IL BSL---NOT JUST PIT BULLS

[AllAmericanPUP]

This does NOT just affect pit bulls, it affects 10 breeds(read futher down for list)
I really dont understand how they can try to pass this when there is a bill that says NO BSL in IL

Original Message -----
From: jan cooper
Subject: ILLINIOS!!! BSL AGAIN!!!


ALL PERMISSIONS TO CROSSPOST AND FORWARD GRANTED

>SB 1790 INTRODUCED
>
>94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
>
>
>State of Illinois
>
>
>2005 and 2006
>
>
>Introduced 2/25/2005, by Sen. Martin A. Sandoval
>
>SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
>
>510 ILCS 5/2.05a 510 ILCS 5/15.1 510 ILCS 5/15.3
>
>30 ILCS 805/8.29 new
>
>Amends the Animal Control Act. Requires owners of certain breeds of dogs to
>license the dogs as dangerous dogs and to maintain canine liability
>insurance. Requires a dog licensed as a dangerous dog to wear an orange tag
>issued
>along with the license whenever the dog is dwelling or roaming in a public
>place. Provides for the renewal of the license and the tag every 3 years
>and
>on
>and after July 1, 2006, makes issuance or renewal of a license contingent
>upon
>maintenance of canine liability insurance. Requires the Division of
>Insurance
>of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to cooperate
>with
>insurance companies to develop a plan for canine liability insurance and
>requires implementation of the plan by July 1, 2006. Authorizes the
>imposition
>of reasonable fines and imposes criminal penalties for violation of the
>licensing and canine liability insurance requirements. Authorizes
>impoundment of
>the dog until all fines are paid and the owner is in compliance with the
>licensing and insurance provisions. Amends the State Mandates Act to
>require
>implementation without reimbursement. Effective immediately.
>
>CORRECTIONAL BUDGET AND IMPACT NOTE ACT MAY APPLY
>
>FISCAL NOTE ACT MAY APPLY
>
>STATE MANDATES ACT MAY REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT
>
>A BILL FOR
>
>
>
>AN ACT concerning animals.
>
>
>
>Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the
>General Assembly:
>
>Section 5. The Animal Control Act is amended by changing Sections 2.05a,
>15.1, and 15.3 as follows:
>
>(510 ILCS 5/2.05a)
>
>Sec. 2.05a. "Dangerous dog" means (i) any individual dog when unmuzzled,
>unleashed, or unattended by its owner or custodian that behaves in a manner
>that
>a reasonable person would believe poses a serious and unjustified imminent
>threat of serious physical injury or death to a person or a companion
>animal
>in a public place and (ii) any dog of a breed required to be licensed as a
>dangerous dog under subsection (c-5) of Section 15.1 .
>(Source: P.A. 93-548, eff. 8-19-03.)
>
>(510 ILCS 5/15.1)
>
>Sec. 15.1. Dangerous dog determination.
>
>(a) After a thorough investigation including: sending, within 3 days of the
>Administrator or Director becoming aware of the alleged infraction,
>notifications to the owner of the alleged infractions, the fact of the
>initiation of
>an investigation, and affording the owner an opportunity to meet with the
>Administrator or Director prior to the making of a determination; gathering
>of
>any medical or veterinary evidence; interviewing witnesses; and making a
>detailed written report, an animal control warden, deputy administrator, or
>law
>enforcement agent may ask the Administrator, or his or her designee, or the
>Director, to deem a dog to be "dangerous". No dog shall be deemed a
>"dangerous
>dog" under this subsection without clear and convincing evidence. The owner
>shall be sent immediate notification of the determination by registered or
>certified mail that includes a complete description of the appeal process.
>
>(b) A dog shall not be declared dangerous under subsection (a) if the
>Administrator, or his or her designee, or the Director determines the
>conduct
>of
>the dog was justified because:
>
>(1) the threat was sustained by a person who at the time was committing a
>crime or offense upon the owner or custodian of the dog;
>
>(2) the threatened person was tormenting, abusing, assaulting, or
>physically
>threatening the dog or its offspring;
>
>(3) the injured, threatened, or killed companion animal was attacking or
>threatening to attack the dog or its offspring; or
>
>(4) the dog was responding to pain or injury or was protecting itself, its
>owner, custodian, or a member of its household, kennel, or offspring.
>
>(c) Testimony of a certified applied behaviorist, a board certified
>veterinary behaviorist, or another recognized expert may be relevant to the
>determination of whether the dog's behavior was justified pursuant to the
>provisions
>of this Section.
>
>(c-5) Any dog that is of any of the following breeds shall be deemed to be
>a
>dangerous dog by the Administrator or Director and shall be registered by
>its owner as a dangerous dog:
>
[b]>(1) Pit bull.
>
>(2) Rottweiler.
>
>(3) German shepherd.
>
>(4) Huskies.
>
>(5) Alaskan malamute.
>
>(6) Doberman pinscher.
>
>(7) Chow chow.
>
>(8 ) Great Dane.
>
>(9) St. Bernard.
>
>(10) Akita. [/b]
>
>
>Upon registration, the Administrator or Director shall issue a dangerous
>dog
>license to the owner and may require the owner to pay a reasonable fee.
>Each
>dog licensed under this subsection shall also be issued an orange tag that
>shall be worn by the dog whenever it is dwelling or roaming in a public
>place.
>The license and the tag shall be renewed by the owner 3 years after the
>date
>of issuance and every 3 years thereafter for the life of the dog. The
>Administrator or Director shall maintain a registry of all dogs licensed
>under this
>subsection.
>
>On and after July 1, 2006, the owner of any dog required to be licensed
>under
>this subsection shall maintain canine liability insurance for the life of
>the dog and no license shall be issued or renewed under this subsection
>unless
>the owner provides proof of canine liability insurance. The Division of
