New Jersey BSL proposal

[gooeydog]

This is off the ADOA site (www.adoa.org)....


10/23/02 NJ PROPOSES STATE-WIDE BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

ADOA Board Member Melanie Tierney advises us of the following:

ASSEMBLY, No. 2906

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

210th LEGISLATURE

INTRODUCED OCTOBER 10, 2002

Sponsored by:

Assemblyman JOHN J. BURZICHELLI

District 3 (Salem, Cumberland and Gloucester)

SYNOPSIS

The "Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Licensing Act"; authorizes municipalities to require a license for a person to own, keep or harbor a pit bull.

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.

An Act concerning persons who own, keep, or harbor certain kinds of dogs and supplementing Title 4 of the Revised Statutes.

Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the "Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Licensing Act."

2. As used in this act:

"Animal control officer" means a certified municipal animal control officer or, in the absence of such an officer, the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality or that officer's designee; and

"Pit bull" means any dog of the breed American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or Staffordshire Terrier, or any dog determined to be a pit bull type dog pursuant to subsection c. of section 3 of this act.

3. a. A municipality may, by ordinance, require any person residing within the municipality who owns, keeps or harbors a pit bull in the municipality to obtain an annual license to own, keep or harbor such a dog. No such license shall be issued to any person under the age of 18 years. This license, and any requirements or conditions attached thereto, shall be in addition to any license or other authorization required pursuant to P.L.1941, c.151 (C.4:19-15.1 et seq.), P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-17 et seq.) or any other law.

b. A municipality adopting an ordinance pursuant to subsection a. of this section may require the license applicant to provide:

(1) information about the breed, sex, age, color and markings of the dog and whether it is of a long- or short-haired variety;

(2) information about any licenses issued for the dog pursuant to P.L.1941, c.151 (C.4:19-15.1 et seq.), P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-17 et seq.) or any other law;

(3) the name, street and post-office addresses, and telephone number of the license applicant;

(4) the license applicant's record, if any, of criminal convictions or of convictions or other adjudications for animal cruelty; and

(5) any other information the municipality deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

c. (1) A municipality adopting an ordinance pursuant to subsection a. of this section may require any person residing within the municipality who owns, keeps or harbors any kind of dog to provide proof that the dog is not a pit bull. If breed records are not available or the dog is a mongrel, hybrid, or mixed breed, the municipality may by visual inspection and use of detailed professional standards and illustrations decide if the dog is a pit bull type dog. In lieu of visual inspection, the municipality may require submission of a photo or photos of the dog for the purposes of this paragraph.

(2) Any person who owns, keeps or harbors a dog determined by a municipality pursuant to this subsection to be a pit bull may appeal that decision to the municipal court, which shall conduct a hearing de novo on the matter. Appeal from the decision of the municipal court may be made by the person who owns, keeps or harbors the dog or by the municipality by filing with the Superior Court, Law Division, in accordance with the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey pertaining to appeals from courts of limited jurisdiction. The Superior Court shall hear the appeal by conducting a hearing de novo in the manner established by those rules for appeals from courts of limited jurisdiction.

d. A municipality may attach such conditions to the issuance, renewal, or retention of a license pursuant to this act as the municipality deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to requiring the license applicant or licensee to comply with the following conditions:

(1) to not have been convicted of any criminal offense set forth in chapters 11 (Criminal Homicide), 12 (Assault; Reckless Endangering; Threats), 13 (Kidnapping and Related Offenses: Coercion), 14 (Sexual Offenses), 15 (Robbery), 17 (Arson, Criminal Mischief, and Other Property Destruction), 18 (Burglary and Other Criminal Intrusion), 20 (Theft and Related Offenses), 24 (Offenses Against the Family, Children and Incompetents), 25 (Domestic Violence), 35 (Controlled Dangerous Substances), 36 (Drug Paraphernalia), 37 (Gambling Offenses), 39 (Firearms, Other Dangerous Weapons and Instruments of Crime), or 41 (Racketeering) of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes, or of an attempt or conspiracy to commit any such criminal offense listed in this paragraph;

(2) to not have been convicted of, or otherwise adjudicated of violating, any animal cruelty offense set forth in chapter 22 of Title 4 of the Revised Statutes;

