New Jersey Follows NYC with idiotic laws. Dog owners beware

[puma guy]

Just saw on Fox News that New Jersey law could cost pet owners $250 for driving with dogs unrestrained (no seat belt ) I assume cats are coverd too but they do have retractable claws . Couldn't find a link but I'll keep looking.

Just found this.
http://www.game-dog.com/showthread.php?t=58770&page=1

[arod757]

I don't approve of the fines, but I actually do restrain my dog in my truck. I use a harness with a loop in the back that you can put the seat belt through. He can sit and lay down at will, but can't roam around the vehicle. I don't want him to get hurt if I have to slam on the brakes, and the thought of him flying through the windshield if I can't avoid a head-on collision it is too much to bear.

[barstoolguru]

I have to agree with this in a way... I just saw a daytime court show where the guy lost his dog out the back of his truck and was run over by his own truck. Some of these people think it cool to throw a dog in the back of a P/U and ride around with the dog subject to injury because of an idiotic moron thinks it cool

[arod757]

I think the law is actually for restraining dogs inside vehicles, which I'm all for, simply for the safety of you and your pet, but I think is ridiculous as far as fines are concerned. I don't know how people leave dogs in the bed of their pickup unrestrained. I'd be wigging out the whole time worrying about whether my pup is going to jump out.

[barstoolguru]

N.J is so money hungry they look to any way to bleed the public for something

[chasfm11]

N.J is so money hungry they look to any way to bleed the public for something

We lived in the State for three years and couldn't wait to get out. Actually, the news is saying that the fine could be up to $1,000 for an unrestrained dog. And that it was done "in conjunction with animal cruelty groups." Poppycock. It is another revenue enhancement opportunity. Don't get me wrong. I"m not a fan of dogs riding around in the back of pickups or of people holding their dogs in their laps while driving. But why not single those situations out? Nope. Have to have a blanket law that covers everything and with a fine that is many times the similar fine for people not using seat belts. That makes no sense to me but neither do half of the other laws that NJ has. Don't get me started about their gun laws.

[puma guy]

I actually understand the emotional aspect of this issue. No one wants to see an animal harmed while riding in a car including myself. I can offer some anecdotal statistics that shed some light on the chances of that happening. My father had a private veterinary practice for 71 years except for the four years of WWII while he was India with the US Army Veterinary Corp tending medical matters for mules and canine guard dogs among other things. I worked for him in my adolescent, teenage and even some post teenage years even though I had other full time jobs. I began helping him again when I retired in 2006 until his death in March 2011. He had by far the largest practice in our city for most of those years. He was also the oldest practicing vet in Texas and was officilly recognized and honored as such the year before his death. I say this because in all those years the number of dogs he treated as result of an injury received while riding in a vehicle was exactly 1. It was a pretty bad car wreck and the dog had a broken leg. Take it for whatever it's worth. Here's another stat that's very interesting. I worked with him in 1980 for four months while on strike and the most common canine injury encountered and treated in those four months was from attacks by pit bulls. The breed was just beginning to gain popularity, but even though they were a relatively small porportion of the breeds they wreaked pure havoc. We stitched up a couple of dogs a day and I will never forget how alarmed my dad was. Very often the owners displayed injuries from the attacks, but were more concerned with the care of the pets. Explains why some legislator would write a dog seat belt law, I guess. The other thing that happened that year was the beginning onslaught of Parvo-virus. It seemed all we treated was dog attacks and Parvo infected dogs.

[stealthfightrf17]

I agree with having to restarin your dogs in the car. When my son was about 6 months old, my wife was reended by a lady trying to control her dog in her lap. Thankfully no one was hurt, but that could have been very diffrent.

[Diesel42]

Puma Guy wrote:
I actually understand the emotional aspect of this issue. No one wants to see an animal harmed while riding in a car including myself. <SNIP>I say this because in all those years the number of dogs he treated as result of an injury received while riding in a vehicle was exactly 1. It was a pretty bad car wreck and the dog had a broken leg. Take it for whatever it's worth. <SNIP>

I agree. I have a big SUV and the dogs are free in the back. They enjoy our trips to the vet by pressing their noses to windows. I am responsible for safe, courteous driving. Restraining my dogs to give assurance to other drivers has never crossed my mind.

[VMI77]

I agree with having to restarin your dogs in the car. When my son was about 6 months old, my wife was reended by a lady trying to control her dog in her lap. Thankfully no one was hurt, but that could have been very diffrent.

