IFDCO is currently monitoring these bills at the State Capitol:
links take you to full description and status of each bill on the state of Illinois website
Illinois Senate bills:
Filed 2/1/2012 with Secretary by Sen. Heather A. Steans (D)7th District Chicago, IL
- Would give law enforcement officers with the courts full power to classify any individual animal as a “dangerous animal”, even those which are not members of the taxa named explicitly in the bill. With this wording, it is possible that individual members of various common domestic species, such as dogs, may be designated as “dangerous”.
- Would give the Illinois Department of Resources full discretion to enact a ban on ownership, without the permit, on any and all members of the Boidae (Boa) Snake Family, including “boas, pythons, and anacondas”. This large group includes at least several harmless snake species frequently kept as pets by amateur snake fanciers and sold in the pet trade, such as the Ball Python (Python regius). Many others animals on the long list of prohibited species simply do not pose a measurable risk to the community.
- Since a large number of these species to be newly regulated are currently owned by individuals throughout Illinois, it is questionable what will happen to these animals now owned if their owners cannot afford the yearly permit fee ($250) and liability insurance (up to $1,000,000), or do not wish to subject their private residences to inspection as part of the permitting process.
- for a full list of talking points, click here
Filed 2/7/2012 with Secretary by Sen. John M. Sullivan (D) 47th District Quincy, IL
Filed 2/9/2011 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Don Harmon(D) 39th District Oak Park, IL - Carole Pankau (R) 23rd District Bloomingdale, IL
House Sponsors Rep. John E. Bradley (D)117th District Marion, IL
Filed 2/10/2012 with Secretary by Sen. Larry K. Bomke (R)
50th District Springfield, IL
Filed 2/22/2012 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Christine J. Johnson
(R) 35th District Sycamore, IL 60178
Illinois House Bills:
Filed 2/16/ 2011 by Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D) 12th District, Chicago IL; New Sponsor (1/31/12) Robert Rita (D), 28th District, Blue Island IL
- Under this bill, bovine tail docking could only be performed by a veterinarian "for a therapeutic purpose", to treat a sick or injured animal, where that treatment is deemed “medically necessary” by a veterinarian.
- While bovine tail docking is only infrequently performed, if even that, allowing restrictions on tail docking for cattle would provide a "slippery slope" towards the passage of laws restricting or even criminalizing tail docking for additional livestock and "companion animal" species, including dogs.
Filed 01/21/2012 with the Clerk by Rep. Michael J. Zalewski (D) 21st District in Summit, IL-
- ·Would discriminate against the poor and those living in multiple-family housing.
- Would result in MORE dogs going to shelters and ultimately being euthanized, in cases where dog owners do not have alternate means of confinement.
- Prohibiting night tethering creates an additional burden on Animal Control and local law enforcement agencies.
- Establishing tether length or chain weight in statute is unnecessary and doesn’t take into account differences in breed or individual dogs.
- Adding specific tethering provisions to the Humane Care for Animals Act is redundant since this Act already requires owners to provide adequate food, water, and shelter for any dog, tethered or not.
- Tethering is a legitimate method of confinement. Responsible tethering can result in greater ease of movement and quality of life for dogs. A 2001 study conducted by Cornell University comparing penning vs. tethering of dogs found that canine welfare was equal in each, and neither was detrimental to the dogs’ health and well-being. http://www.ncraoa.com/PDF/Tethering/Cornell_study_on_tethering.pdf
Filed 1/25/2012 with the Clerk by Rep. Dan Brady (R) 88th District Assistant Republican Leader Bloomington, IL
- Would give extra protection to police dogs, service dogs, search-and-rescue dogs, and fire accelerant detection dogs.
Filed 1/25/2012 with the Clerk by Rep. Fred Crespo D) 44th District
Filed 2/6/2012 with the Clerk by Rep. Tom Cross R) 84th District
House Republican Leader Plainfield, IL
2/8/2012 Filed with the Clerk by Rep. John D'Amico (D)
15th District Chicago, IL
Filed 2/8/2012 with the Clerk by Rep. Jim Sacia (R) 89th District Freeport, IL Agriculture & Conservation (Republican Spokesperson)
- Kennels appear to be “facilities” as defined under Illinois law. Therefore, this bill would give added protection to kennel owners and breeders, along with owners of other animal related “facilities”, against Animal Rights extremists who wish to damage their pet-related business, or even harm their animals.
Filed 2/8/2012with the Clerk by Rep. Ed Sullivan, Jr. (R) 51st District Mundelein, IL OPPOSE
- This “fee” described in this bill would prove another burdensome fee on dog owners (and cat owners), without justification for this fee.
- This bill potentially could make feral cat colonies de facto illegal in a township, unless they could be confined on the property of their “caretaker”, should a township be able to prohibit cats from “running at large.” When feral cats are impounded, they are generally euthanized. This would lead to a higher rate of killing in the municipal shelter serving the township, certainly be inhumane for those cats (who otherwise might live out long lives in a managed colony), and lead to higher Animal Control expenses for the impoundment and euthanasia of those cats.
Filed 2/16/2012 with the Clerk by Rep. John D. Cavaletto (R)107th District (R) Salem, IL OPPOSE
- Virginia’s Dangerous Dog Registry law, upon which the Illinois bill is closely modeled, costs that state $70,042 per year. On a per capita basis, Illinois’ would cost $111,329 per year, in addition to the start up costs of the database. In times of fiscal austerity, Illinois simply cannot afford such a law.
- “Primary breed” and “secondary breed” would be included in this registry. Virginia’s registry shows a high preponderance of “pit bulls” and “German Shepherd Dogs”, despite most of the dogs included being mixed breeds of uncertain breed parentage. It would be all too easy for home-rule communities use such data, based upon mis-identification of breed, to justify enactment of Breed Specific Legislation.
- This information in the public database would be accessible to neighbors, landlords, employers, and insurance companies, creating social stigma for the owners, and risk for the dog.
Additional Animal Bills being monitored
Filed 2/9/2012 with the Clerk by Rep. Richard Morthland (R) 71st District