(3) to not be a member of a household that includes a person who has been convicted of any criminal offense, or who has been convicted of or otherwise adjudicated of violating any animal cruelty offense, listed in paragraphs (1) or (2) of this subsection;

(4) to display, in a conspicuous manner, a sign on the premises where the dog is kept and maintained warning that a pit bull is on the premises, which sign shall be visible and legible from 50 feet of the enclosure required pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection;

(5) if the dog is to be kept outside for any period of time, to immediately erect and maintain an enclosure for the dog on the property where it will be kept and maintained, which has sound sides, top and bottom to prevent the dog from escaping by climbing, jumping or digging and within a fence of at least six feet in height separated by at least three feet from the confined area. The licensee shall securely lock the enclosure to prevent the entry of the general public and to preclude any release or escape of the dog by an unknowing child or other person. The dog shall be confined in the enclosure when on the property where it will be kept and maintained or, if taken out of the enclosure, securely muzzled and restrained with a tether approved by the animal control officer, or other official designated by the municipality, and having a minimum tensile strength sufficiently in excess of that required to restrict the dog's movements to a radius of no more than three feet from the licensee and under the direct supervision of the licensee;

(6) to obtain and maintain liability insurance, or a bond if insurance is not available, in an amount determined by the municipality to cover any damage or injury caused by the dog. The liability insurance, which may be separate from any other homeowner policy, shall contain a provision requiring the municipality in which the licensee resides to be named as an additional insured for the sole purpose of being notified by the insurance company of any cancellation, termination or expiration of the liability insurance policy;

(7) to not walk the dog further than the distance from the licensee's residence as may be established by the municipality; and

(8) to allow the animal control officer, code enforcement official, or other official designated by the municipality to inspect the enclosure and the licensee's property at least monthly to determine compliance with this section.

e. A municipality adopting an ordinance pursuant to this section may provide that it apply only to dogs born after such date as the municipality may establish in the ordinance and to dogs born before that date if they have not been properly licensed pursuant to P.L.1941, c.151 (C.4:19-15.1 et seq.).

4. a. A municipality may, by ordinance, fix the sum to be paid annually for a license issued pursuant to subsection a. of section 3 of this act and for each renewal thereof, which sum shall be not less than $150 nor more than $700. In the absence of any local ordinance, the fee for the license shall be $150.

b. The municipality may provide for a reduction in the annual fee or attach fewer conditions to the issuance of a license under this act, or both, if the applicant provides proof to the satisfaction of the municipality that the person has completed an approved behavior training class for the dog.

5. A licensee under this act shall:

a. notify the licensing authority, local police department or force, and the animal control officer if the dog is at large, or has attacked a human being or severely injured or killed a cat, dog, or livestock other than poultry;

b. notify the licensing authority, local police department or force, and the animal control officer within 24 hours of the death, sale or donation of the dog;

c. prior to selling or donating the dog, inform the prospective owner that the dog is a pit bull subject to this act;

d. upon the sale or donation of the dog to a person residing in a different municipality, notify the department and the licensing authority, police department or force, and animal control officer of that municipality of the transfer of ownership and the name, address and telephone number of the new owner; and

e. in addition to any license fee required pursuant to P.L.1941, c.151 (C.4:19-15.1 et seq.), section 1 of P.L.1983, c.172 (C.4:19-15.3b), section 1 of P.L.1983, c.181 (C.4:19-15.3c), and P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-17 et seq.), pay the license fee required by section 4 of this act.

6. a. Any person who violates this act or any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto shall be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 per day of the violation and license suspension or revocation. Each day's continuance of the violation shall constitute a separate and distinct violation.

b. A municipality may seize and impound any pit bull if the person owning, keeping or harboring the dog violates any provision of this act or any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Any dog so seized and impounded shall be placed in a no-kill shelter until either the animal is properly adopted or dies of natural causes. The violator shall be liable to the municipality in which the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of seizing and impounding the dog. The municipality may establish by ordinance a schedule of these costs and expenses.

c. The municipal court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this section.

7. All fines and fees collected or received by the municipality pursuant to this act shall be deposited in a special account and used by the municipality to administer and enforce the provisions of this act and P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-17 et seq.).