All you people who agree with this law strike me as people who are just fine with laws that don't affect them or suit their particular political disposition. YOU think a dog should be restrained or not allowed in the back of a pickup, so you're fine with FORCING everyone else to do what you think is good. Sort of like Bloomberg --HE thinks people drink too much soda pop so he wants to make a law against serving sizes over 16 ounces. A lot of people think that's a good idea too, because they don't drink sodas, or because while THEY might drink a soda, THEY have the good judgement to limit their intake to what THEY deem to be a reasonable amount.

I don't think dogs should be chained, caged all day, or left outside all the time. It troubles me to see dogs that are just left by themselves in someone's yard....maybe there should be a law against that too? And while I cringe every time I see a dog in the back of a pickup truck I've never once thought, ya know, the government ought to make a law and force people not to let their dogs ride in the back of a pickup truck. I saw an old man in an old pickup truck in Refugio and he had at least six good sized dogs in the back of his pickup.......my thought was how this man must love dogs, not that the State should put a stop to him. He couldn't have traveled with those dogs in the cab, or in a car. He didn't look like he had a lot of money, but I'm willing to bet there were six dogs in his care that wouldn't otherwise have had a home. So, you want to prevent this man from traveling with his dogs or force him to buy a vehicle he can't afford?

Some dogs clearly LOVE to ride in the back of a pickup. Who am I to tell their owners they can't let their dogs ride that way.....or with their nose outside a rolled down window? And while I certainly don't want my dog flying around my vehicle and injured in a accident, someone is going to have to show me just HOW I am going to restrain my 170 lb Great Dane without injuring him or putting him in distress. My dog riding unrestrained in my vehicle is no threat to the public. If he was a lap dog he'd be no more of a threat to the public than someone talking on their cell phone, eating the hamburger they just picked up at the drive through, or changing CD's....should we prohibit every act inside a vehicle that could possibly divert the driver's attention....I've seen drivers turn around to talk to passengers in the back seat....so maybe we should prohibit conversations too.

[steveincowtown]

All you people who agree with this law strike me as people who are just fine with laws that don't affect them or suit their particular political disposition. YOU think a dog should be restrained or not allowed in the back of a pickup, so you're fine with FORCING everyone else to do what you think is good.

Also (and I am sure this goes without saying) traffic laws and those relating to vehicles are 90% about revenue, and only about 10% about real safety.

[arod757]

All you people who agree with this law...

I'm not sure anybody said they agreed with the actual law, just that it is a good idea to try to keep your dog restrained in a vehicle. I do, and that's my prerogative. But it's not my business if anyone else decides not to and I certainly don't believe anybody should be fined for it.

[VMI77]

All you people who agree with this law...

I'm not sure anybody said they agreed with the actual law, just that it is a good idea to try to keep your dog restrained in a vehicle. I do, and that's my prerogative. But it's not my business if anyone else decides not to and I certainly don't believe anybody should be fined for it.

In your case, that may be true. You said:

I think the law is actually for restraining dogs inside vehicles, which I'm all for, simply for the safety of you and your pet, but I think is ridiculous as far as fines are concerned.

That can be read two ways: 1) that you're all for the law requiring dogs to be restrained in vehicles; or 2) that you're for restraining dogs in vehicles. Because you say later in the sentence that you think the law is ridiculous "as far as fines are concerned," it seems you're saying you're OK with the law, but you think the fines are too high.

However, when someone says, "I agree with having to restrain your dogs in the car," they're talking about compulsion, and hence, supporting the law requiring it. True, it could be bad wording, and maybe he meant people "should" restrain their dogs....which I submit is simply not possible in many cases....but I can only respond to what is written.

[arod757]

....but I can only respond to what is written.

Understood. Had to clarify. Comparing someone to Bloomberg... well, those are fighting words!

[barstoolguru]

We don't need more government intervention but you have to look at it this way too that there are a lot of people that drive with dogs in their laps or hanging on them. That makes a road hazard to the rest of us. The last thing I want to worry about is some blue hair having her little labra doddle clawing her already weak shaky arms and hands while she is plowing I-35 so little pookey can get his anal glands expressed.

For the people that drive around with a dog in the back of the truck. The man says I only seen one brought in to the vets office… well yea the rest were road pizza. They usually don’t make it and when they do fall out it makes a heck of a road bump and the people behind him are the ones that have to swerve to avoid the animal and that puts them in danger
So IF not for the safety of the animal maybe for the other people that share the road