New Jersey Follows NYC with idiotic laws. Dog owners beware

[barstoolguru]

thats a lot of road pizzathats 99,999 more then the 1 thats someone claimsl

Before you start quoting me please get the facts correct. I never said anything about dogs falling out of trucks in my anecdote. The dog I referenced was injured in a car wreck as stated in the story. I still don't see the data you are quoting for 100,000 dogs dying as a result of falling out of a vehicle, truck or otherwise. I did read the blog on the Parade story which quoted Humane Society information about 100,000. I don't know if those are the same "facts" you refer to from Edmunds.

While they don't let them fall out of trucks ask the Humane Society how many animals they euthanize a year nationally. Years and years ago there was a real Humane Society in Houston. I know because I spent many hours helping my dad perform pro bono services for them. The gentleman that ran it (a retired attorney) would never have an animal put down unless it couldn't be saved and that was precious few. As Forrest Gump says. That's all I have to say 'bout that!

So your saying it’s OK for dogs to get killed because the will be put down? The fact is god never intended for every animal to live. Out of a litter of 8; 6 of them would be part of the food chain in the wild. Sorry but a dog falling out of a truck is an accident. All I am saying is it’s a good thing to strap a dog in wither it be in the vehicle or out. People don't like to be regulated but when that animal is subjected to someone’s poor judgment maybe someone needs to step in

[puma guy]

thats a lot of road pizzathats 99,999 more then the 1 thats someone claimsl

Before you start quoting me please get the facts correct. I never said anything about dogs falling out of trucks in my anecdote. The dog I referenced was injured in a car wreck as stated in the story. I still don't see the data you are quoting for 100,000 dogs dying as a result of falling out of a vehicle, truck or otherwise. I did read the blog on the Parade story which quoted Humane Society information about 100,000. I don't know if those are the same "facts" you refer to from Edmunds.

While they don't let them fall out of trucks ask the Humane Society how many animals they euthanize a year nationally. Years and years ago there was a real Humane Society in Houston. I know because I spent many hours helping my dad perform pro bono services for them. The gentleman that ran it (a retired attorney) would never have an animal put down unless it couldn't be saved and that was precious few. As Forrest Gump says. That's all I have to say 'bout that!

So your saying it’s OK for dogs to get killed because the will be put down? The fact is god never intended for every animal to live. Out of a litter of 8; 6 of them would be part of the food chain in the wild. Sorry but a dog falling out of a truck is an accident. All I am saying is it’s a good thing to strap a dog in wither it be in the vehicle or out. People don't like to be regulated but when that animal is subjected to someone’s poor judgment maybe someone needs to step in

I guess I'll contradict ol' Forrest's saying. I in no way inferred nor stated it was OK to let dogs get killed because they will be put down. A dog falling out of a truck is not an accident. It is a predictable outcome, though the odds for it happening are far beyond my ability to calculate.

[chasfm11]

thats a lot of road pizzathats 99,999 more then the 1 thats someone claimsl

Before you start quoting me please get the facts correct. I never said anything about dogs falling out of trucks in my anecdote. The dog I referenced was injured in a car wreck as stated in the story. I still don't see the data you are quoting for 100,000 dogs dying as a result of falling out of a vehicle, truck or otherwise. I did read the blog on the Parade story which quoted Humane Society information about 100,000. I don't know if those are the same "facts" you refer to from Edmunds.

While they don't let them fall out of trucks ask the Humane Society how many animals they euthanize a year nationally. Years and years ago there was a real Humane Society in Houston. I know because I spent many hours helping my dad perform pro bono services for them. The gentleman that ran it (a retired attorney) would never have an animal put down unless it couldn't be saved and that was precious few. As Forrest Gump says. That's all I have to say 'bout that!

So your saying it’s OK for dogs to get killed because the will be put down? The fact is god never intended for every animal to live. Out of a litter of 8; 6 of them would be part of the food chain in the wild. Sorry but a dog falling out of a truck is an accident. All I am saying is it’s a good thing to strap a dog in wither it be in the vehicle or out. People don't like to be regulated but when that animal is subjected to someone’s poor judgment maybe someone needs to step in

I think that this subject is typical in the on-going war on big government.