8. Any action undertaken pursuant to the provisions of this act shall be deemed to be an exercise of a government function and shall be subject to the provisions of the "New Jersey Tort Claims Act," N.J.S.59:1-1 et seq.

9. The provisions of this act shall not apply to any governmental entity, or any person authorized by a governmental entity, that owns, keeps or harbors a pit bull used for law enforcement activities.

10. The provisions and requirements of this act shall be in addition to those of P.L.1941, c.151 (C.4:19-15.1 et seq.), section 1 of P.L.1983, c.172 (C.4:19-15.3b), section 1 of P.L.1983, c.181 (C.4:19-15.3c), P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-17 et seq.), or any other law.

11. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after enactment.

STATEMENT

This bill provides the authority for a municipality to regulate the ownership of pit bulls and pit bull type dogs.

Specifically, the bill provides that a municipality may, by ordinance, require any person residing within the municipality who owns, keeps or harbors a pit bull (or pit bull type) dog in the municipality to obtain an annual license to own, keep or harbor such a dog. No such license would be issued to any person under the age of 18 years. This licensing of the dog owner would be in addition to any licensing of the dog itself already required under existing law.

Under the bill, a municipality may require a license applicant to provide:

(1) information about the breed, sex, age, color and markings of the dog and whether it is of a long- or short-haired variety;

(2) information about any licenses issued for the dog;

(3) the name, street and post-office addresses, and telephone number of the license applicant;

(4) the license applicant's record, if any, of criminal convictions or of convictions or other adjudications for animal cruelty; and

(5) any other information the municipality deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

The bill also authorizes a municipality to require any person residing within the municipality who owns, keeps or harbors any kind of dog to provide proof that the dog is not a pit bull. If breed records are not available or the dog is a mongrel, hybrid, or mixed breed, the municipality may by visual inspection and use of detailed professional standards and illustrations decide if the dog is a pit bull type dog. In lieu of visual inspection, the municipality may require submission of a photo or photos of the dog for that purpose. The bill establishes an appeal procedure in the event a dog owner disputes the municipality's determination as to whether a dog is a pit bull type dog.

In addition, the bill authorizes a municipality to attach such conditions to the issuance, renewal, or retention of a pit bull owner's license as the municipality deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to requiring the license applicant or licensee to comply with the following conditions:

(1) to not have been convicted of any of various criminal offenses listed in the bill;

(2) to not have been convicted of, or otherwise adjudicated of violating, any animal cruelty offense;

(3) to not be a member of a household that includes a person who has been convicted of any criminal offense, or who has been convicted of or otherwise adjudicated of violating any animal cruelty offense, listed in the bill;

(4) to display, in a conspicuous manner, a warning sign on the premises where the dog is kept;

(5) if the dog is to be kept outside for any period of time, to immediately erect, maintain, and use an enclosure for the dog according to certain specifications set forth in the bill; and, if the dog is to be taken out of the enclosure, to securely muzzle and restrain the animal according to certain specifications set forth in the bill;

(6) to obtain and maintain liability insurance as specified in the bill;

(7) to not walk the dog further than the distance from the licensee's residence as may be established by the municipality; and

(8) to allow the animal control officer, code enforcement official, or other official designated by the municipality to inspect the enclosure and the licensee's property at least monthly to determine compliance with these requirements.

The fee for a pit bull owner's license, as established by the municipality, would be between $150 and $700 annually. Under the bill, a municipality could provide for a fee reduction or attach fewer conditions to the issuance of a license, or both, if the applicant provides proof to the satisfaction of the municipality that the person has completed an approved behavior training class for the dog.

A licensed pit bull owner would also be required under the bill to:

(1) notify certain authorities if the dog is at large, or has attacked a human being or severely injured or killed a cat, dog, or livestock other than poultry;

(2) notify certain authorities within 24 hours of the death, sale or donation of the dog;

(3) prior to selling or donating the dog, inform the prospective owner that the dog is a pit bull subject to this bill; and

(4) upon the sale or donation of the dog to a person residing in a different municipality, notify certain authorities in that municipality of the transfer of ownership and the name, address and telephone number of the new owner.

