Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

And Illinois gets on the band wagon for 9 Breeds

BMDLuver
March 2nd, 2005, 04:21 PM
Hi Everyone
Please crosspost this far and wide

This bill SB1790 has been introduced in IL. It will
require the dogs listed below to be deemed dangerous
just because of their breed and will require special
licensing and insurance. This will be VERY damaging to
these breeds and will only cause many more to be
dumped into the shelters. So far this bill only has
the one sponser. We need to let this Senator know this
is not a good idea and will cause more harm then good.
His contact information is as follows. Please write or
call him today.

Stephanie

Senator Martin A. Sandoval (D)
12th District

Springfield Office:
Senator 12th District
118 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-5304


District Office:
4843 West Cermak Road
Cicero, IL 60804
(708) 656-2002
(708) 656-7608 FAX

This is the link to the bill to read the full text.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=50&GA=94&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1790&GAID=8&LegID=20095&SpecSess=&Session=

(c-5) Any dog that is of any of the following breeds
shall
25 be deemed to be a dangerous dog by the
Administrator or
26 Director and shall be registered by its owner as a
dangerous
27 dog:
28 (1) Pit bull.
29 (2) Rottweiler.
30 (3) German shepherd.
31 (4) Huskies.
32 (5) Alaskan malamute.
33 (6) Doberman pinscher.
34 (7) Chow chow.
35 (8) Great Dane.
36 (9) St. Bernard.
Upon registration, the Administrator or Director shall

3 issue a dangerous dog license to the owner and may
require the
4 owner to pay a reasonable fee. Each dog licensed
under this
5 subsection shall also be issued an orange tag that
shall be
6 worn by the dog whenever it is dwelling or roaming
in a public
7 place. The license and the tag shall be renewed by
the owner 3
8 years after the date of issuance and every 3 years
thereafter
9 for the life of the dog. The Administrator or
Director shall
10 maintain a registry of all dogs licensed under
this subsection.
11 On and after July 1, 2006, the owner of any
dog required to
12 be licensed under this subsection shall maintain
canine
13 liability insurance for the life of the dog and no
license
14 shall be issued or renewed under this subsection
unless the
15 owner provides proof of canine liability
insurance. The
16 Division of Insurance of the Department of
Financial and
17 Professional Regulation shall, in cooperation with
insurance
18 companies authorized to do business in this State,
create a
19 program of canine liability insurance. On or
before February 1,
20 2006, the Division shall report to the General
Assembly
21 concerning its plan for canine liability insurance
and shall
22 recommend action necessary to implement that plan.
The Division
23 shall implement the plan no later than July 1,
2006.
24 The Administrator or Director may impose a
reasonable fine
25 against any person that fails to register or renew
an existing
26 license or fails to maintain canine liability
insurance in
27 accordance with this subsection and may impound
the dog until
28 the fine is paid and the owner is in compliance
with this
29 subsection. Any person found to be in violation of
this
30 subsection is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor for
the first
31 offense and a Class B misdemeanor for the second
or any
32 subsequent offense.

Karin
March 2nd, 2005, 07:56 PM
If Florida ever trys to pass the same legistration, my message will be clear,

BITE ME!

mafiaprincess
March 2nd, 2005, 08:23 PM
This is getting ridiculous.

BMDLuver
March 2nd, 2005, 08:39 PM
Illinois added akita as #10.

TWilson9498
March 2nd, 2005, 08:59 PM
This is all going waaaaaaaay too far! :mad:

twodogsandacat
March 2nd, 2005, 09:53 PM
First I own a large breed dog. Some says he looks like a pit so I have to deal with this too. I am not pro ban and I am not a hater of any breed AND I don't have an answer to how to avoid dogs being abandoned by those unwilling to pay. But at some point some laws are required to protect humans AND dogs. Tell me if I am wrong to believe that some laws and maybe not this one needs to be put into place ANd creulty laws need addressing too.

I don't see a muzzle requirement for a dog that has not been an issue.
I don't see an at all times leashed requirement for a dog that has not been an issue.
I don't see a ban on a breed.
Insurance: Always a good idea AND the state is working to make sure that if you sell insurance in the state you offer dog insurance at a reasonable rate. I mention this as some carriers won't insure or would rake you over the coals if they do (not all).