>Insurance of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall,
>in
>cooperation with insurance companies authorized to do business in this
>State,
>create a program of canine liability insurance. On or before February 1,
>2006,
>the Division shall report to the General Assembly concerning its plan for
>canine liability insurance and shall recommend action necessary to
>implement
>that plan. The Division shall implement the plan no later than July 1,
>2006.
>
>The Administrator or Director may impose a reasonable fine against any
>person that fails to register or renew an existing license or fails to
>maintain
>canine liability insurance in accordance with this subsection and may
>impound
>the dog until the fine is paid and the owner is in compliance with this
>subsection. Any person found to be in violation of this subsection is
>guilty
>of a
>Class C misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class B misdemeanor for the
>second or any subsequent offense.
>
>(d) If deemed dangerous under subsection (a) or licensed as a dangerous dog
>under subsection (c-5) , the Administrator, or his or her designee, or the
>Director shall order the dog to be spayed or neutered within 14 days at the
>owner's expense and microchipped, if not already, and one or more of the
>following as deemed appropriate under the circumstances and necessary for
>the
>protection of the public:
>
>(1) evaluation of the dog by a certified applied behaviorist, a board
>certified veterinary behaviorist, or another recognized expert in the field
>and
>completion of training or other treatment as deemed appropriate by the
>expert.
>The owner of the dog shall be responsible for all costs associated with
>evaluations and training ordered under this subsection; or
>
>(2) direct supervision by an adult 18 years of age or older whenever the
>animal is on public premises.
>
>(e) The Administrator may order a dangerous dog to be muzzled whenever it
>is
>on public premises in a manner that will prevent it from biting any person
>or animal, but that shall not injure the dog or interfere with its vision
>or
>respiration.
>
>(f) Guide dogs for the blind or hearing impaired, support dogs for the
>physically handicapped, and sentry, guard, or police-owned dogs are exempt
>from
>this Section; provided, an attack or injury to a person occurs while the
>dog
>is
>performing duties as expected. To qualify for exemption under this Section,
>each such dog shall be currently inoculated against rabies in accordance
>with
>Section 8 of this Act and performing duties as expected. It shall be the
>duty of the owner of the exempted dog to notify the Administrator of
>changes
>of
>address. In the case of a sentry or guard dog, the owner shall keep the
>Administrator advised of the location where such dog will be stationed. The
>Administrator shall provide police and fire departments with a categorized
>list of
>the exempted dogs, and shall promptly notify the departments of any address
>changes reported to him or her.
>(Source: P.A. 93-548, eff. 8-19-03.)
>
>(510 ILCS 5/15.3)
>
>Sec. 15.3. Dangerous dog; appeal.
>
>(a) The owner of a dog found to be a dangerous dog pursuant to this Act by
>an Administrator may file a complaint against the Administrator in the
>circuit
>court within days of receipt of notification of the determination, for a de
>novo hearing on the determination. The proceeding shall be conducted as a
>civil hearing pursuant to the Illinois Rules of Evidence and the Code of
>Civil
>Procedure, including the discovery provisions. After hearing both parties'
>evidence, the court may make a determination of dangerous dog if the
>Administrator meets his or her burden of proof of clear and convincing
>evidence. The
>final order of the circuit court may be appealed pursuant to the civil
>appeals
>provisions of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.
>
>(b) The owner of a dog found to be a dangerous dog pursuant to this Act by
>the Director may, within 14 days of receipt of notification of the
>determination, request an administrative hearing to appeal the
>determination. The
>administrative hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the Department of
>Agriculture's rules applicable to formal administrative proceedings, 8 Ill.
>Adm. Code
>Part 1, SubParts A and B. An owner desiring a hearing shall make his or her
>request for a hearing to the Illinois Department of Agriculture. The final
>administrative decision of the Department may be reviewed judicially by the
>circuit court of the county wherein the person resides or, in the case of a
>corporation, the county where its registered office is located. If the
>plaintiff in
>a review proceeding is not a resident of Illinois, the venue shall be in
>Sangamon County. The Administrative Review Law and all amendments and
>modifications thereof, and the rules adopted thereto, apply to and govern
>all
>proceedings for the judicial review of final administrative decisions of
>the
>Department
>hereunder.
>
>(c) Until the order has been reviewed and at all times during the appeal
>process, the owner shall comply with the requirements set forth by the
>Administrator, the court, or the Director.
>
>(d) At any time after a final order has been entered, the owner may
>petition
>the circuit court to reverse the designation of dangerous dog.
>
>(e) The provisions of this Section do not apply to the owner of a dog
>required to be licensed as a dangerous dog under subsection (c-5) of
>Section
>15.1.
>(Source: P.A. 93-548, eff. 8-19-03.)
>
>Section 90. The State Mandates Act is amended by adding Section 8.29 as
>follows:
>
>(30 ILCS 805/8.29 new)
>
>Sec. 8.29. Exempt mandate. Notwithstanding Sections 6 and 8 of this Act, no
>reimbursement by the State is required for the implementation of any
>mandate
>created by this amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly.
>
>Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law