I don't think that one of us who opposes the NJ law wants to see dogs harmed, especially at the hands of an irresponsible owner. For me, the answer comes down to "can the government prevent it?" Sadly, the answer is no. The fine could be $10,000 and it will have little effect on the outcome. The big brother of the pet seat belt law, enacted in every State, still finds many people, including those who are killed in traffic accidents, not wearing their own seat belts. The simple fact is that the law is not going to fix the problem..... period.

"But it will have a deterrent effect" is the counter-argument. "If you just save one dog's life, having the law is worth it." But let's look at the facts. In nearly every case of government enforcement, the wrong "perps" are targeted. Let's take my favorite subject "weapons in schools" as example. We all here know that schools are gun free zones. Except in the very places where the law was written to address in the first place. In the mean time, a cub scout has been thrown out of school for bringing his camping set to eat with, an honors student was suspended because his father forgot and left a hunting. We won't even look at the deterrent effects on banning alcohol for minors or drugs in general.

With the fine in place, we can all feel good about protecting the animals. The LEOs will write a few hundred or maybe even a few thousand citations and 6 months from now, after all the furor dies down, things will be pretty much as they are today. LE does not have enough manpower to enforce the laws on the books today and this one will slip, along with the 9,999 others into obscurity in the daily actions.

I ride my bike 3 times a week for cardio exercise on designated bike paths in our Town. There is a strict 6' leash law with the provision that the animal "must be under control at all times" yet I've been attacked by dogs at least twice each day for the past several weeks. I've learned that even gently reminding their owners about the leash law is most likely to spur a confrontation. Going to animal control to complain goes no where because they have to personally witness the attack in order to pursue it. So as long as I manage to keep from actually getting bitten, no one is going to do anything. My personal opinion is that the small percent of dog owners that are scoff laws are rabidly so and that they feel deeply that they are above whatever laws are written for them.

Should something be done about unrestrained animals? ABSOLUTELY! Let's see a campaign targeting every pet store that talks about the potential harm and helps to educate owners. Let's see public service announcements that encourage owners to be responsible with their pets. Lets NOT put another law on the books that does little or nothing to address the problem.

When will we as a society get past the folly that the existing 10,000 laws that we have are doing anything good? Wasn't it Einstein that said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

[barstoolguru]

[/quote]


Should something be done about unrestrained animals? ABSOLUTELY! Let's see a campaign targeting every pet store that talks about the potential harm and helps to educate owners. Let's see public service announcements that encourage owners to be responsible with their pets. Lets NOT put another law on the books that does little or nothing the address on the problem.
[quote]

So let’s say we implement this great plan to educate the public (or should we say over educate them). Who is going to pay for all this education… the tax payer…again...no because these programs are generally paid for through fines levied from people that choose to ignore the law.
As far as putting another law on the book that does no good is a bunch of bull. Laws to control bad driving and leaving fines have been going on for nearly a 100 years. What you and other anti-government people see as a bad law I see as a law that just might save a life and who knows it might be yours!


"A sampling of New Jersey pet owners showed support for the initiative, even as some motorists cruised local highways with dogs serving as co-pilots."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 55305178/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"If I took my three-year-old son, and placed him unrestrained in the backseat of my car, this is what would happen: He’d be jumping all over the place. He’d definitely try and climb into the front seat. He’d probably attempt to take the wheel. He’d end up on my lap. He’d punch me in my nose. We’d probably crash and die and maybe take a few people with us."
http://www.trentonian.com/article/20120 ... -state-law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

N.J, is not the only state ...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2 ... d-driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[chasfm11]

Should something be done about unrestrained animals? ABSOLUTELY! Let's see a campaign targeting every pet store that talks about the potential harm and helps to educate owners. Let's see public service announcements that encourage owners to be responsible with their pets. Lets NOT put another law on the books that does little or nothing the address on the problem.

So let’s say we implement this great plan to educate the public (or should we say over educate them). Who is going to pay for all this education… the tax payer…again...no because these programs are generally paid for through fines levied from people that choose to ignore the law.
As far as putting another law on the book that does no good is a bunch of bull. Laws to control bad driving and leaving fines have been going on for nearly a 100 years. What you and other anti-government people see as a bad law I see as a law that just might save a life and who knows it might be yours!


