[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6120865,"mediaKeyId","2705815-98842ab918720f39ae64aa0c1aafc841","parentId",2705815,"title","Rehabbers and rescuers split over captive-wildlife bill H4100; key concerns are vagueness, seizures and nonreleasable animals","audioSeconds",4646,"startMs",4809000,"endMs",9455000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2705815-98842ab918720f39ae64aa0c1aafc841&start=4809&end=9455","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2705815-98842ab918720f39ae64aa0c1aafc841/thumbnail_4809000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6120865/South-Carolina/Rehabbers-and-rescuers-split-over-captive-wildlife-bill-H4100-key-concerns-are-vagueness-seizures-and-nonreleasable-animals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6120865-ce10acf5d90073b7b4fb2ae355f9c886/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206561&Signature=jjbzIWUOotQy4btvOq6wgx19ZP0UhdNAEabT25KbTTWQWSY5SlhE9MpeSxQopcbiXrk3jZ-YfUxgD9VWxex-QdiVsll9lBPlxfbqhpFNE02qPq37ORdbp6GesWYd30sO2HWyHgTHVL2Fid5FWflflDSCvnIOagcgWOKJpKwiZK6QeMXjvkDsrLH8zUJxOVr7K8uAs-JCYINtIrkYvWlqVsR76iacm2efnEomi3pVcisFY5fbA1k66nRaN08zdIWtQ4-ugk2bLBUUxDVhbMRU23s5Ob96ZfJ5oqckD9hjfydKgoq94gSojTd71~veKTsjdY~Fr7ebmzGy9pw14wSWLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","South Carolina Legislature","date","2025-03-19T00:00:00Z","article","The House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs wildlife subcommittee heard more testimony on House Bill 4,100, a proposed statute to regulate captive wildlife, rehabilitation permits and the care of nonreleasable animals.

A large turnout of licensed rehabilitators, sanctuary directors and veterinarians offered competing recommendations: many said the state needs a clear permitting framework and more enforcement tools to deter untrained people from keeping wild animals; others said the bill as drafted is too vague, risks unconstitutional searches, and would force unlawful euthanasia of animals that cannot be returned to the wild.

\"This bill is crucial for our native wildlife and communities,\" said Erica Shuff, owner of Hickory Haven Fawn Rescue, who described repeated instances of fawns kept as pets that later suffer or die. \"Our officers need this bill to be able to deter this activity and keep our wildlife safe.\" Shuff urged mandatory recordkeeping, inspection authority for violations and penalties to deter repeat offenders.

At the same time, Christine Hunt, a raccoon rehabilitator from Edgefield, accused DNR of presenting isolated, extreme photos as evidence of a systemic crisis and warned the draft bill contains vague provisions that would allow inspections without probable cause. \"They cherry-picked rare, extreme, spread-out cases over a decade,\" Hunt said, and \"it is untrue that South Carolina is only one of three states that lacks wildlife rehab law.\"

Veterinarians and wildlife organizations stressed public-health implications. Dr. Patricia Hill, representing the South Carolina Association of Veterinarians, said rabies risks and the potentially high costs of human post-exposure prophylaxis require careful statutory language on handling rabies-vector species and exposures. \"The consequences of rabies are still very real,\" Hill said, noting the limited circumstances in which a definitive rabies diagnosis can be made.

Key points of contention

- Vagueness and discretion: Multiple rehabbers and attorneys objected to open-ended phrases in the bill (for example, \"may require\" and other delegation to DNR), saying such language could be subject to inconsistent enforcement. Attorney Courtney Gruber flagged seizure and inspection language that she said lacks probable-cause safeguards.

- Nonreleasable animals: Several rehabbers urged that the bill not require euthanasia or forced transfer of nonreleasable animals. Keepers said they bear long-term financial and labor costs to care for those animals and that humane sanctuary placement is an established practice.

- Accreditation and standards: Some sanctuary operators suggested recognition of existing accreditation processes and of USDA exhibitor permits as enforceable standards. Others argued for a workable permit system tied to training and recordkeeping rather than punitive criminal penalties.

- Public-health and enforcement: Veterinarians emphasized that rabies exposure remains a public-health issue with substantial human-health consequences. Several speakers said DNR lacks sufficient staffing and funding to implement sweeping new enforcement without additional resources.

Committee remarks and next steps

Chairman Hixson repeatedly told the room that the meeting was informational and that the subcommittee would not vote that day. He encouraged stakeholders to return to later rulemaking and committee sessions, and reminded the room that DNR-promulgated regulations would themselves be subject to committee and public review.

Several rehabilitators proposed a collaborative drafting process: inside the hearing, multiple groups said they would supply model permit language, and veterinarians and legal advocates offered to work with DNR to tighten seizure and inspection language, clarify timelines for corrective actions and define standards for nonreleasables.