When I was younger I paid more to insure a Z28 because it was considered more dangerous, looking back at how I used that V8 I would have to agree. Maybe this will keep these dogs out of the hands of idiots and kids. I certainly don't think all kids are idiots but a pit in the hands of a sixteen year old kid usally ticks me right off.

If those that want to own these breeds had to pay to own one and had more restrictions then maybe the breed would actually be more protected.

Are all laws bad? I don't think so if they can be based on fact. Bill 132 sucks but at some point some laws have to be in place. This seems to not punish a breed but rather addresses the fact that a large dog may do large damage.

Let the flaming begin. Correct me if I am wrong. I have an open mind.

LavenderRott
March 2nd, 2005, 10:25 PM
Are all laws bad? I don't think so if they can be based on fact. Bill 132 sucks but at some point some laws have to be in place. This seems to not punish a breed but rather addresses the fact that a large dog may do large damage.

There are laws in place. I have never heard of or lived in a community that allowed dogs to run free in the streets. Dogs either must be confined to a yard in some manner or kept on a leash.

I have never lived in a community that did not require that dogs be registered. If not in the actual city, then the county requires such a registration.

Yet day after day people are attacked and bitten by dogs of all breeds that are running loose in neighborhoods. Most of the time these dogs are not registered.

In the 8 years that I had my rottweiler, she only one time acted in a threatening manner. That is because someone was "breaking into" my house. Yet the neighbor's chihuahua mix has attacked my dogs on my front porch twice in the 8 MONTHS they have lived across the street.

Dogs of all sizes bite. Dogs of all sizes have the capability to kill someone. While the chances of a grown man being killed by a pomeranian mix is slim, one did kill an infant several years ago.

Bill 132 is NOT based on fact. The fact of the matter is, this bill will do nothing to prevent dog bites. Yes, as irresponsible owners move away from "pit bulls" to other breeds, "pit bull" bites will be reduced. But DOG bites will not. A different breed will become the "responsible" one for a majority of bites. But that is ok. Out of all the dog bites in Canada, the "pit bulls" weren't the problem to start with. They just made better headlines.

When Courtney Trempe was killed by a mastiff several years ago, there was an inquest. The body of people who conducted the inquest put forth 33 recommendations that WOULD prevent future bites and deaths by dogs. Not one thing that was recommended was included in Bill 132. Bill 132 was not based on fact. It was based on Mr. Bryant's personal agenda.

Lucky Rescue
March 2nd, 2005, 11:00 PM
HUSKIES :confused:

Excellent post LavendarRott. I agree with every word.

If all this effort were put into enforcing the leash law, and punishing offenders, nothing else would be needed.

Out of all the dog bites in Canada, the "pit bulls" weren't the problem to start with. They just made better headlines.


Amen.

twodogsandacat
March 3rd, 2005, 01:18 AM
"There are laws in place. I have never heard of or lived in a community that allowed dogs to run free in the streets. Dogs either must be confined to a yard in some manner or kept on a leash.

I have never lived in a community that did not require that dogs be registered. If not in the actual city, then the county requires such a registration."


So far I am with you but requiring and enforcing are two different things.

I am aware of all the issues regarding Bill132. That is very specific and a very 'bigoted' and stupid bill. I also understand that all types of dogs bite. I am also aware that Pomerians have killed but in that case the size of the victim was more of a factor than the size of the dog. Still barring death larger dogs do larger damage. That includes labs, Rhodisians, Huskies, Shepherds and Rottis. I do not fear the most agressive Pomerian as I am walking down the street and never will. I would fear having my child anywhere near it period. The recomendations of the inquest into Courtney's death may never be fairly applied to all breeds and that is wrong because it would make more sense in every state and province than any other proposals that I have ever read.

Where do we allow the law to not violate our rights as dog owners and start to allow it to address the issue of large dogs - all large dogs. I don't agree with the word dangerous dog and do not agree that this law is the answer but what is wrong 'in principle' with requiring insurance for dogs that are large enough to do damage that may change somebody's life forever? We have mandatory car insurance and nobody seems to upset with that in principle other than we are getting ripped of by the rates charged.

My question really is: When do we stop resisting every attempt to create a law or debate a law and start to say that there is a problem? The inquest findings in the Courtney Trempe case is as near to perfect as we could hope for. Do we resist everything other than that?