The bill provides that any person violating the bill or any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 per day of the violation as well as license suspension or revocation.

The bill also provides that a municipality may seize and impound any pit bull if the person owning, keeping or harboring the dog violates any provision of this bill or any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Any dog so seized and impounded must be placed in a no-kill shelter until either the animal is properly adopted or dies of natural causes. The violator would be liable to the municipality in which the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of seizing and impounding the dog.

All fines and fees collected or received by a municipality pursuant to this bill would be required to be deposited in a special account to be used by the municipality to administer and enforce the provisions of this bill and P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-17 et seq.) (the vicious and potentially dangerous dog law).


And here's an update from 12/4, along with a list of people to contact...

12/04/02 STATE CONSIDERING BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

On October 10, 2002, Assemblyman John J. Bruzichelli and Assemblyman Gary L. Guear, Sr. introduced A2906, the "Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Licensing Act" which authorizes municipalities to require a license for a person to own, keep or harbor a pit bull.

(Burzichelli has backed out his support of this bill, as have a few others due to it's obvious anti-pit bull wording.)

Specifically, the bill provides that a municipality may, by ordinance, require any person residing within the municipality who owns, keeps or harbors a pit bull (or pit bull type) dog in the municipality to obtain an annual license to own, keep or harbor such a dog. No such license would be issued to any person under the age of 18 years. This licensing of the dog owner would be in addition to any licensing of the dog itself already required under existing law.

Under the bill, a municipality may require a license applicant to provide:

(1) information about the breed, sex, age, color and markings of the dog and whether it is of a long- or short-haired variety;

(2) information about any licenses issued for the dog;

(3) the name, street and post-office addresses, and telephone number of the license applicant;

(4) the license applicant's record, if any, of criminal convictions or of convictions or other adjudications for animal cruelty; and

(5) any other information the municipality deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

The bill also authorizes a municipality to require any person residing within the municipality who owns, keeps or harbors any kind of dog to provide proof that the dog is not a pit bull. If breed records are not available or the dog is a mongrel, hybrid, or mixed breed, the municipality may by visual inspection and use of detailed professional standards and illustrations decide if the dog is a pit bull type dog. In lieu of visual inspection, the municipality may require submission of a photo or photos of the dog for that purpose. The bill stablishes an appeal procedure in the event a dog owner disputes the municipality's determination as to whether a dog is a pit bull type dog.

In addition, the bill authorizes a municipality to attach such conditions to the issuance, renewal, or retention of a pit bull owner's license as the municipality deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to requiring the license applicant or licensee to comply with the following conditions:

(1) to not have been convicted of any of various criminal offenses listed in the bill;

(2) to not have been convicted of, or otherwise adjudicated of violating, any animal cruelty offense;

(3) to not be a member of a household that includes a person who has been convicted of any criminal offense, or who has been convicted of or otherwise adjudicated of violating any animal cruelty offense, listed in the bill;

(4) to display, in a conspicuous manner, a warning sign on the premises where the dog is kept;

(5) if the dog is to be kept outside for any period of time, to immediately erect, maintain, and use an enclosure for the dog according to certain specifications set forth in the bill; and, if
the dog is to be taken out of the enclosure, to securely muzzle and restrain the animal according to certain specifications set forth in the bill;

(6) to obtain and maintain liability insurance as specified in the bill;

(7) to not walk the dog further than the distance from the licensee's residence as may be established by the municipality; and

(8) to allow the animal control officer, code enforcement official, or other official designated by the municipality to inspect the enclosure and the licensee's property at least monthly to determine compliance with these requirements.

The fee for a pit bull owner's license, as established by the municipality, would be between $150 and $700 annually. Under the bill, a municipality could provide for a fee reduction or attach fewer conditions to the issuance of a license, or both, if the applicant provides proof to the satisfaction of the municipality that the person has completed an approved behavior training class for the dog.

A licensed pit bull owner would also be required under the bill to:

(1) notify certain authorities if the dog is at large, or has attacked a human being or severely injured or killed a cat, dog, or livestock other than poultry;

(2) notify certain authorities within 24 hours of the death, sale or donation of the dog;

(3) prior to selling or donating the dog, inform the prospective owner that the dog is a pit bull subject to this bill; and

(4) upon the sale or donation of the dog to a person residing in a different municipality, notify certain authorities in that municipality of the transfer of ownership and the name, address and telephone number of the new owner.

