Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McHenry County board hears calls to ban ‘steer tailing,’ debates a local animal‑cruelty ordinance
Summary
After public commenters and an animal‑welfare group presented video and testimony alleging repeated severe injuries from steer tailing, the McHenry County Board of Health discussed an amendment to incorporate the state Humane Care for Animals Act into county code, add a specific definition of “tailing,” and create enforceable local penalties; farmers urged caution over scope and jurisdiction.
The McHenry County Board of Health heard more than an hour of public comment and a lengthy roundtable Wednesday on proposed amendments to the county’s animal‑control ordinance that would explicitly define and prohibit certain rodeo practices, including steer tailing.
The meeting opened with multiple residents and animal‑welfare advocates presenting testimony and, in one case, video evidence they said shows animals suffering degloving injuries and broken limbs. “When it goes wrong — and it goes wrong often — the animal’s tail is stripped to the bone or torn off entirely,” public commenter Heather Fridley said, urging the board to “vote yes on these amendments.” Steve Hindi, president and founder of Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARP), said his group has recorded thousands of runs and asked the committee to put drone video into the record: “That’s a tail being ripped off right there,” he said while footage played.
Why it matters: sponsors said the proposed local language would mirror the Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act and add a precise county definition of “tailing” — grabbing, pulling or dragging an animal by the tail and wrapping it around an individual’s leg so the animal is slammed or dragged to the ground — to close a perceived gap that has complicated state‑level prosecutions. A county spokesperson and the state’s attorney’s office recommended a local ordinance so prosecutors could pursue ordinance violations in county court where the legal standard and evidentiary process differ from state criminal prosecutions.
Farmers and the McHenry County Farm Bureau pushed back. Dan, who identified himself as manager of the McHenry County Farm Bureau, and Chris McKee, president of the Farm Bureau, said many livestock handling practices have agricultural origins and warned the amendment could criminalize routine ranch work or create jurisdictional confusion with the Illinois Department of Agriculture. “There are some bad players,” McKee said, “but jurisdiction to squab (sic) falls squarely under the Department of Ag.”
Sponsor’s approach and limits: the amendment sponsor told the committee that two of four proposed exemptions — normal animal husbandry and narrowly defined medical/identification procedures — have gathered consensus and will remain in the draft. Other potential exemptions (events at the fairgrounds and events sanctioned by specified rodeo organizations) remain under discussion. The sponsor also said the ordinance will include a ‘defensibility’ clause intended to protect legitimate farming operations from unintended enforcement.
Evidence and enforcement questions: staff said animal‑control officers can begin civil ordinance enforcement when they have corroborated evidence, but validating drone footage, witness availability and court readiness remain practical hurdles. Staff described existing partnerships with law enforcement, the Department of Agriculture and humane investigators and warned that expanding enforcement could require additional staffing or overtime if after‑hours event coverage is needed.
What happened next: the committee did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting. The amendment was under 30‑day county board review; the sponsor said she would circulate a formal amendment and memo describing outstanding issues before the Committee of the Whole and the full county board. The county staff and the state’s attorney will continue drafting language and clarifying exemptions before a final vote.
Background: committee members noted the county already enforces a cruelty provision in its public‑health code that closely tracks the state statute; the change under discussion adds an explicit definition for tailing and a local enforcement mechanism that sponsors say would improve prosecutorial success. Several board members said they want more time to review the drafted language and to hear from law enforcement, the state’s attorney and other agencies before any final action.
The board concluded by agreeing to continue discussion and to circulate the sponsor’s formal amendment and memo ahead of upcoming county and board‑of‑health meetings.