"A sampling of New Jersey pet owners showed support for the initiative, even as some motorists cruised local highways with dogs serving as co-pilots."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 55305178/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"If I took my three-year-old son, and placed him unrestrained in the backseat of my car, this is what would happen: He’d be jumping all over the place. He’d definitely try and climb into the front seat. He’d probably attempt to take the wheel. He’d end up on my lap. He’d punch me in my nose. We’d probably crash and die and maybe take a few people with us."
http://www.trentonian.com/article/20120 ... -state-law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

N.J, is not the only state ...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2 ... d-driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the link you provided (NJ is not the only State) this quote makes the opposite point.

He said that even though his company did not advocate laws such as New Jersey’s, it had partnered with AAA and Toyota to get the message out.

“Our biggest thing is to get the word out that [restraints] are available,” he said. “Things are available [and] the cost is low. You should be doing this.”

So the advocates and I agree that getting the word out is more important than the law.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of no laws. What I want to see is the number of ridiculous laws reduced so that we can allow LE to focus on those most important ones.

As a reminder, NJ bans individuals from pumping their own gas. It is a ridiculous law. It is ridiculous because 48 other States don't have it with no ill affects. NJ has a ban on hollow point ammo for anyone who isn't in LE. It is a ridiculous law because 49 other States don't have it and there are no documented ill effects in those States. NJ bans concealed handgun carry (through "May issue" policy) yet Newark and Camden are heavily armed as BGs walk the the streets. It is a ridiculous policy because it prevents people like me from defending themselves. Coupled with the "must retreat" rules on self defense, NJ residents are very much defenseless against the rampant lawlessness that exists in pockets. Go to Atlantic City and ask the police department how may illegal guns are on the streets in the hands of convicted felons. The areas are around the casinos were well controlled, similar to the tourist areas in Mexico but when the casinos cut back on their security, the overall rates went up. LE seems powerless to change it.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/comm ... 03286.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NJ has a patchwork of ridiculous laws. I lived there and have first hand experience. It, along with NY, is a typical Nanny State that tries to control everything and everybody. I moved there for business advancement but got us out of there as quickly as I could - 3 years to the day. I can promise you that with all of the other ridiculous laws that LE there has to enforce, any good effects of the pet restraint law has will be very, very limited.

Regarding funding for public education, some of the most successful programs have not been government sponsored. There are a lot of us who would financially support a campaigns to help other animal owners better protect their pets. Like not depending on laws to solve the ills of society, I refrain from putting the money for campaigns in the hands of politicians. Mysteriously, those funds seem to end up serving different purposes.

[VMI77]

Laws to control bad driving and leaving fines have been going on for nearly a 100 years.

And bad driving is still uncontrolled, with fewer fatalities primarily a result of improved technology....better cars, seat-belts, and air bags.

What you and other anti-government people see as a bad law I see as a law that just might save a life and who knows it might be yours!

What do you consider an "anti-government" person? I highly doubt ANYONE on this board is "anti-government." I'm not anti-government, I just want the government to do that, and ONLY that, authorized in the US Constitution. The people on here complaining about government are complaining about the government as it now exists: overbearing, intrusive, huge, corrupt, and unConstitutional.

The oft cited liberal nonsense that any law that MIGHT save a live is good can justify ANY government action, including murdering people, since a case can always be made that if the State kills 10,000 people it will save 10,001. It's a slogan used as a substitute for thought, not an argument.

"If I took my three-year-old son, and placed him unrestrained in the backseat of my car, this is what would happen: He’d be jumping all over the place. He’d definitely try and climb into the front seat. He’d probably attempt to take the wheel. He’d end up on my lap. He’d punch me in my nose. We’d probably crash and die and maybe take a few people with us."

Your child, or someone else's child, is YOUR problem, not mine; and I can assure you, that none of the behavior quoted above happened with either of my children when they were three years old. What you're quoting is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the child's parent --poor parenting. A law isn't going to fix that, and it will apply to those of us who are responsible parents, punishing us, while the irresponsible parents remain just as irresponsible.

[barstoolguru]

Laws to control bad driving and leaving fines have been going on for nearly a 100 years.

