Updating a bad dog law

Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen, a Union County Democrat, is hoping to bring a much-needed does of rational thinking to the fight over whether a Princeton German shephard should be put to death for mauling a landscaper in June.

The dog, Congo, was ruled vicious and ordered put to death by Princeton Township Municipal Judge Russell Annich Jr. A state Superior Court judge issued a stay and allowed the dog to return home, pending the family’s appeal.

Guy James, Congo’s owner, says the landscaper entered his yard against his orders. Mr. James’ dogs — he owns six — were in the yard, scaring the landscaper, who then reacted by striking the dogs and then knocking Mr. James’ wife to the ground. That’s when Congo attacked.

The case is a troubling one, as I’ve mentioned in earlier an earlier post, because dogs are territorial and extremely loyal to their owners. I would expect my dog, Honey (or almost any dog), to react in a similar manner under similar circumstances — a point Mr. Cohen makes:

“The nature of a dog is to protect those around them,” said Mr. Cohen. “It’s outrageous that Congo may have been provoked into attacking and this fact is being ignored by authorities.”

Mr. Cohen’s bill, A4597, would change state law to treat a dog provoked to attack differently than an unprovoked dog that caused bodily injury to a person or domestic animal during an attack. According to Cohen’s office, the bill would define striking, grabbing, poking and prodding as threatening actions that could incite a dog to defend itself, its offspring or its owner or the owner’s family. And the bill would require a dog to be found vicious beyond a reasonable doubt — the same standard used for humans charged with a crime — and give municipal courts an alternative to humanely destroying a vicious dog by giving the owner the option to comply with precautions for keeping a potentially dangerous dog.

Other provisions include:

• allowing owners to keep their dog during the appeals process as long as they comply with statutory precautions, including posting signs on their property and minimizing a dog’s potential threat to people and other animals;
• allowing an owner and owner’s family to visit their dog during times when their dog might be impounded;
• establishing a six-month statute of limitations for animal control officer to seize and impound alleged vicious or potentially dangerous dogs;
• and eliminating the need for an owner to obtain liability insurance for potentially dangerous dogs.

There is talk that a plea arrangement might be worked out that could save the dog. I certainly hope so. After all, the dog was only doing what dogs do and the landscaper should have known better than to disregard the homeowner’s order to wait in the car.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie. View all posts by hankkalet