Ending: The subcommittee adjourned without action; stakeholders on both sides said they expected further meetings and called for changes to clarify process, probable‑cause protections and how nonreleasable animals would be handled.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee March 19, 2025 ","oneSentenceSummary","The House Wildlife Subcommittee heard competing testimony on House Bill 4,100, with rehabilitators and veterinarians divided over whether the draft sets needed standards for animal care or contains vague language that could enable overbroad seizures and forced euthanasia of nonreleasable animals.","taxTitle","Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs, Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, South Carolina","taxId",17488,"location","South Carolina","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6120871,"Hundreds urge subcommittee to reject blanket ban on venomous snakes, call for permit system instead",3616,135000,3751000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2705815-98842ab918720f39ae64aa0c1aafc841&start=135&end=3751","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2705815-98842ab918720f39ae64aa0c1aafc841/thumbnail_135000.jpg","/articles/6120871/South-Carolina/Hundreds-urge-subcommittee-to-reject-blanket-ban-on-venomous-snakes-call-for-permit-system-instead","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6120871-c9a958ad094f33b800b6b02eeca1c1f4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206561&Signature=hp1MhiAhtdnpqWAapsiVGbpXbS~2L6xNWbI8tdpVeasGYt9L8ZE03g-k3iQmNyIP4~q6rVXtJBY5gx5Jh9P7VRt9hL3nD-PZxbk-~PDkEOJDGPVBVlp6EMkKcQLA-aD-eASA-BCVKi0OWM~725jJHL3Orww~5ub-S6lMGd68UWJwjZFmEUl4L-mZB0bcguQB0VLGTrqEv4oj3cNG6ujc3MZkBcENas033dn-DJdnkM3-cfoveEmTL4SqSX6XjdOTArl3xhjuweyCteOiDfFRbWggFPHl~fwsM93umW7YUE6sKUs-33M1Gt9Aij2asQHRF~of1tPjSxumROeZ8x-ANA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the South Carolina House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs wildlife subcommittee heard nearly four hours of public comment opposing a proposed statewide ban on venomous reptile ownership contained in House Bill 3,937.

The opposition drew professional herpetologists, private keepers, licensed exhibitors and nonprofit advocates who said the bill, as drafted, would punish responsible owners and small businesses while creating exemptions that favor private accreditation over federal licensing.

The proposed ban “seems to be a knee-jerk reaction born from a single incident,” said Ryan Lapierre, a Myrtle Beach–area conservationist and USDA Class C licensed exhibitor. “Banning all venomous snake ownership because of one misguided act is as extreme as banning all dog ownership after an attack.”

Why it matters: Testimony warned the ban could reduce the statewide supply of venom for medical research, cripple breeders and private educators, and eliminate long-standing training and mentorship pathways that produce wildlife professionals. Speakers repeatedly urged legislators to adopt a targeted permit and inspection system like those used in other states instead of an across-the-board prohibition.

Most speakers described narrow changes they would accept: mandatory secure enclosures, proof of training and a commercial or exhibitor permit rather than an absolute ban. Tyler Wright, co‑director of Black Creek Wildlife Center, said parts of the bill contain “good stuff” — transport and caging requirements — but that the ban portion is driving the opposition: “If somebody were to follow all of these regulations…there’s no reason to ban it.”

Several witnesses raised fairness concerns about the bill’s exemption for institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). “That’s a private organization, not a government agency,” Lapierre said. “By granting exemption to AZA-accredited facilities, the bill essentially allows a private club to dictate who has to follow state law and who doesn’t.” Multiple speakers recommended federal USDA exhibitor licenses as a clearer, enforceable standard.

Economic and research impacts were cited repeatedly. Lapierre described national and state-level economic figures for context — noting that the U.S. pet industry is large and that the reptile sector supports businesses and jobs — and Jessica Clamp of Edisto Island emphasized medical uses of venom, listing FDA-approved drugs and ongoing research she said depend on venom extraction.

Public-safety trade-offs: Witnesses did not dispute that venomous reptiles can be dangerous if handled carelessly. Several speakers invoked a recent high-profile incident as a reason for tighter enforcement of unsafe keepers, but argued that the response should target bad actors rather than ban a broad class of owners. “You can’t stop stupidity,” Phil Goss of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers said. “If you ban these reptiles, it makes it harder for people to get them legally and can push the market underground.”

What lawmakers said: Chairman Hixson repeatedly emphasized the hearing was informational and that no votes would be taken this day. He told speakers the subcommittee would consider additional meetings and that any rules promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) after passage would itself be subject to a separate committee review and public comment.

Next steps: Committee staff and several witnesses said they will try to draft compromise language that preserves public safety while allowing regulated possession for licensed exhibitors, accredited facilities and permitted private keepers. For now, the subcommittee took no formal action on HB 3,937.

Ending: Speakers urged lawmakers to consult herpetology and conservation experts while drafting standards to ensure precise definitions — of “medically significant” species, permitted exhibition and acceptable enclosures — and to avoid exemptions that are enforceable only by membership in private groups.","At a lengthy Wildlife Subcommittee hearing, private keepers, educators and zoos told lawmakers that House Bill 3,937's proposed statewide ban on venomous reptile ownership is overly broad and would harm businesses, research and conservation; many urged a regulated permitting approach and clearer exemptions than the draft bill provides.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Rehabbers and rescuers split over captive-wildlife bill H4100; key concerns are vagueness, seizures and nonreleasable animals

Hundreds urge subcommittee to reject blanket ban on venomous snakes, call for permit system instead