The bill provides that any person violating the bill or any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 per day of the violation as well as license suspension or revocation.

The bill also provides that a municipality may seize and impound any pit bull if the person owning, keeping or harboring the dog violates any provision of this bill or any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Any dog so seized and impounded must be placed in a no-kill shelter until either the animal is properly adopted or 21 days when the animal will be humanely euthanized. The violator would be liable to the municipality in which the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of seizing and impounding the dog.

All fines and fees collected or received by a municipality pursuant to this bill would be required to be deposited in a special account to be used by the municipality to administer and enforce the provisions of this bill and P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-17 et seq.) (the vicious and potentially dangerous dog law).

Listed below are the assembly members to contact:

Assemblymen:
Robert Smith, Chair
AsmRSmith@njleg.org
856-232-6700

Douglas R Fisher, Vice Chair
AsmFisher@njleg.org
856-251-9801

Herb Conaway
AsmConaway@njleg.org
856-461-3997

Michael J. Doherty
AsmDoherty@njleg.org
908-835-0552

George Geist
AsmGeist@njleg.org
856-227-1881

[Horsefeathers!]

Absolutely ludicrous. This is beyond ridiculous. I could barely read past "the municipality may by visual inspection and use of detailed professional standards and illustrations decide if the dog is a pit bull type dog." Ask 10 different people what they think a Pit Bull looks like and you'll get 10 different answers. Who gets to decide what "mongrel" may actually be a Pit Bull or mix? People may be penalized because some "professional"(?) decides by "visual inspection" that a dog is a Pit Bull type? I've seen poorly bred Labs that look like a Pit Bull (depending on one's perception of Pit Bull, of course).

I am beyond stunned. This is one of the most absurd things I've seen.

[Horsefeathers!]

Yeah, how scary is that, Mei Mei? It says right in the proposal that you would have to prove that your dog is not a Pit Bull. So if your dog was unregistered, or of unknown descent, one of these "professionals" could assess him and decide based on (?) that he is a Pit Bull. And what about this >>> "
1) information about the breed, sex, age, color and markings of the dog and whether it is of a long- or short-haired variety; " <<< :o

LONG HAIRED Pit Bulls?! Just what exactly are they basing this "breed standard" on? :-?

Spooky.

[bullygirl29532]

I know some won't agree w/ me but... I think this is a great idea for New jersey. I use to live there and in many parts of that state owning a pit bull is a status symbol. people fight these dogs behind project in Newark and Camden. they use pits to terrify their landlords and neighbors into silence. they mistreat and abuse these good hearted creatures by feeding them gunpowder w. raw meat...i've seen all these things happen and alot more. Not just to pits but boxers, rotties, mastiffs and shepards. i think this law sould apply to all dog owners in this state. owning a gun is not a simple thing in NJ and having a dog that could cause as much damage shouldn't be either. and this insures the proper upkeep and maintence for a breed w/ a bad rep. May be it goes to far in some respects but if carried out properly it could be a good thing.

[Horsefeathers!]

Ok, bullygirl, define "Pit Bull." I don't know if you read this legislation thoroughly, but some points are definitely very flawed. Answer me these, please...
*Definition and breed standard of Pit Bull (so as to determine who has one illegally)?
*Who will be in charge of determining this breed standard to be used in enforcement since they are talking about a combination of breeds?
*Justification for making any pet owner PROVE their dog is NOT a Pit Bull (shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the accuser as in proving it IS a Pit Bull)?
*What would be considered acceptable proof that a dog of unknown parentage is NOT a Pit Bull?
*Define Pit Bull type? A dog similar in looks? Temperament? Size?
*Who gets to decide if a dog is "typey" enough to qualify as Pit Bull-ish?
*Define "carried out properly"
*Long haired Pit Bulls?! (Sorry, I'm still stuck on that)

If you read this thoroughly, you will see that their definitions of Pit Bulls and TYPES are very vague (wait a minute... there was no definition!), but their regulations and intentions of enforcement are very clear. Basically, it will be up to "the municipality" on a case by case basis to decide if your dog is a Pit Bull. Remember, some Labs, mixes and, heck, even Mei Mei's Great Dane have been mistaken for Pit Bulls. You would have innocent people penalized for a case of mistaken identity. Reading through the mumbo jumbo of licensing requirements, it's clear that they are basically trying to outlaw anything even remotely resembling a Pit Bull by making it virtually impossible to own one.

