Penned on March 12th, 2025
Originally published in Paw Prints volume 47 (Spring 2025)

With my new volunteer role as President of the Illinois Animal Welfare Federation comes a new responsibility – to track and analyze Illinois animal welfare legislation. (Note: this “new role” is in addition to my job at CCHS, not a departure!)

It might surprise you to know that since the beginning of the January 2025 session of the Illinois General Assembly, more than 30 bills have been filed that relate to the welfare of animals.

As a former law student and then judicial law clerk– or maybe just because I have contrarian tendencies – I find myself unable to embrace every proposed law that is “good for animals.” Indeed, the law is never quite that simple.

I’m compelled to look at proposed legislation from all angles – playing the devil’s advocate to draw my own conclusions. I am relegated (by my own mind) to live in a state of conflict – much like a cat that can’t decide whether it wants to be in or out while you’re holding the door open.

I can’t help but apply a legal analysis that includes broader questions like: What is the problem this bill is attempting to solve? Is the law constitutional? Is this a proper role of the government? Is it too vague? Does it unnecessarily interfere with individual or property rights – or free markets? Or, is this problem better addressed at the local level, rather than the state level, given the diverse characteristics of communities throughout Illinois?

As an example, let’s look at two currently proposed bills that would amend the Landlord Tenant Act: Senate Bill 1669 would set limits on landlords’ ability to impose fees on tenants who own pets, and House Bill 1603 would ban landlords of residential housing (containing more than three units) from denying housing or imposing conditions on tenants based on the breed of dog the tenant owns.

Both of these bills might be beneficial to pet owners, animals, and animal shelters currently struggling with high numbers of dogs and cats in need of homes.

Now, I ask you to join me in some devil’s advocacy...

The aforementioned Senate bill provides that landlords can either charge a one-time pet ownership fee or pet rent, but not both. If they go with the fee option, they cannot charge more than $500. If they decide to charge pet rent, they cannot charge more than $25 for small animals (25 pounds or less) or $50 for large animals. (The bill prohibits all fees for assistance animals.)

What problem is the bill attempting to solve? I haven’t talked to the bill’s sponsor, but I’m guessing he has some constituents who believe landlords are charging exorbitant pet fees and a law is needed to rein them in.

What would the opposition be? I expect we’ll see strong opposition from property owners who will find this bill interferes with their ability to run a profitable business and protect their assets. They will argue that the bill benefits a percentage of the population that doesn’t need to be afforded special treatment. After all, pet ownership is optional, and not one of life’s necessities (except to you and me, of course). Valid points.

Should this be a state law? One has to consider whether price setting at the state level will have the desired effect when market conditions are so different for landlords in Chicago, Springfield or Champaign, for example.

What might be the unintended consequences of such a law? Remember, landlords aren’t required to welcome pets into their apartments. If the government goes too far in impeding a property owner’s ability to manage his/her risks and revenues, they may discontinue welcoming pets altogether. Fewer landlords accepting pets would be a net negative for animals, pet owners, and animal shelters.

This unintended consequence is also a risk when looking at House Bill 1603. In Champaign-Urbana, some larger property management companies allow pets but have a lengthy list of breeds that aren’t allowed to reside in their buildings. I can only assume that these breeds have been statistically identified as higher risk for property damage, nuisance complaints, and/or personal injury, as compared to the breeds that make the “acceptable” list.

Or, landlords might decide to mitigate risk by limiting dogs by weight, excluding any dog over 30 or 40 pounds. This would be terrible for shelters, where large dogs are the hardest to find homes for.

We currently have more than 30 pit-mix dogs up for adoption at CCHS, and we know that many pitties are great dogs with highly responsible owners. Increasing the available housing for pittie lovers could decrease the shelter pittie population. But I still wonder if using the strong arm of the government is the best way to achieve our goals.

It seems that people often jump to the legal system to fix any problem, and it’s a good idea to  remember that (1) passing a law is not as easy as it sounds, and (2) there might be a better way to solve the problem.

How about lease terms and policies that contain incentives for spay/neuter and dog training; address how common nuisance complaints (like barking) will be dealt with; and provide rules for the use of common areas that keep all tenants safe and the facilities clean and welcoming?

With or without the law, I’d like to see us (animal welfare advocates) help landlords develop effective ways of crafting their leases and policies to protect their assets – and promote responsible pet ownership at the same time.

If you find animal legislation and policy issues interesting like I do, please sign up for our newsletter dedicated to topic. Also feel free to reach out to me directly if you are interested in getting more involved.

If analyzing pet laws isn’t your fancy, there are many ways to get involved! The Champaign County Humane Society is so much more than just a place to adopt a pet – it's a place to learn, make friends, volunteer – and yes, advocate, even if you have to play the devil with me once and a while.

Sincerely,

Mary "Tief" Tiefenbrunn
CCHS Executive Director