|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on November 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am hoping to meet with Andrew in person In Las vegas early December, reptile show,..., if u guys/gals all on east coast can do the ad hoc before that, woudl be great ...so Andrew can fill me in in person, YEA, the SC bill needs soem seriosu work, it is SCARY now on WRONG hands
Z
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on November 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Andrew,
I would be happy to help out in looking over the bill, and offering suggestions.
I agree that re-writing the bill would be a big mistake.
Changes can be made in the wording that would help establish clear cut definitions of caging, and other parts of the bill.
The most dangerous part of the bill as now written, is the section that would allow law enforcement folks to seize animals on suspicion of a violation. That whole section should be taken out. They already have laws that permit them to seize animals that are in clear violation of the existing laws, and that should be all they need.
This bill does not need to give them a license for a fishing expedition where animals are seized first, and questions are asked later.
Looking forward to hearing what the others have to say.
Best Regards
John Z
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by pictigaster1 on November 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey John it is good to see they want you on this it would of been nice if you had been a part from the start.Good luck on this.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by pitbulllady on November 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree with the section on seizure of animals being very problematic. We are seeing this very situation happening with dogs all over the country-some AC officer with little knowledge of animal husbandry seizes animals from a breeder, and the dogs wind up being either sold("adopted") or even killed before the case can even go to trial and the owner proven innocent or guilty. This is especially true of controversial dogs like "bully" breeds or Northern breeds suspected of either being used for fighting or of being "wolf hybrids". We saw this happen with Floyd Boudreaux's dogs in Louisiana; the HSUS killed every single one, including an old spayed dog that was kept inside the house, within 48 hours of seizure, yet when the case came to trial, Mr. Boudreaux was proven innocent of all charges in less than 10 minutes, as the prosecution could produce no evidence that concluded he was fighting dogs. I can see this exact same sort of thing happening where snakes are concerned-seize and kill first, ask questions later. It needs to be spelled out specifically what constitutes correct housing and secure locks, and at what size it's needed. A hatchling Burm does not require the sort of caging that an adult would, as it would not pose any risk at that point.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on November 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/nov/24/snakes-public-option-on-agenda/
Snakes, public option on agenda
BY YVONNE WENGER
The Post and Courier
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
COLUMBIA -- State Rep. Herb Kirsh has got a thing against snakes.
The Clover Democrat, and the House's longest serving member, wants to put some teeth behind a new law to stop people from letting pythons, anacondas, crocodiles and other snakes and reptiles loose.
"I don't like snakes, I guess. That's one reason," Kirsh said.
Another reason is that Kirsh was spooked by a story he read in a newspaper about a dangerous snake just over the North Carolina border that slithered up to a man and crawled up his leg before the man realized what was happening.
His bill "would make sure they are kept locked up," Kirsh said. The bill is one of 51 introduced in advance of the Legislature's January return. House members and senators will have the chance to pre-file more bills in December.
An advantage to filing the legislation early is to get the bills on committee agendas first, but many won't ever become law. Kirsh knows that.
For the 2007 session, he pre-filed a bill that would stop people from suing restaurants if they get fat. The bill got a lot talk, but no action.
The bills run the gamut: some deal with property taxes, a couple are designed to help the agricultural community, one would overhaul the Employment Security Commission and another sets steep penalties for human trafficking.
Here is some of the notable legislation:
• Historic buildings: Rep. Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston, wants to make sure that historic properties on state land receive the preservation needed. One such structure is the Bennett's Rice Mill facade that sits on State Ports Authority land.
If a building needs repair, the agency involved would be required to present the Legislature with a plan for its restoration, Limehouse said.
Funding for the repairs could come from a number of different sources, determined on a case-by-case basis.
"Everywhere you look there is a historical property nearby in the greater Charleston area," Limehouse said.
• Public option: Rep. Tim Scott, R-North Charleston, filed a bill so that South Carolina could "opt out" if Congress passes a public option for insurance coverage as part of health care reform and if Congress gives states the right to opt out.
Scott, who is running for lieutenant governor, also filed a bill that would limit the position to two-terms, a restriction that is placed on the governor.
• Property tax break: Scott also filed a bill that would double the homestead property tax exemption for those who are older than 65, disabled or legally blind.
• Child passengers: Children younger than 8 would not be allowed to sit in the front seat of a car, under a bill filed by Rep. Bakari Sellers, D-Denmark. Currently, children younger than 6 are prohibited from the sitting in the front seat. Sellers' bill put other restrictions in place for young travelers.
• Speed limit: Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, wants the speed limit on highways raised from 70 mph to 80 mph.
• Texting: Several legislators introduced bills to put restrictions on using a cell phone, specifically text-messaging, while behind the wheel. One would allow law enforcement to check the phone to see if any messages were sent or read during a time in question. The officer also would have the ability to subpoena records.
Similar legislation to ban texting while driving has been raised in recent sessions, but the practicality of enforcing any such ban has come into question.
• Travel reimbursements: State workers would not be able to collect reimbursements for nonessential travel until June 30, 2010, if a bill by Rep. John Richard King, D-Rock Hill, is passed.
The moratorium is aimed at helping save cash in the hard economic times.
Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-926-7855 or ywenger@postandcourier.com.
Share this story:
E-mail this story Printer-friendly version
Copy and paste the link:
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Notice about comments:
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
chrisjiii wrote:
Tim Scott is an idiot. The opt out would hurt the poor tremendously.
11/24/2009 9:49 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend
Report Abuse
Permalink
eatmorecollards wrote:
I wish he would add another bill to his list. One that would stop spammers from spamming, such as the first post on this story.
11/24/2009 8:53 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend
Report Abuse
Permalink
theronce wrote:
Oh, doom is upon us. The legislature is soon to back in session. Sellers' bill is dumb. What do the manufacturers say about who are safe riding in the front seat? Aren't size and weight more legitimate measures of who is safe in the front seat, since 6 and 8 year olds vary so widely in these parameters and can actually overlap those of some adults in rare cases?
LEO's should not have the right to check a phone on a whim.
King is an idiot. I can make a case that his travel to Columbia is not only nonessential but also detrimental. Go legislate and leave the micromanaging to the managers.
11/24/2009 8:18 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend
Report Abuse
Permalink
tc1 wrote:
At this point I will be voting Tim Scott.
11/24/2009 7:42 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend
Report Abuse
Permalink
slick50 wrote:
Similar legislation to ban texting while driving has been raised in recent sessions, but the practicality of enforcing any such ban has come into question.
The practicality is that LEO would have to LOOK at the people around them rather than race past them.
11/24/2009 7:29 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend
Report Abuse
Permalink
alicejensen24's comment is abusive and has been removed.
Lowcountry Marketplace
Charleston Gamerooms
1698 Old Towne Rd
Charleston, SC
(843) 573-9898
Window Master
7411 Industry Dr
North Charleston, SC
(843) 552-1146
Tiger Lily Florist
131 Spring St
Charleston, SC
(843) 723-2808
Find more businesses on Lowcountry Marketplace
Restaurants • Entertainment • Health • Real Estate • Home & Garden • Coupons
.Link.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by Ptk on December 15, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anyone have an update on this?
I could be wrong but thought I read something (page3) that stated they wanted a bill passed THIS year. That would mean in the next two weeks. It would be easy for the holidays/travel etc. to put everyone asleep on this one. I would hate to "wake up" first of the year to an extremly poorly written law!!
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on December 15, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Cathy, what were the results of your meeting with Steve Bennett at the end of last month ?
Was he able to clarify if deli cups were considered adequate transport containers ?
Was he able to answer any of the other questions that had been raised ?
Best Regards
John Z
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