Using your logic, how do you feel about people who own Akitas, German Shepherds, Chows, Dobermans, Rotties, and the breeds you mentioned, yourself? I can think of many people who own these particular breeds as status symbols and try to be "bad" and these breeds are a heck of a lot easier to identify (as in having a distinct breed standard) than Pit Bull types.

This is just one more stepping stone in the cause of many of the animal rights extremists to outlaw pet ownership, period. It sounds so ludicrous to many and many of the people who are actually members of these groups are unaware of this as a goal and deny it vehemently, but there are actually people out there who are campaigning for that as a higher goal. When they've gotten rid of all these "bad" dogs, they'll be coming after the herders, retrievers, service dogs (there are those in these organizations who consider service dogs "exploited" and would like to see an end to that) and finally the little frilly foo foo lap dogs (hey, they have teeth, too, and since they will the the only ones left at this point, statistically, they will be the only ones biting people). There's no way that could be done outright, but by taking away rights a little at a time (such as changing "ownership" to "guardianship"... another totally different topic, but related), they get a little closer to that goal.

What is wrong with enforcement of existing laws or tougher penalties? If they can't do their jobs now and enforce the laws already on the books, how are they going to handle this effectively and efficiently?

There is just too much wrong with this whole thing if you look at the whole picture.

[Guest Anonymous]

HorseFethers and I are already enemies. I think what gooeydog posted was very intresting. HF HF HF.

[gooeydog]

Reed, Horsefeathers makes some very good points. A lot of innocent dogs and dog owners are going to be "punished" if this legislation is allowed to pass. Check out the regulations a "pit bull" owner must comply with (the bold print is my comments):

(4) to display, in a conspicuous manner, a sign on the premises where the dog is kept and maintained warning that a pit bull is on the premises, which sign shall be visible and legible from 50 feet of the enclosure required pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection;
A pit bull owner has to have a huge sign on their property "warning that there is a pit bull" on their property. If people didn't think the dog was bad before, they certainly will after they see that.

(5) if the dog is to be kept outside for any period of time, to immediately erect and maintain an enclosure for the dog on the property where it will be kept and maintained, which has sound sides, top and bottom to prevent the dog from escaping by climbing, jumping or digging and within a fence of at least six feet in height separated by at least three feet from the confined area. The licensee shall securely lock the enclosure to prevent the entry of the general public and to preclude any release or escape of the dog by an unknowing child or other person. The dog shall be confined in the enclosure when on the property where it will be kept and maintained or, if taken out of the enclosure, securely muzzled and restrained with a tether approved by the animal control officer, or other official designated by the municipality, and having a minimum tensile strength sufficiently in excess of that required to restrict the dog's movements to a radius of no more than three feet from the licensee and under the direct supervision of the licensee;
A pit bull owned in affected areas will have to stay in a small kennel (it's difficult to roof a large kennel) when outside, unless of course their owner muzzles them, hooks up their "approved" 3 ft leash, and takes them for a short walk (after all, they can't go farther from the dog's kennel than specified in the muncipality's BSL). Being a somewhat brachycephalic breed, it's actually dangerous for them to have to be muzzled in summer, just to go out for a walk.

(6) to obtain and maintain liability insurance, or a bond if insurance is not available, in an amount determined by the municipality to cover any damage or injury caused by the dog. The liability insurance, which may be separate from any other homeowner policy, shall contain a provision requiring the municipality in which the licensee resides to be named as an additional insured for the sole purpose of being notified by the insurance company of any cancellation, termination or expiration of the liability insurance policy;
Pit bull owners will have to find an insurance company that will insure their dog, since most will stop once the breed is deemed "dangerous". They will then have to take out a large (huge actually) amount of coverage, just in case their muzzled, leashed dog manages to bite someone.

