[ Search ] [ PDF text ] [ Legislation ]
[ Home ] [ Back ] [ Bottom ]
| [ Introduced ] | [ Engrossed ] | [ Enrolled ] |
92_HB0196gms
STATE OF ILLINOIS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
SPRINGFIELD, 62706
GEORGE H. RYAN
GOVERNOR
August 1, 2001
To the Honorable Members of the
Illinois House of Representatives
92nd General Assembly
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Governor by
Article IV, Section 9(e) of the Illinois Constitution of
1970, and re-affirmed by the People of the State of Illinois
by popular referendum in 1974, and conforming to the standard
articulated by the Illinois Supreme Court in People ex Rel.
Klinger v. Howlett, 50 Ill. 2d 242 (1972), Continental
Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. v. Zagel, 78 Ill. 2d 387
(1979), People ex Rel. City of Canton v. Crouch, 79 Ill. 2d
356 (1980), and County of Kane v. Carlson, 116 Ill. 2d 186
(1987), that gubernatorial action be consistent with the
fundamental purposes and the intent of the bill, I hereby
return House Bill 196, entitled "AN ACT to amend the Humane
Care for Animals Act by adding Section 2.09 and by changing
Sections 4.03 and 4.04," with my specific recommendations for
change.
House Bill 196 enhances the penalty for willfully and
maliciously taunting, tormenting, teasing, beating, striking,
torturing, injuring, poisoning, killing or otherwise
interfering with a search and rescue dog. It also creates a
penalty for interfering or meddling with a search and rescue
dog handler. A search and rescue dog is defined as a dog
trained to locate lost or missing persons, victims of natural
disasters, and human bodies.
House Bill 196 is patterned on the current law provision
for an enhanced penalty for the same acts committed against a
police dog or police dog handler. However, the current law
requires the acts against the police dog or handler to occur
while they are engaged in carrying out their official
function or duty, or when the dog is confined off-duty. House
Bill 196 is without any similar limits, such that "meddling"
with a search and rescue dog handler anywhere, anytime and
even when the dog is not present becomes an offense. While I
believe that all dogs should be treated humanely and not
subjected to torment, torture or injury, the enhanced penalty
should apply to interfering with these specially trained dogs
while engaged in their search and rescue work. The enhanced
penalty is justified in the search and rescue context, since
lives can be at stake.
Finally, to make sure that this legislation becomes law
on January 1, 2002, as originally intended by the General
Assembly, I also suggest adding a January 1, 2002 effective
date so that my amendatory veto does not delay implementation
of the law.
For these reason, I return House Bill 196 with the
following recommendations for change:
On page 1, line 28, by inserting "engaged in the
performance of its functions or duties, or when placed in
confinement off duty" after "dog"; and
On page 1, line 29, by inserting "engaged in the
performance of the functions or duties of the search and
rescue dog" after "handler"; and
On page 2, line 14, by inserting "engaged in the
performance of its functions or duties, or when placed in
confinement off duty" after "dog"; and
On page 2, by inserting after line 16 the following:
"Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect
January 1, 2002."
With these specific recommendations for change, House
Bill 196 will have my approval. I respectfully request your
concurrence.
Sincerely,
s/GEORGE H. RYAN
Governor