jan cooper [email][email protected][/email]
[url]http://www.rott-n-chatter.com[/url] Home of poetry, K-9 Sulkys, BSL info, Rottweiler DVD & more
THE DOG DISH Sat. 4:05pm PST [url]http://www.590KTIE.com[/url] 'listen LIVE'
For the best Rottweiler data in the world

[Rowie-the-Pooh]

Great Danes? Huskies? St.Bernards? Pits? Are they [i]kidding[/i] me? This is horrible. :x

[ObedienceGrrl]

I think I'm going to be sick.......

[Crystal]

I was surprised to see Husky, St. Bernard, and Great Dane on there. I mean none of them should have been there...but I never thought of those as what society calls dangerous. What about Chihuahuas, some of those suckers are pretty vicious!!! (alright chihuahua owners, just teasing, you know they think there bigger than they are)

[Guest Mutts4Me]

[quote name='Jessashelony']St. Bernard and Great Dane... Apparently now just size alone is considered dangerous...

This is getting so out of hand. :evil:[/quote]

[quote]According to current dog bite fatality data 1 , the top ten dog breeds responsible for causing the highest number of fatalities in the United States from 1979 to 1998 include:

Pit Bull types
Rottweilers
German Shepherds
Husky types
Malamutes
Doberman Pinschers
Chow Chows
Great Danes
Saint Bernards
Wolf-dog hybrid types (crossbred) [/quote]

Which is probably what they base their list on. All of those dogs, plus others like the Airedale, are banned from the campground my parents have a a membership to. Old statisitcs, plus the general fact that big dogs do more damage with a single bite than a small dog can do with an attack, and so the bigger dogs are deemed "dangerous." You'll never see Dachshunds banned, even thought they're the most viscous breed I've come across so far.

[Seijun]

Yikes, glad I got my Shilo out of there. I just hope the IL mentallity does not rub off on my state.

~Seij

[Crystal]

I don't want there to only be dogs under 20 lbs. :cry: They make me crazy. There so Yappie. I told my husband the other day everybody needs two dogs for protection, a small one to bark it's head off when intruders are near. A a big one to scare them away when the small one tucks he tail and runs!!!

[imported_Debbie]

I don't know about your small dogs Crystal, but my Jacks do not turn tail and run :wink:
You'll have to be more specific with your 20lb and under dogs.....normally Terriers are fearless !!

BSL stinks and that's all there is to it......... :-?
The people of each state and country need to go against the officials trying to pass these laws...... :agrue:

[Crystal]

Oh I know not all small dogs are that way, My parents min-pin isn't that way, but some of them our. My grandparents have a dog, not sure what she is, but she barks like she may kill you then she goes and gets on my grandpa's lap when you get to close.

[lsailor]

This seems like a positive thing, a bill to repeal the dangerous dog law in IL was struck down: [url]http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2437[/url]

I'm not sure where these legislators come up with this BS - it certainly is not based on facts...here's a comparison of the ATTS (American Temperament Test Society) passing percentages with the proposed "banned" dog list and the top 10 AKC registered breeds in 2004...