I own a 80lb dog and a 42lb dog and if I HAD to muzzle one you may be surprised where that muzzle would be placed. Asking that it be placed on the larger dog would only prevent a larger amount of damage being inflicted IF the chance of both dogs attacking were equal. Of course it isn't. The two dogs have two different personalitys and the larger has been raised by us since the age of twelve weeks the other is a rescue and is currently working on some issues none of them agression related.

Other than the inquest recs I am just interested in other ideas that's all. So far I haven't heard them. You are preaching to the converted so give me something here other than the 'all dogs bite' message I have already used to argue against Bill 132.

Leash laws aren't the solution. I let my dog off leash as do others. In a controlled situation.
.

LavenderRott
March 3rd, 2005, 07:54 AM
The answer is to hold PEOPLE responsible for the actions of their dogs. If your dog attacks and kills someone then you should go to jail. If your dog gets out of the yard and chases some neighbor kids, the fine should be such that the owner is compelled to fix the problem.


http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm#00002439.htm

According to the statistics in this link - in 17 years there were 60 dog bite fatalities attributed to "pit bulls". For every "pit bull" that killed someone, hundreds never bit anyone. Why should the owners of the hundreds of dogs that never hurt anyone have to pay for those who's dogs did? That is like saying you should have to pay higher car insurance premiums in case you get drunk and drive your car.

In neither the United States or Canada, there is no system set up to collect accurate dog bite statistics. In the U.S., dog bites are automatically reported to the CDC through hospital computer systems. The CDC receives information on the victim, and a phone call is made to the victim to find out the breed of dog. (At least that is what I understand from reading the CDC website.)

This paragraph from the link above is very interesting.

Animal control at the community level. Animal-control programs should be supported, and laws for regulating dangerous or vicious dogs should be promulgated and enforced vigorously (8). For example, in this report, 30% of DBRFs resulted from groups of owned dogs that were free roaming off the owner's property. Some of these deaths might have been prevented through more stringent animal-control laws and enforcement. Although some breeds were disproportionately represented in the fatal attacks described in this report, the representation of breeds changes over time (Table_1). As a result, targeting a specific breed may be unproductive; a more effective approach may be to target chronically irresponsible dog owners (9).

The second to the last sentence kind of catches your eye, huh. I guess we will be able to watch Ontario and see if that is, indeed, what happens.

You will also find on that link, toward the bottom, several things that would prevent dog bites. I believe most of them are covered in the Tempe inquest.

Schwinn
March 3rd, 2005, 10:28 AM
When I was younger I paid more to insure a Z28 because it was considered more dangerous, looking back at how I used that V8 I would have to agree. Maybe this will keep these dogs out of the hands of idiots and kids. I certainly don't think all kids are idiots but a pit in the hands of a sixteen year old kid usally ticks me right off.



When I was younger, I had to pay more to insure a bottom of the line Mustang, even though it had a four cylinder engine less powerful than my friends Escort GT and worse handling than my parents Corsica. Why? Because it was a Mustang. My friends with more powerful cars paid about half. But because it was a "Mustang", it must have been more dangerous.

I agree, that this bill is not as contentious, and I think it is probably a good basis. Myself, I would probably be able to get behind it if removed the breed requirement, and perhaps replaced it with a weight/height requirement, or even all dogs. It is hard to argue the danger of a 5 lb dog vs a 80 lb dog (though it can be done). Me being of the "all dogs can be dangerous" ilk, I think I would rather see this apply to all dogs. I will be honest, I haven't read the entire thing throroughly, but at a glance, my issue is with the breed specific component.

BMDLuver
March 3rd, 2005, 10:56 AM
Myself, I would probably be able to get behind it if removed the breed requirement, and perhaps replaced it with a weight/height requirement, or even all dogs. It is hard to argue the danger of a 5 lb dog vs a 80 lb dog (though it can be done). Me being of the "all dogs can be dangerous" ilk, I think I would rather see this apply to all dogs. I will be honest, I haven't read the entire thing throroughly, but at a glance, my issue is with the breed specific component.
I would much rather handle 140lbs of power than 5lbs of nasty. A little girl that I know was taken to emerg and needed to see a plastic surgeon as a result of the damage done to her face by 5lbs. The emerg doctor could not believe that such a small dog had done so much damage. So no, I don't think weight is a good option. I do think that an aggressive dog, one that has shown it's ability to harm not necessarily has injured, should be muzzled in public. Breed specific no, individual dog specific yes. :)

Lucky Rescue
March 3rd, 2005, 01:58 PM
People have to made accountable for their own actions.