(7) to not walk the dog further than the distance from the licensee's residence as may be established by the municipality; and
There's going to be a set distance pit bull owners can walk their dogs!?

( to allow the animal control officer, code enforcement official, or other official designated by the municipality to inspect the enclosure and the licensee's property at least monthly to determine compliance with this section.
At least once a month, a stranger is going to come and "inspect" the dog's "containment system", as well as poke around to see if they can find any reason to cite the owner on voilating the BSL.

4. a. A municipality may, by ordinance, fix the sum to be paid annually for a license issued pursuant to subsection a. of section 3 of this act and for each renewal thereof, which sum shall be not less than $150 nor more than $700. In the absence of any local ordinance, the fee for the license shall be $150.
Pit bull owners are going to have to pay at least $150, and may have to pay $700 a year, just to get their dogs licensed.

Pit bulls are (in general) high energy dogs, and need an outlet for their energy, or they'll find things to entertain themselves. This ordinance will make it difficult for owners to get their dogs sufficient exercise, and will result in many dogs developing psychological problems. In addition, it will make it impossible for pit bull owners to socialize their dogs, and if it is passed, there will be a huge amount of dumped pit bulls when owners who don't want to be bothered drop them off. I'm only 17 yrs old, so this legislation also means that if I was in that area, I wouldn't be able to walk my own dog (even if she was muzzled, leashed, etc), because I would (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) be "harboring" her, and that is not permitted by this legislation.

[gooeydog]

bullygirl29532 napisał(a):

I know some won't agree w/ me but... I think this is a great idea for New jersey. I use to live there and in many parts of that state owning a pit bull is a status symbol. people fight these dogs behind project in Newark and Camden. they use pits to terrify their landlords and neighbors into silence. they mistreat and abuse these good hearted creatures by feeding them gunpowder w. raw meat...i've seen all these things happen and alot more. Not just to pits but boxers, rotties, mastiffs and shepards. i think this law sould apply to all dog owners in this state. owning a gun is not a simple thing in NJ and having a dog that could cause as much damage shouldn't be either. and this insures the proper upkeep and maintence for a breed w/ a bad rep. May be it goes to far in some respects but if carried out properly it could be a good thing.

All these problems would not exist if laws that are already in place were enforced. Dog fighting is illegal in every state in the US. If the lawmakers would enforce that law, people would not be behind the projects fighting their dogs. There are animal cruelty laws in effect already, so if they were enforced, the gunpowder feeding and abuse would not be happening, either. The people who are abusing/fighting the dogs aren't going to follow the rules anyway, only the responsible, law abiding people will suffer.

[gooeydog]

What really gets me is that they're calling it "Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Licensing Act" :x :o :mad:
Mei-Mei and HF, look at this link, and imagine how many "not pit bulls" will be caught up in this stuff :x http://members.aol.com/radogz/find.html
And if anyone else writes to them about how foolish this law is, you might make it clear that you won't be coming anywhere near NJ because you like to take your dog on vacations, and you don't want to risk them getting caught up in this irrational law. :lol:

[bullygirl29532]

[quote name='"Horsefeathers!"']Ok, bullygirl, define "Pit Bull." I don't know if you read this legislation thoroughly, but some points are definitely very flawed. Answer me these, please...
- yes i did indeed read it with out skipping over the big words.
*Definition and breed standard of Pit Bull (so as to determine who has one illegally)?
*Who will be in charge of determining this breed standard to be used in enforcement since they are talking about a combination of breeds?
- the same people the judge all breeds ie: animal control, vets, and any other person competent enought to tell a bully dog from an ankle biter.
*Justification for making any pet owner PROVE their dog is NOT a Pit Bull --(shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the accuser as in proving it IS a Pit Bull)?- Yes i agree w/ you on that
*What would be considered acceptable proof that a dog of unknown parentage is NOT a Pit Bull?
-common sense... or maybe i'm giving the general population to much credit
*Define Pit Bull type? A dog similar in looks? Temperament? Size?
*Who gets to decide if a dog is "typey" enough to qualify as Pit Bull-ish?
*Define "carried out properly"
-1st it gets officials involved and if a dog is removed it is to be placed in a no kill shelter which is a step in the right direction @ least said dog would not be pts.
-2nd it would not allow punks and would be thugs to roam the streets with dogs trained to be dangerous... not their fault, but in this world it's a fact.
-3rd it would stop all the byb of bully dogs in NJ something i would think most people would be for.
-4th maybe i didn't make it clear but i think this law should be toned down and applied to all dogs in NJ.
*Long haired Pit Bulls?! (Sorry, I'm still stuck on that)
--many mixed pits come w/ long hair.

