quoting someone from the HSUS that he'd seen on tv
(probably Goodwin or Pacelle)that former fighting dogs could not be
rehabilitated, so that any dog that had been exposed to that would have to
be destroyed, no if's and's or but's. When I tried to tell him that
"Humane Society" of the United States was an animal rights organization
that was committed to abolishing ALL animal ownership, period, he obviously
thought I was an idiot. I told him that they did not maintain shelters or
rescue animals and had no affiliation with the local humane societies at
all, but I could tell by his expression that he didn't believe one word,
and had no clue what "animal rights" vs. "animal welfare" meant.

The proposal passed first reading, only because in the second reading, it
can be given a public hearing. Public hearings are NOT required for
legislation of this type, under county rules, but Ms. McGhaney insisted that
it be given one, due to the sensitive nature of the proposals. The public
hearing and second reading of the proposal will be held on August 14, at 6
pm, instead of two weeks from today, so that the news paper can have time
to alert the public who might wish to attend. You can bet that HSUS and
local AR folks will be represented. I know that Councilman Baker did get
the packet of information from RDOWS, but he had not had time to share it
with other members, but I will need any and all who can show up, to do so.
It's not going to look good for responsible dog owners if only one person
shows up who is opposed to this mess.

That date again is August 14, on a Tuesday, at 6 pm, in the Sumter County
Administration Building. I can provide phone numbers and directions to
anyone interesting in attending. If you cannot attend, but have contacts
within any of the local kennel clubs, like Columbia or Greenville, PLEASE
let them know, since we all know that legistlation like this tends to
spread like wildfire, as we've seen in Arkansas and Mississippi recently.
Mr. Baten has made it clear that he WILL add other breeds, as he sees a need
to do so, so this is NOT just about "Pit Bulls" or look-alike dogs. He
told me to my face that if he had put restrict every known breed of dog in
Sumter County, he was willing to do so!

Sharon McKenzie,___


If you choose to remain uninvolved, do not be amazed when you no longer any property rights! If they can do this to your dog, is anything you have out of their reach? Your rights will be taken away while you are so peacefully staying out of the "fray". Check history, it is full of nations/empires that disappeared when its citizens no longer held to their core beliefs and values. One person CAN make a difference. One plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one.........


It is URGENT to get all dog owners involved in stopping bad laws that are being passed at an alarming rate. Spread the word and have anyone you know send in their emails to the ADBA so we can unite all dogs owners in the fight to save our dogs.

 

That is some of the most insane ramblings I've ever heard!Subject to sheriff searches?!?!That is mad man drunk on power.I would really like to believe that no sane voter would let something like that pass.Everything that man said (and im not just saying this to be funny) really sounds like he may be involved with an AR group Maybe you could look on the internet and find all those "interesting" little things about the real motivations of groups like HSUS print up a bunch of it and distribute it at these meetings letting everyone know exactly what type of people(and i use that term loosley) this government official is suppporting and showing them where these idiotic ideas and myths are coming from.Maybe if you expose his ignorance people will see just how ludacris his proposal really is.

 

My husband and I plan on going tommorw to the hearing. I think its just plain stupid trying to do all that just b/c they think its going to stop fighting. Its like smoking marajuana...there is no way you can stop everyone from doing it...but you can stop the people you catch.

 

I've read of cases before where the interest group making the proposal is doing the old bait and switch sales technique. They propose out landish crap, and when it won't pass they propose a lesser compromise that still meets their agenda. For example, I think the above proposal is extreme, but they may say, "well let's atleast outlaw tying dogs out", or make liscenses for ownership, mandatory spays and neuters, muzzlng pitbulls only, etc.

 

Thats what they are trying to do here.At first it was an ouright ban proposed.After that failed they are now trying stupid guidlines such as only two pit bulls per household,no pit bulls for convicted felons,blah,blah,blah...bullshit.

 

Exactly...its bullshit!! A big pile of it too!!

 

I wrote to him, but so far all I got was a notice that my email was recieved.



Your message will be forwarded to Mr. Baten



Mary W. Blanding

Clerk To Sumter County Council

13 E. Canal Street

Sumter, South Carolina

803-436-2107 - Phone

803-436-2108 - Fax

​

From: linda H. *****************
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 2:30 PM
To: County Council
Subject: Gene Baten




He was recognized in February 2003 by A House Resolution from the South Carolina House of Representatives for his dedication to promoting racial equality ...............





Do you not think animals have the same right? You are personally singling out a specific breed when in fact all breeds can be dangerous. And that is called discrimination, not equality. I think your proposal on Dangerous Dogs is in fact Dangerous itself.

 

That guy needs the B%tch slapped out of him!