I see it this way: I drive a Nissan Sentra. If I get drunk and drive it unto the sidewalk and injure or kill someone, should everyone who owns a Nissan be penalized, or just me? OR should people who drive drunk and cause injury be punished?

This breed banning seems to be based on appearance (large/black/wolfish) and urban legend rather than fact.

Cocker spaniels rate rather high on the bite incidence (as do Labs), but cute, curly haired and flop eared dogs will never be banned. I cannot remember hearing about a Doberman attacking anyone, yet they are on the list.

Historically, bans do not work but rather put the banned object (or in this case, animal) into the hands of criminals while law abiding citizens suffer.

foxy
March 6th, 2005, 12:49 AM
Leash Law!!! Need I say more. No animals need to be roaming the streets freely anyway and if they are the owners need to be punished. It amazes me now someone can actually tell what type of animal you can own. What next?

twodogsandacat
March 6th, 2005, 01:42 AM
OK. I was just playing Devil's advocate here trying to see if anyone felt that as the owner of large breeds we deserve a larger responsibility than the owner of a Pomeranian (which have killed also).

It seems that most don't. We expect all dogs to be trained the same and that is fair.

This whole BSL thing has gotten me thinking about how dangerous dogs really are. I never would of believed that so many bites occurred every year and although most are not life threatening they must be an awful thing to have happen.

I was hoping to hear something other than everybody should be responsible for themselves. We license guns, cars and doctors why not dogs.

If I was AG this is what I would recommend as a starter.

Mandatory education for children in the lower grades on dog safety.
Mandatory spaying and neutering of all mixed breeds dogs.
Mandatory micro-chipping of ALL dogs.
Define and write a certified and standard Provincial training course.
$500 fine for not having a license. Provincial driverís license would not be renewed if you have an outstanding fine.
$20 for first year of licensing.
$10 fee for every subsequent year if dog HAS PASSED certified training course.
$250 for every subsequent year if dog has not passed a certified training course.
For those experienced owners that have already passed a dog the option to skip the course and take the test with any subsequent dog. Passing mark raised by ten percent.

Why?
It was stated in the hearings that a dog that has only BASIC obedience is 90% less likely to bite. If you donít license Ė you pay. If you donít train Ė you pay.

Fines would go to the municipality enforcing the law as enforcement is the key.

I was hoping to hear another hundred ideas. All enforcable and all easy to implement and raise funds for enforcement.

Schwinn
March 7th, 2005, 10:31 AM
I think one thing that has to happen before anything else is they need to enforce the current laws. I don't know how many times I've seen people walking around my neighbourhood letting the dogs go where they want off leash. I watched one person letting the dog go up to the houses and nose around in the gardens. I think that would go a long way to improving things.

foxy
March 7th, 2005, 11:14 PM
Yes I am a owner of a Pomerian and though they are small I see no difference in a large or small dog, because they both can hurt someone.I know several people that are scared of small dogs as well as large ones. People need to take responsibilty for their animals actions. Why not try to enforce current laws instead of coming up with new ones. That was my point about the bill. I agree that certain dogs are not good pets for everyone, but why pin point certain breeds just because the are large dogs. If your dog harms someone or causes damage to something than you need to take responsibilty for this. My point is that alot of pet owners do not follow the laws now. What would these laws change? More dogs in shelters or roaming the streets. The sad thing is all dogs can or do bite but you only see 9 on the list.

twodogsandacat
March 8th, 2005, 12:27 AM
Mr. Bryants favorite city Winnipeg certainly has an issue with enforcement. If they enforced the laws then maybe the same dog wouldn't of bit on four ocassions. Finally it was destroyed after attacking an Animal Control officer - I guess they took that as a little personal.

You two are 100%. Enforce the laws we have now.

greaterdane
March 8th, 2005, 12:53 AM
GREAT DANE??? ST BERNARD??? they are the most calm loving breed... when will it end??? I will have to make a list where I can live, since I am in love with all those breeds, never thought it would come to that.

LavenderRott
March 8th, 2005, 01:28 AM
Actually, not too long ago, a pair of St. Bernards were put down in Michigan because it's owners allowed them to run loose and they killed some livestock.

But again, that is an owner issue.

BMDLuver
March 9th, 2005, 02:46 PM
emails and phone calls this bill will not be tabled. Apparently we can make a difference to some!