Revise Animal Fighting Laws
Senate Bill 591 revises North Carolina’s animal fighting statutes by expanding criminal liability related to cockfighting and dog fighting, and by creating a new offense for animal fighting paraphernalia. The bill makes it a felony to attend certain animal fighting exhibitions as a spectator, to allow a minor to be present, to profit from the event, or to use property under one’s control for such activities. It also continues to prohibit the ownership, possession, training, sale, purchase, or transport of animals intended for use in animal fighting, with penalties tied to the existing cockfighting and dog fighting provisions.
The bill adds a new section defining “animal fighting paraphernalia” to include items such as breaking sticks, cat mills, fighting pits, springpoles, and sharp implements used on game fowl, and makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to possess, buy, sell, or manufacture such items with the intent to promote or facilitate animal fighting. It also clarifies that lawful animal training and lawful equipment use are not prohibited. The act takes effect December 1, 2025, and applies only to offenses committed on or after that date.
This bill would amend G.S. 14-362 and G.S. 14-362.2 and add a new G.S. 14-362.2A to North Carolina’s criminal code, broadening the state’s animal fighting enforcement tools. It increases the scope of prohibited conduct around cockfighting and dog fighting, adds a specific offense for paraphernalia associated with animal fighting, and preserves existing lease-voiding and eviction provisions for property used for these activities. The bill primarily affects people involved in animal fighting operations, property owners or lessors, spectators, and those who possess or traffic in equipment intended for use in animal fighting.
The bill’s overall tone is strongly anti-animal-fighting and appears aimed at strengthening enforcement against organized cruelty and associated conduct. Although there is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, the text itself reflects a clear policy preference for tougher penalties and broader prohibitions. The inclusion of an explicit carveout for lawful animal training suggests an effort to avoid sweeping in legitimate agricultural, sporting, or training activities.
The main points of potential contention are the expanded liability for spectators and minors’ presence, the new paraphernalia offense, and the breadth of the paraphernalia definition. Critics could argue that terms such as “animal fighting paraphernalia” and the factors used to identify it may be broad or subject to interpretation, potentially raising enforcement or due process concerns. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill targets intentional conduct tied to animal cruelty and organized fighting, while preserving lawful animal training and equipment use.