Sponsored Links








Add to Technorati Favorites

City of Chicago Considers Draconian Laws on Dog Ownership

Sunday, May 28, 2006

The Chicago-Sun Times reports that the Chicago City Council is considering some tougher laws on dog ownership.

It's part of one person's quest to create a "safer and better environment" for dogs.

Here's what License Committee Chairman, Eugene Schulter, is proposing...

  • Mandatory microchipping

  • Stiff fines for letting dogs roam free

  • Higher licensing fees for non-fixed dogs

  • Increased regulation and licensing of pet service providers

  • Limit tethering to no more than 3 hours per day
Apparently in Schulter's ward, a dozen dogs and four cats were found living in filth and without food and water, at a boarding facility. The article in the Sun-Times suggests that was the impetus for these new laws.

So instead of going after the problem people, he's going after everyone, even the people who treat their dogs well. His proposals don't discriminate, everyone's a criminal in Schulter's eyes.

The reason why I feel these laws are unnecessary, is because there already are laws on the books, at the State level, to prevent against these problems.

The State of Illinois has a Veterinary Professions act, licensing and regulating veterinarians, and it has an Animal Welfare act regulating and licensing kennels, catteries, pet shops, and shelters. Moreover, the State already has an Animal Control act, which includes dangerous dogs, controlling your dogs, roaming dogs, etc.

So why does the City of Chicago still have a problem? It's because they don't have the money for code enforcement.

In other words, they have bigger problems with human health, violent crime, infrastructure, and schools, that they don't have enough man hours to spend on animal suffering.

That's why Schulter is proposing laws that will burden everyone. Rather than enforcing the laws they already have, he figures that at least 50% of the city's residents will follow like sheep and comply with the new laws. And if he can get that, then he'll see some positive results.

Keep in mind that the City still has no money to enforce the new laws. The other 50% that refuses to comply will go scott free.

Question for everyone:

What do you think is the answer?

Is it better to create more layers of strict and redundant laws hoping that at least half the population will automatically comply?

Or is it better to put more tax dollars into enforcing the laws we already have? Where do we get the money for this, raise taxes higher, or cut out wasteful spending?

11 Comments:

  • You can't legislate morality. The motivation for change has to come from conviction of the heart. We have to evolve as a society.

    By Blogger Chris Dillon, at 7:26 PM, May 28, 2006  

  • What I don't understand is why are these laws only for dogs? Why not cat owners also?

    By Blogger Quality Weenie, at 5:55 AM, May 30, 2006  

  • Ya right.A cover up to monitor dog fights.Think outside the box.Great idea.Fuck those bastards who encorage and particapate in fights.Pass a law that the prosicuition and punishment shall be:be bitten the balls or tits!;by police german sherpards and mule kicked by the horses!!!!!!!!But no I'm not putting a chip in my chihuahua nor get her fixed.FUCK U POLITICIAN!(my first amendment rightPut a chip in your kids.See where they are.Locate them and see what illegal activities they are doing.Curfew,drugs...U get snipped or tied,let alone put a chasity belt on your son or daghter.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:44 AM, May 31, 2006  

  • chipping- quicker/cheaper return to owner. what if ALL pets were chipped? owners would be called and pets home that night. dont you want your dog back if lost? so this is a win for the dog and you...assuming you are worthy of your pet's love....maybe not.

    dogs who roam free get hit by cars so high fines for romaming dogs is good for obvious reasons. do you really want dogs maimed with huge medical bills or worse?

    intact dogs- isnt a few million dogs put to sleep enough for you? if dogs were snipped and only dogs that were bred were born then we would not have millions of dogs killed yearly so this is a win. i love my mutt found running free in another town but others like her are put to death daily.

    licensing pet service providers- ehh. everyone is licensed these days.

    limit tethering- if you dont have your dog in the house with you as a member of the family...why didnt you get a nice pet rock to leave tied to the tree outside. this is for the phychological benefit of the dog. i had a neighbor with a hugely mean dog who was tied to a pole outside all the time....see a pattern there? nice dogs are not tethered all day and night...fewer bites...less cost in the end to just love your dog like you should. this is a win.

    draconian measures? no. watch Animal Cops to tell me what THOSE people need. those owners need serious jail time or need to be tied outside all day in teh sun or lost in another city with no resources to get back home or starved. owners who cannot provide the stuff that Chicago is looking to impose dont deserve the priviledge of owning a pet that loves them. you may be Libertarian but in protecvting your dog your views dont matter. your dog needs a completely socialist state providing protection from possibly horrible owners. less government = less animal protection which is bad for your pet. your pet needs protecting....possibly FROM you. if you havent seen pets that need protection from their owners then you have closed your eyes to the problem and dont care about animals.

