Dog Legislation

[outdoor_lover]

Outdoor Lover wrote:

Crating your dogs in the car for protection is not always a fail safe....

big_load wrote:

Oddly enough, this NJ law went into effect last week. It seems a little out of whack to me and I'm dubious about how effective it will be.

As part of New Jersey’s Click It or or Ticket campaign, drivers are getting a reminder about the potentially hefty fines they’ll face if they’re caught driving with an unrestrained pet. Under New Jersey Statute 4:22-18, having an unrestrained pet in a vehicle is considered animal cruelty, and drivers who don’t have them restrained will be subject to fines that range from $250 to $1,000 and as much as six months in jail. “That’s for each offense,” said Col. Frank Rizzo, police superintendent for the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. “So, if you have more than one animal loose in your car, just do the math…” ... Incidentally, a ticket for a person not wearing a seat belt is only $46. In regards to distracted driving, the fine for texting while driving is only $100, although lawmakers are trying to double it.

[outdoor_lover]

Outdoor Lover wrote:
Personally, I don't see how that law in New Jersey is going to hold up. I think eventually it will be contested enough and overturned....

big_load wrote:
NJ can't often rival AZ for unconventional legislation, but this seems a glaring exception. My team stumbled across the news when we were on business travel in Utah. We all thought it was a hoax, and spent a chunk of time trying to confirm it. It's for real, but they really did slip it in under the radar.

@big_load
I would be very interested in seeing the actual Legislation itself. If you can get a link for that, I'd love to see it. It sounds like a cruelty/neglect issue, but it's not either unless the dog is injured. It will be interesting to see. Depending on how some of the other New Jersey Laws regarding Dogs is written, this may end up so full of loopholes that it will never prevail...

[big_load]

Here is that particular part of the code, which seems pretty innocuous.

4:22-18. A person who shall carry, or cause to be carried, a living animal or creature in or upon a vehicle or otherwise, in a cruel or inhumane manner, shall be guilty of a disorderly persons offense and punished as provided in subsection a. of R.S.4:22-17. Amended 1995, c.355, s.3; 1996, c.64, s.2; 2001, c.229, s.2.

What is less so is all the surrounding stuff, which is much older. Other parts of the code leave interpretation and enforcement in the hands of the SPCA, who have announced that they will be ticketing cars with loose dogs in targeted enforcement areas. At least one legislator has said that he didn't agree that the bill allowed such a loose interpretation when he voted for it, but the other (preexisting) parts of the animal cruelty law in 4:22 clearly vest that authority in the SPCA.

However, I looked at the NJ SPCA web site today and they seem to have taken down their whole "vehicle safety" section, which I think was where they had announced their intentions. Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger has had some interesting coverage. He's a political columnist with a certain point of view that must be factored in, but he finds some interesting stuff.

[outdoor_lover]

Without reading more of the Dog Law in your state, it's hard to see what they are basing their "cruel or inhumane manner" definition off of, but judging from what I see here, this Bill doesn't have a chance of succeeding unless they are trying to throw in an "endangerment" type clause in, like they would for children. But all of that depends on how they actually define a "dog" in lawful sense. If it's considered "personal property" instead of an "entity", this law can't be enforced.....