HB0541 Guide Dog – Reckless Injury or Death [Burke K]  **SUPPORT**

HB0638 Dangerous and Vicious Dogs [Cabello J] **Monitor**

HB0708 Criminal Pro-Arrest-Animal Cruelty [Welch E]  **OPPOSE**

HB0812 State Designations – State Pet [Jimenez – Wojcicki S] **OPPOSE**

HB2810 **OPPOSE**

  The Federation and the AKC abhors any type of negligence or cruelty to animals and supports full enforcement of existing negligence and cruelty laws. Illinois has a long standing history of being voted the #1 state for the best animal protection laws in the country. IFDCO believes that proper enforcement of current law is sufficient to maintain our perfect record of animal care in our state.
  Combining the new language for animal forfeiture with current law reduces the requirements for evidence against a person to such an extent that it will result in more and/or easier ability of law enforcement to seize, impound or cause an owner to forfeit his/her animals.
  If this bill is passed the result will be weighed heavily against the poor, elderly and low income animal owners as they will not be able to afford the impound fees to keep their animals during the time waiting for trial. As written, an animal owner could be charged and have to sign over ownership of his/her animals prior to trial. If found innocent the animals are still gone and no compensation is given. 
  To put this is real life, if someone leaves a dog in a car, the owner may be charged, animals seized, and the owner forced to pay impoundment fees, EVEN IF THE DOG DOES NOT SUFFER INJURY. Clearly this would create a problem with seizures of animals that a law enforcement officer, who is presumably not a veterinarian or trained animal care expert, who would decide to impound the animal because a dog is in a vehicle and it is a certain temperature outside. It also negates any situation where a dog may be perfectly fine in a cold car because of its breed characteristics or acclimation to such weather.
   

 PLEASE CALL REPRESENTATIVE RYAN SPAIN - SPONSOR -
(217) 782-8108 AND TELL HIM YOU OPPOSE THIS BILL!!!!


PLEASE CALL YOUR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM YOU OPPOSE THIS BILL


PLEASE CALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY CRIMINAL COMMITTEE AND ASK THEM TO OPPOSE HB2810.
 
Chairman Elgie Simms (217) 782-6476
Kelly Cassidy (217) 782-8088
Brian Stewart (217) 782-8186
John Cabello (217) 782-0455
Elaine Nekritz (217) 558-1004
Justin Slaughter (217) 782-0010



HB2824 Animal Welfare – Microchipping [Costello J] **Monitor**

HB2981 Animal Prosecution – Advocate [Burke D] **OPPOSE**

  The Federation and the AKC abhors any type of negligence or cruelty to animals and supports full enforcement of existing negligence and cruelty laws. Illinois has a long standing history of being voted the #1 state for the best animal protection laws in the country. IFDCO believes that proper enforcement of current law is sufficient to maintain our perfect record of animal care in our state. 

  Animals are not and cannot be considered in any other aspect other than personal property. They are not people in any way, shape or form and should not be granted the same legal rights as humans. Ownership of an animal in Illinois already requires the proper care of that animal and those duties are well described in the Animal Welfare Act, The Humane Care for Animals Act and The Animal Control Act.  

  HB2981 provides advocates akin to guardians ad litem that are traditionally used to protect the interests of minors and other people lacking legal capacity. It would vastly expand the legal interpretation of animals and lead to unintended consequences. 

  HB2981 would diminish personal property ownership rights and individual animal owners may be forced to give up their ownership rights to third parties and appointees could force someone to make decisions they do not believe to be in the best interest of their animals. 

  HB2981 considers animals as needing "special advocates" under this law and confers an elevated status to animals that is in direct conflict with the rights of owners and their veterinarians to make decisions regarding animal care. 

  HB2981 may also deem this "special advocate" competent to tell you and your veterinarian what treatment or procedures would be best for your animal, all without a veterinary degree or related experience. If the "special advocate" for your animals pushes the court to permit certain veterinary procedures for the "best interest" of your animal will you then be obligated to pay for this care, even if you cannot afford it. 

  HB2981 also seeks to allow a motion of "any party" to appoint this "special advocate". If your neighbor does not like the kind of dog food you feed will your dog now have the right through this "special advocate" to make you spend more on food? 

  We and the AKC are concerned that the creation of court-appointed animal advocates will result in legal controversies about who is responsible for an animal, and ultimately impact the ability and rights of pet owners to freely choose the most appropriate course of care and treatment for their pets. 

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HB2998 Diseased Animals – Rule Records [Jimenez – Wojcicki S]  **Monitor**

HB3003 Animals – Police and Service [Cavaletto J]  **Monitor**

HB3162 Service Dog License [Manley N] **Monitor**

HB3247 Inc Tax – Veterinary Services [Winger C] **Monitor**

HB3438 Companion Animals – Restitution [Crespo F] **??**

HB3659 Agr – Veterans Animal Adoption [Swanson D] **Monitor**

HB3668 Charity – Animal Rights [Meier C] **OPPOSE**

HB3731 Animals – Police and Service [Moylan M] **SUPPORT**