    By Blogger joewo, at 11:13 PM, June 07, 2006  

  • I dunno... I think microchipping doesn't have to be forced, because if you don't care enough to microchip your dog you shouldn't get it back anyway.
    There should be fines on roaming dogs, or perhaps roaming dogs could just be considered property of the... animal pound? I don't know. My dog has run away a few times as a pup, but I made sure to fix the gate so she couldn't get out again.
    I don't think spaying and neughtering should be forced. Some people want their dogs to give birth, just like pretty much every human has babies. Mutts are just as good as purebreds and if mutts disapeared then well.. dogs wouldn't be as cool.
    And tethering should be limited. A dog is a member of the family, not a lawn ornament. Get a dog statue if you want it tied outside all day.
    I agree with the person above- too many people just don't take care of animals, and... well, you can't punish those people if there aren't laws. And if the good people really care about their dogs then they shouldn't mind the laws. My dog's microchipped, she's NEVER tied outside, spayed, and... yeah.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:17 AM, June 09, 2006  

  • I think part of the reason that Chicago is passing a law even in there is state legislation, is that Chicago has "home rule" status which can make it exempt for some laws-- they were using this as a basis for a proposed BSL law last year: even though there's a state law against BSL, the "home rule" status would (supposedly) allow them to get around it...

    The microchipping part of the law is supposed to be mainly so they can identify "dangerous" dogs or dogs involved in illegal activities such as dogfighting, so their owners can be prosecuted.

    By Anonymous chicagocanine, at 9:48 PM, June 14, 2006  

  • to the person who said: "Some people want their dogs to give birth, just like pretty much every human has babies."

    those people who just want their dogs to give birth are breaking the law most of the time by not having a breeders permit, and increasing the pet population. Do you know how many animals are put down EVERY YEAR because people "want their dogs to give birth"? MILLIONS. STOP SENSELESS KILLING AND FIX YOUR DAMNED ANIMALS.

    You don't work in a shelter, so you don't have to stare the OVERPOPULATION in the EYE. Shame on you.

    By Anonymous thetruthaboutpeta, at 6:29 PM, October 29, 2007  

  • "I don't think spaying and neughtering should be forced. Some people want their dogs to give birth, just like pretty much every human has babies. Mutts are just as good as purebreds and if mutts disapeared then well.. dogs wouldn't be as cool."



    Read it again, it says nowhere that it would be manditory, it says the law would make it more expensive to have an intact dog, which is already the case here in southern california. With millions of homelsss animals NO ONE should be breeding their pets. It has NOTHING to do with mutts not being as good as purebreeds. Don't know where that came into any of it.

    All of these proposed laws sound like they are for the benefit of the animal, how people are so upset about it I don't know. How can anyone argue that a dog shouldn't be teathered all day? such people must not know squat about dog aggression and what causes it. And NO DOG should roam free for both it's safety and the safety of others. Some people are afraid of dogs. I am not sure about the whole "chicago needs to enforce old laws and isn't" I will have to research, can't just take anyones word for it.

    draconian, that is pure BS, people just want to piss and moan about everything even if it is in the dogs best interest. This isn't BSL people.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:54 PM, October 29, 2007  

  • Chicago is the pet friendliest city in the U.S. I know they will pass all the right laws for all the right reasons. They have the best pet/people programs anywhere and No BSL! The tethering limit has be JUMPING for JOY!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:22 PM, October 29, 2007  

  • i think as long as it is not breed specific, in other words just targeting certain breeds and not others, than these laws are good. people should be held accountable if there dogs are roaming free. and higher licensing for unaltered dogs would encourage more people to get their dogs fixed, again a very good thing. more fixed dogs=less dying in shelters. as for mandatory chipping, i dont know. but you should be required to have tags on your dogs and if you breed you should chip the pups so that if any end up in a shelter or on the streets, they can be traced back to you. then you should be held accountable for them getting good homes. these are my thoughts on these issues.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:39 AM, October 30, 2007  

  • Why are there no laws addressing lazy owners of small dogs? Why is it only large dogs that seem to get the majority of the negative pub? For instance people who let their dogs roam the hallway of their condo building unattended? Why is that that owner is never responsible for what happens to their animal?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:29 PM, December 22, 2007  

Post a Comment
Back to Homepage