[ SHOWGSD-L ] ILLINOIS<>SB2580, the Tethering Bill, ALERT
- From: Stormy Hope <Stormy435@xxxxxxx>
- To: Showgsd List GSD <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:13:49 -0700
Please go to
Illinois Dog Clubs and Breeders Association
http://www.idcba.org/
AND/OR join the
Email list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IL-pet-law
to find out more.
All federations/organizations and some email lists are posted at the
GSDCA website under Legislation. go check.
Stormy
your friendly Legislation Liaison
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are encouraged to forward and crosspost this message everywhere!!!
Please forgive me if this gets posted twice to the list.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Illinois Dog Owners, Dog Club members, Dog Show Fanciers,
Trialing Fanciers, and Dog Breeders:
Illinois SB2580, the Tethering Bill, will be discussed by the Illinois
House Agriculture and Conservation Committee on Tuesday April 20,
2010, at 2:00PM in Capitol Building Room 122B Springfield , IL . This
bill has already passed the Senate; it is important that we stop it in
the House, and this Committee might be the best way to do this.
This bill has serious adverse implications for every dog owner in
Illinois . I am asking you to please call or fax each of them on the
committee by Monday afternoon April 19 and tell them to vote "NO" on
SB2580. (Not all of them have readily available email addresses, but
in any case, telephone calls and/or faxes are better than emails and
carry more impact. Their contact info is at the end of this letter)
BELOW, I have tried to explain the reasons why they should be voting NO.
You can read the full bill here at this link - Amendment 1 and
Amendment 2:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum%80&GAID&DocTypeID=SB&LegIDI425&SessionIDv&SpecSess=&Session=&GA?
http://tinyurl.com/y9lrd75
A list of reasons why SB2580 should be opposed by all Illinois dog
owners:
1. The essential portions of this tethering bill, written to
supposedly protect animals, are ALREADY included under the PRESENT
Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act (HCAA); if an animal is harmed,
endangered, or even significantly discomforted through tethering, HCAA
already covers these offenses. As we all know duplicate laws are a
waste of taxpayer dollars in enforcement costs, especially in cases
such as this where the original law (HCAA) was very clear, but the
duplicate (SB 2580) is very obscure.
2. It will be too easy for a well-intentioned, responsible pet owner
to violate this bill (if it becomes law) as currently written, and
unknowingly violate it at that, which makes pet ownership even more
difficult than it already is. Those of us involved in legislation
would be aware of the new law and its provisions, but the average dog
owner will not be.
While it is very possible that a dog owner so charged with trivial
tethering violations would be able to obtain an attorney and
successfully defend themselves in court, the question really is:
should that possibility of being so charged under a tethering law be a
burden placed on Illinois dog owners who otherwise take good care of
their dogs?
3. According to this bill, the second offense is Class 4 felony
conviction, which is extremely harsh considering that first and second
violations could occur (and often will occur) which in no way harms or
causes discomfort to the animal, nor endangers public safety, nor
creates a public nuisance! This sets an extremely dangerous precedent
for Illinois dog owners, in that a second offense under a law such as
this could land them in jail, yet , I stress, the dog was completely
unharmed as a result of the violation.
4. Undoubtedly, animals that currently have adequate homes (meaning,
no violations of HCAA, and the dog is given adequate food, shelter,
water, and veterinary care) will be seized or given up to shelters if
this bill passes, especially should their owners be charged a second
time (where the felony offense provision kicks in). This bill will
KILL dogs if it gets passed, including dogs who previously had
adequate and even good homes - - and to me, this very reason alone IS
REASON ENOUGH TO OPPOSE THE BILL.
5. The square footage requirement in this bill for a 10 ft tether can
be all too easily merged in the future with a larger square footage
requirement for a "primary enclosure". Note that a 10 ft tether
provides a dog with approximately 314 sq feet, a larger area than most
people's living rooms as well as larger than standard indoor-outdoor
kennel runs combinations! This tethering-minimal square footage link
already happened in Connecticut , where a 100 square foot primary
enclosure would be required for all dogs, with a 50 foot additional
requirement for each dog added, with this wording combined with
tethering restrictions:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/TOB/S/2010SB-00274-R00-SB.htm
AKC's opposition to the Connecticut bill specifically refers to space
requirements it contains:
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id@64
6. There would be significant permanent legal/psychological effects on
juvenile offenders, who will be ordered to undergo psychological
counseling and "treatment" upon conviction, even for a first offense,
and again, EVEN WHEN THE DOG IS NOT HARMED IN ANY WAY.
7. ANY conviction under a cruelty statute by a person (or even his/her
immediate family living with them) who has an animal-related license
issued by the Illinois Department of Agriculture, such as breeder,
kennel, or pet store, would easily lead to revocation of this license,
EVEN IF THE CONVICTION, SUCH AS UNDER THIS TETHERING LAW, did NOT harm
the animal or have any effect on other animals under that license
holder's care. This is taken directly from the present Illinois Animal
Welfare Act, (225 ILCS 605/10), from Ch. 8, par. 310:
' Sec. 10. Grounds for discipline. The Department may refuse to issue
or renew or may suspend or revoke a license on any one or more of the
following grounds:
f. Conviction of a violation of any law of Illinois except minor
violations such as traffic violations and violations not related to
the disposition of dogs, cats and other animals or any rule or
regulation of the Department relating to dogs or cats and sale thereof;
j. Proof that the licensee is guilty of gross negligence,
incompetency, or cruelty with regard to animals. '
Therefore any trivial instance of tethering by any family member of
the licensee, such as by a juvenile, could lead to this loss of
licensing.
8. When local communities revisit and update their own animal codes,
it is required that their laws be at least as strict as state laws.
Even if the tethering bill did have reasonable language (which it does
not), it should be expected that now including tethering under state
law will certainly lead to a additional restrictions or even outright
prohibition of tethering in local jurisdictions, i.e.: your home town!
9. Illinois was the FIRST state in the country to legally define
"Companion Animal Hoarder" under state law (2001) ? see full
definition in the Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act (510 ILCS
70/2.10). Unfortunately, the Illinois definition is very loose as to
number of animals and conditions which specify an animal hoarder
(those of us involved in pet legislation recently saw an out-of-state
case where an individual owning only 13 dogs was declared an "animal
hoarder"), and could sweep up anyone with more than a very few
animals, even if the needs of these animals were adequately met. Since
the tethering bill is to be an amendment to the HCAA, a provision for
special treatment of a "companion animal hoarder" also had to be
included for tethering violations, making this bill an especially
dangerous one for ANYONE who owns MORE than a very small number of dogs.
10. Lastly, tethering is NOT currently defined or regulated under
Illinois law. SO once defined and restricted, no matter how benign the
law, additional restrictions or even an outright prohibition could be
added as FUTURE amendments.
Below is a list of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee
Members contact information ? All you have to do is call or fax each
of them by Monday afternoon April 19 and tell them to vote "NO" on
SB2580.
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2009. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] ILLINOIS<>SB2580, the Tethering Bill, ALERT - Stormy Hope
