Illinois Valley Times

During a recent House Judiciary Criminal Committee session, Illinois State Rep. David Friess (R-Red Bud) sought clarification on the proposed HB 168, amending the Human Care for Animals Act.

Speaking to Illinois State Rep. Daniel Didech (D-Buffalo Grove), Friess inquired if "somebody has two convictions of dogfighting, then another member of the household can't have like a toy poodle or some other dog that obviously would not be utilized for dogfighting?"

Didech confirmed Friess' interpretation of the statute by answering "Yes. I think this is how it will be implemented. The purpose for that is this is an animal cruelty prevention measure and if somebody has a history of not just one but at least two or potentially more incidents of animal cruelty, we want to keep them away from animals."

After stating on record that he is not a proponent of dogfighting, Friess expressed concern about the implication of the bill's statute in question on the other member of the household who doesn’t have any prior conviction of animal cruelty.

"Generally speaking, I would like to see it cleaned up so if somebody in the house has another type of animal, they would be able to keep that," Friess, an animal lover himself, added.

Didech said he will do further research on this and will follow up offline.