7 Animals = Hoarding???? (Illinois)
- Thread starter Sweet72947
- Start date
From Webster
Definition of ANIMAL
1
: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
-------------------
I think the problem is in their wording. For fish and more would all if I understand it correctly would count too. So would my dust mites. WOW would I be in trouble there.
Definition of ANIMAL
1
: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
-------------------
I think the problem is in their wording. For fish and more would all if I understand it correctly would count too. So would my dust mites. WOW would I be in trouble there.
It's "companion animals," but there's no definition of what a companion animal is. Dogs? Cats? Fish? Rats? The bill previously read "a large number" which is rather ambiguous too, but putting ANY specific number on it could be challenging.
The term "hoarder" doesn't actually come into play unless you a) own seven or more companion animals AND b) aren't taking good care of them/keeping them in crowded conditions. So it's not just having the seven animals... or at least the bill is not INTENDED to be read that way.
HOWEVER, the biggest problem here is the amendments WOULD require anybody with seven or more companion animals to get a permit to keep them... and if you don't get the permit you will first be charged a misdemeanor and if you STILL don't get a permit it's then a felony... with an additional felony charge PER DAY that you don't get a permit.
Anyway, this bill wasn't called yesterday (again) so it will probably be tacked onto next week's agenda (again.)
The term "hoarder" doesn't actually come into play unless you a) own seven or more companion animals AND b) aren't taking good care of them/keeping them in crowded conditions. So it's not just having the seven animals... or at least the bill is not INTENDED to be read that way.
HOWEVER, the biggest problem here is the amendments WOULD require anybody with seven or more companion animals to get a permit to keep them... and if you don't get the permit you will first be charged a misdemeanor and if you STILL don't get a permit it's then a felony... with an additional felony charge PER DAY that you don't get a permit.
Anyway, this bill wasn't called yesterday (again) so it will probably be tacked onto next week's agenda (again.)
Agreed.
I doubt fish would count. I didn't even think of counting the fish but either way with our number of dogs, cat, rodent, and horses we'd be over anyways. I hate legislating numbers. It makes no sense to me to do so instead of just following the cruelty and nuisance laws we already have. If our pets aren't being a nuisance to those around us and are well cared for then what is the problem?
I doubt fish would count. I didn't even think of counting the fish but either way with our number of dogs, cat, rodent, and horses we'd be over anyways. I hate legislating numbers. It makes no sense to me to do so instead of just following the cruelty and nuisance laws we already have. If our pets aren't being a nuisance to those around us and are well cared for then what is the problem?
I've heard a few different things from people and finally figured out where to look up the definition of companion animal to Illinois...
510Â ILCSÂ 70/Â Â Humane Care for Animals Act.
(510 ILCS 70/2.01a)
Sec. 2.01a. Companion animal. "Companion animal" means an animal that is commonly considered to be, or is considered by the owner to be, a pet. "Companion animal" includes, but is not limited to, canines, felines, and equines.
(Source: P.A. 92‑454, eff. 1‑1‑02.)
Most people do take this to mean fish would be included because they are commonly considered to be pets. Which is kind of hilarious that you'd need a permit if you wanted to have seven or more fish.
510Â ILCSÂ 70/Â Â Humane Care for Animals Act.
(510 ILCS 70/2.01a)
Sec. 2.01a. Companion animal. "Companion animal" means an animal that is commonly considered to be, or is considered by the owner to be, a pet. "Companion animal" includes, but is not limited to, canines, felines, and equines.
(Source: P.A. 92‑454, eff. 1‑1‑02.)
Most people do take this to mean fish would be included because they are commonly considered to be pets. Which is kind of hilarious that you'd need a permit if you wanted to have seven or more fish.
yeah Im sure it is.... 
and usually when you say your NOT trying to be something, you are
So, dont blame my attitude on what PETA / HSUS does, cause Im not the one, It doesnt matter to me, I dont care how many or how few animals a person has, so no I really dont care one way or another bout this "bill"
and usually when you say your NOT trying to be something, you are So, dont blame my attitude on what PETA / HSUS does, cause Im not the one, It doesnt matter to me, I dont care how many or how few animals a person has, so no I really dont care one way or another bout this "bill"
No, it's not a good move. This has nothing to do with backyard breeding.
First it's any combination of companion animals, not seven of any given animal. Pretty much anybody who lives on a farm is going to have to get a permit. Also notice there is no mention of how much the permit costs, nor any LIMIT to how much it will be allowed to cost. And what's a "ridiculous" number of dogs? Seven is a ridiculous number of dogs? Seven is more than I'd like to have, but there are and have been members on this forum with that many and even more, and they all get great care. And again, it's not a number of ONE animal - if you have three dogs and four cats you would need the permit.
Secondly, if you are, say, the kind of backyard breeder who is pumping out litter after litter and you never get your pets the proper vet care so you're turning a profit, paying a potentially large amount for a permit will be no big deal, so it's not going to stop them.
It WILL, however, be a financial burden for the small hobby breeder who breeds maybe once or twice a year if that. As an example, Auggie's breeder hasn't had a litter in three years, but she would definitely need the permit since she lives on a farm and has dogs, cats, two chickens, a donkey, and a small flock of sheep.
Furthermore, the kind of people who break the law will continue to break the law, so it won't stop THEM either. They won't apply for the permit until they get caught.
Finally the law is intended to be about animal hoarding, and has nothing to do with breeding. (That was a completely separate bill that has been defeated.) For one thing hoarding is based on an illness, so you can't legislate somebody out of an illness, and it's not going to HELP them to try and legislate or fine them for it. For another the law as written was just fine for the intended purpose, because it focused on the quality of life for the animals and was not worried about trying to set a number on how many animals any given person can or can't have before they have to buy a permit for the government.
First it's any combination of companion animals, not seven of any given animal. Pretty much anybody who lives on a farm is going to have to get a permit. Also notice there is no mention of how much the permit costs, nor any LIMIT to how much it will be allowed to cost. And what's a "ridiculous" number of dogs? Seven is a ridiculous number of dogs? Seven is more than I'd like to have, but there are and have been members on this forum with that many and even more, and they all get great care. And again, it's not a number of ONE animal - if you have three dogs and four cats you would need the permit.
Secondly, if you are, say, the kind of backyard breeder who is pumping out litter after litter and you never get your pets the proper vet care so you're turning a profit, paying a potentially large amount for a permit will be no big deal, so it's not going to stop them.
It WILL, however, be a financial burden for the small hobby breeder who breeds maybe once or twice a year if that. As an example, Auggie's breeder hasn't had a litter in three years, but she would definitely need the permit since she lives on a farm and has dogs, cats, two chickens, a donkey, and a small flock of sheep.
Furthermore, the kind of people who break the law will continue to break the law, so it won't stop THEM either. They won't apply for the permit until they get caught.
Finally the law is intended to be about animal hoarding, and has nothing to do with breeding. (That was a completely separate bill that has been defeated.) For one thing hoarding is based on an illness, so you can't legislate somebody out of an illness, and it's not going to HELP them to try and legislate or fine them for it. For another the law as written was just fine for the intended purpose, because it focused on the quality of life for the animals and was not worried about trying to set a number on how many animals any given person can or can't have before they have to buy a permit for the government.