[b]Proposed Banned Breeds vs. Top 10 AKC Reg Breeds in 2004 (in red)[/b]
Staffordshire Bull - 93.2%
[color=red]Labrador Retreiver - 91.1%[/color]
Siberian Husky - 86.7%
[color=red]Boxer - 84.7%[/color]
Alaskan Malamute - 84.1%
[color=red]Golden Retreiver - 83.6%[/color]
APBT - 83.4%
AmStaff - 83.3%
[color=red]German Shepherd - 82.8% - also on proposed banned breed list[/color]
St. Bernard - 82.9%
Rottweiler - 82.3%
[color=red]Toy Poodle - 80.9%[/color]
[color=red]Yorkshire Terrier - 80%[/color]
Great Dane - 78.6%
[color=red]Beagle - 78.2%[/color]
[color=red]Shih Tzu - 76.9%[/color]
Doberman - 76.5%
Akita - 72.9%
[color=red]Chihuahua - 70.6%[/color]
Chow Chow - 69.3%
[color=red]Dachsund - 66.7% (Smooth Standard)[/color]

[lsailor]

This link has phone #'s of those you can contact to voice your opposition to the new proposal:

[url]http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2439[/url]

:motz:

[xavierandrea]

All this breed banning is making me sick!! I alwaying break into tears reading that another law is trying to get passed... This whole thing just turns my stomach. If they banned Rotties here in MA I would be so depressed. Honestly what rights will we have left if we can't be owned by a Pittie, or a Rottie?? We have nothing!! :cry: ( Sorry guys, I'm kind of emotional latley) But this whole thing is so sad and sickening!! I'll shut up now and go cry....

[courtnek]

[quote]On Wednesday, HB1128 was defeated in the Illinois House Committee on Agriculture and Conservation by a vote of 9-6. The bill would have repealed an existing state law that prohibits breed-specific dangerous dog legislation.
[/quote]


so if the law already exists and was not repealed, are the people that
she posted about now out of luck? or are they trying again to get this law repealed?

[courtnek]

my email

I currently dont own any of the dogs on the list listed as "dangerous"...but what if I wanted to? My lab Mix, yes, Lab mix, would bite someone in a heartbeat to defend me. do you realize that the most recognized biters are Cocker Spaniels? by CDC records?

this kind of legislation is just WRONG. The dogs only know what they have been taught, what they have experienced. Please do not allow this BSL to happen. It really isnt the dog, its the people raising the dog. The dog is only a product of the home life it has experienced. Much like children who go astray because of their home lifes.

PLEASE! do NOT allow this to happen.

none of my dogs have ever bitten anyone. I am a responible dog owner. this legislation punishes responsible dog owners, and leaves the criminals with an open field to choose whatever dog they want to be the "macho-dog-of-the-week...



--

[Cairn6]

[quote name='Crystal']I don't want there to only be dogs under 20 lbs. :cry: They make me crazy. There so Yappie. I told my husband the other day everybody needs two dogs for protection, a small one to bark it's head off when intruders are near. A a big one to scare them away when the small one tucks he tail and runs!!![/quote]
You know what's funny. I have a 20lb cairn and my sister in law has a 100lb Lab/Mastiff. Well they were playing when a man wanted to clena our rugs came to the door. Both dogs were okay until for some odd reason he felt like he could open our door to discuss without being invited. My cairn went straight for him teeth snarling and growling. He jumped back so quick with horror on his face. The 100lb dog was cowering in the corner. :lol: So personally I would trust my cairn with big teeth to protect me over any dog I have ever had. So you just never know.

[Crystal]

That is hilarious :lol: I guess it is all according to the dog and what you prefer. My dad has been attempting to talking us into having another baby. He wants another grandchild. I told him he was crazy. So when I got Toby I told my dad he had a new grandson because I got a dog. He asked what kind and when I told him Husky/lab mix, he said why do you get such big dogs. I said well I guess I just like them better. They have a min-pin, used to have 2, but the female died after eating part of a blanket. Duece(min-pin) is as tough as they come. Where they used to live my aunts Sharpei would attack him every chance he got. Duece fought back and always ended up at the vet with pretty bad bite wounds. That stopped when my mom made my aunt pay the vet bill. Then she made sure to call my mom when she let her monster out so they would not both be out at the same time. So I guess not all little dogs are that way, I just prefer big dogs the only exception to which is a Yorkie. I really really want one. Maybe one day!

[AllAmericanPUP]

Official word is this has been withdrawn :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking:

[AllAmericanPUP]

on another board, it came straight from the person's office(the guy that proposed this bill)