The subject came up for discussion in last month’s Planning Environment & Development Services Committee meeting.
The minutes follow, but you’ll have to go to their end to find out what “tailing” means.
TUP’S for Temporary Entertainment Events
Adam Wallen, Director of Planning and Development; Laura Scarry, Chief of Civil Division; and Kyle
Bruett, Assistant State’s Attorney, joined the committee for the discussion.
The discussion focused on temporary entertainment events.
Temporary use permits and entertainment events have been a major focus over the last three years, with steady improvements made to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for better management and oversight.
Key recent improvements include
- mandating EMT/ambulance presence,
- providing for on-site veterinarians,
- requiring wayfinding for emergency routes,
- addressing heavy traffic issues, and i
- mproving communication between law enforcement, the State’s Attorney’s office, the Emergency Management Agency, and event administration.
Ongoing concerns center on heightened community focus on animal cruelty, particularly from animal
rights activists regarding rodeos and “tailing” events.
Complaints are handled through criminal or administrative channels depending on the violation. Enforcement and tracking have improved, with tangible progress in addressing complaints.
Board members raised questions and sought guidance from the State’s Attorney’s staff.
One member asked whether the county could allow rodeos while excluding specific practices, such as tailing, despite new veterinarian and staff requirements.
The State’s Attorney’s staff and staff clarified that tailing is already illegal under the criminal code, but enforcement during events is difficult.
Previous attempts to refine ordinance language were legally challenging because defining prohibited actions without overregulating lawful activity is complex.
Staff noted the risk of enforcement challenges if ordinances are not clearly defined.
Enforcement primarily relies on criminal law rather than administrative citation.
Suggestions were made to improve local consequences.
One member proposed that the county could bar violators from holding future events, not just deny permits, citing long-term public and animal safety concerns.
There was discussion on responsibility for shutting down events with large crowds and limited county resources, and consideration of pre-event compliance checks similar to health department inspections.
Enforcement practicality was reviewed. Staff noted that pre-event and during-event inspections are
difficult, and law enforcement presence is sometimes insufficient to halt large events.
While checklist protocols for readiness (fire, health, law enforcement) are useful, enforcing a “no permit until checked in person” rule is challenging.
One member emphasized that staff cannot safely enforce bans in real time for crowds of 500 people.
Legal questions arose regarding permanent bans for animal cruelty.
The State’s Attorney’s staff confirmed that the county could attempt to write ordinance language banning tailing events and permanently barring violators from future events, but it must clearly define banned actions and tie enforcement to findings of intent or recklessness to withstand legal challenge.
Ancillary issues included drone and surveillance legality. Staff noted federal FAA restrictions, the limits of municipal regulation, and the general admissibility of citizen-submitted video unless specifically requested by law enforcement.
The board recognized that animal rights advocates are likely to continue seeking additional protections for animal events.
Members emphasized diligence in checklist enforcement, continuous application of event requirements, and clearer consequences for violations. Clear, actionable definitions for banned conduct are essential to avoid unintentionally prohibiting lawful activity, and enforcement must tie to a nexus of intent or recklessness. Stronger consequences, including property- or organizer-based bans, were discussed.
The State’s Attorney’s staff and board members agreed that any permit revocation or denial would involve due process and court proceedings. Regulatory approaches should balance resident and event holder rights with community standards and animal protection, avoiding overreach. The State’s Attorney’s staff will return with draft language options for stronger penalties and more actionable provisions.
The discussion concluded with a commitment from the State’s Attorney’s staff to provide legal research
and recommendations to the board.
= = = = =
From “Animals 24-&” comes a story based in Ogle County (south of Rockford);
Steer-tailing, “a nightmare for animals,” under Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s nose
This is a comprehensive article and long.
= = = = =
It bothers me that AI is unable to readers which County Board members made what comments.
Perhaps a person taking notes could insert their names.