Reading through the mumbo jumbo of licensing requirements, it's clear that they are basically trying to outlaw anything even remotely resembling a Pit Bull by making it virtually impossible to own one.
-Good !! not everyone should

Using your logic, how do you feel about people who own Akitas, German Shepherds, Chows, Dobermans, Rotties, and the breeds you mentioned, yourself?
- once again in New jersey i believeall dogs should be licenced and kept tabs on. their feral dog situation is outof control due mostly to people getting tired of the animal and dropping it off @ a state park where they get shot by a game warden.

finally the little frilly foo foo lap dogs (hey, they have teeth, too, and since they will the the only ones left at this point, statistically, they will be the only ones biting people).
-hate to tell ya this but the little ones bite more than the big ones. people let their foo foo little poodles and pomes prance and destroy in their wake just because they're little. wat is wrong with enforcement of existing laws or tougher penalties? If they can't do their jobs now and enforce the laws already on the books, how are they going to handle this effectively and efficiently?
- To my knowledge they are doing their jobs to the best of their ability but there is such a thing as odds to great.

[gooeydog]

I wonder what sort of 'experts' are going to be judging whether a dog is a pitbull or not?

Probably the same kind as the AC officer who told me Goo was a beautiful and well-behaved chocolate lab :lol: . My aunt's BF is from Newark NJ (he's a police officer there), and he definitely doesn't know a pit bull when he sees one. Any dog that is short or muscular, and has a fairly large head is a pit bull to him.

[gooeydog]

BTW, just in case anyone was confused on what I said about the AC officer who said Goo's a choc. lab, Goo is a 50-something lb brindle pit bull with hacked off ears. I still don't understand how an AC officer could mistake her for a chocolate lab.

[bullygirl29532]

Just to explain myself i am against breed discrimination and i am against this bill. but i'm tired of pit bulls getting a bad rep for doing what they love and that is pleasing their owner. Yes this bill is extreme and it won't pass or be enforced but at least they are trying to control who can own a pit bull. Alot of the bill is flawed due to health reasons or public interpertion of what a pit is. i don't want to seem like a nazi pit hater.......i want to protect this breed more than anyother i have ever encountered for many reasons. To own one is to love them all. but if idiots want to fear a 40 lbs and up lap dog than let them get licked to death by a pack to find out that this "beast of a man killer" is really the most tender hearted of dogs. i think i've said my peace.

[Rowie-the-Pooh]

[quote name='reedpuppy']HorseFethers and I are already enemies. I think what gooeydog posted was very intresting. HF HF HF.

:o :o :o WHAT ARE YOU A 10 YEAR OLD?????????? :o :o :o I don't get it...what happened???????????????????????????????????????


Gooey: AC officers...gotta love'm! :roll: (How did Goo get hacked off ears?)

[gooeydog]

Rowie-the-Pooh napisał(a):

Gooey: AC officers...gotta love'm! :roll: (How did Goo get hacked off ears?)

They were cropped before we got her, but whoever did them didn't do a very good job. They're crooked, and the edges are ragged. It's not usually very noticable, but even so, they don't look at all like a lab's ears.

[Guest Anonymous]

Goo looks NOTHING like a lab.....I mean...NOTHING!!! :x

[Guest roo]

If this ridiculous thing gets passed.
(as the dangerous dog act did over here)

gooey believe me you will be more than happy to say Goo is a lab.
Great dane crosses, registered staffies have been confiscated and destroyed with the above act. Look at Germany whats happened over there.
Please dont think it wont happen over in your country.
there is an enormous anti dog brigade out there and they are trying to pick breeds off one by one :cry: and slowly it is working.

(note to reed puppy, please do not try to antagonise hf or other members
and remember we are adults :oops: )

Roo