And bad driving is still uncontrolled, with fewer fatalities primarily a result of improved technology....better cars, seat-belts, and air bags.

What you and other anti-government people see as a bad law I see as a law that just might save a life and who knows it might be yours!

What do you consider an "anti-government" person? I highly doubt ANYONE on this board is "anti-government." I'm not anti-government, I just want the government to do that, and ONLY that, authorized in the US Constitution. The people on here complaining about government are complaining about the government as it now exists: overbearing, intrusive, huge, corrupt, and unConstitutional.

The oft cited liberal nonsense that any law that MIGHT save a live is good can justify ANY government action, including murdering people, since a case can always be made that if the State kills 10,000 people it will save 10,001. It's a slogan used as a substitute for thought, not an argument.

"If I took my three-year-old son, and placed him unrestrained in the backseat of my car, this is what would happen: He’d be jumping all over the place. He’d definitely try and climb into the front seat. He’d probably attempt to take the wheel. He’d end up on my lap. He’d punch me in my nose. We’d probably crash and die and maybe take a few people with us."

Your child, or someone else's child, is YOUR problem, not mine; and I can assure you, that none of the behavior quoted above happened with either of my children when they were three years old. What you're quoting is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the child's parent --poor parenting. A law isn't going to fix that, and it will apply to those of us who are responsible parents, punishing us, while the irresponsible parents remain just as irresponsible.

Here’s the problem with your comment: you can't see the forest because there are too many trees in your way.

I agree with you that there are too many laws that restrict us. The constitution says a have a right to pursue happiness and to me that’s drinking and driving today but the law says I can’t. How dare them to make a law that infringes on my rights.

That burns me up and you are right if I run into someone else because I was drunk and cripple their kid that should be between me and them not the government. After all every person that drives is a responsible adult and has common sense

[VMI77]

Laws to control bad driving and leaving fines have been going on for nearly a 100 years.

And bad driving is still uncontrolled, with fewer fatalities primarily a result of improved technology....better cars, seat-belts, and air bags.

What you and other anti-government people see as a bad law I see as a law that just might save a life and who knows it might be yours!

What do you consider an "anti-government" person? I highly doubt ANYONE on this board is "anti-government." I'm not anti-government, I just want the government to do that, and ONLY that, authorized in the US Constitution. The people on here complaining about government are complaining about the government as it now exists: overbearing, intrusive, huge, corrupt, and unConstitutional.

The oft cited liberal nonsense that any law that MIGHT save a live is good can justify ANY government action, including murdering people, since a case can always be made that if the State kills 10,000 people it will save 10,001. It's a slogan used as a substitute for thought, not an argument.

"If I took my three-year-old son, and placed him unrestrained in the backseat of my car, this is what would happen: He’d be jumping all over the place. He’d definitely try and climb into the front seat. He’d probably attempt to take the wheel. He’d end up on my lap. He’d punch me in my nose. We’d probably crash and die and maybe take a few people with us."

Your child, or someone else's child, is YOUR problem, not mine; and I can assure you, that none of the behavior quoted above happened with either of my children when they were three years old. What you're quoting is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the child's parent --poor parenting. A law isn't going to fix that, and it will apply to those of us who are responsible parents, punishing us, while the irresponsible parents remain just as irresponsible.

Here’s the problem with your comment: you can't see the forest because there are too many trees in your way.

I agree with you that there are too many laws that restrict us. The constitution says a have a right to pursue happiness and to me that’s drinking and driving today but the law says I can’t. How dare them to make a law that infringes on my rights.

That burns me up and you are right if I run into someone else because I was drunk and cripple their kid that should be between me and them not the government. After all every person that drives is a responsible adult and has common sense

You're mixing apples and oranges. You're focused on the number of laws, and the right to pursue happiness.....I'm talking specifically about the part of the Constitution that says those powers not SPECIFICALLY enumerated to the Federal government belong to the states, or the people. That could be one or one million unconstitutional laws....doesn't matter a whit to me, because all of them are an overreach and unconstitutional. Furthermore, you seem to be confused about the application of the law. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. To give a simple example, being drunk and killing someone as a result is appropriately against the law because it is conduct that clearly injures another party. If I have an accident and die because I wasn't wearing a seat belt that's MY problem, not the government's. Courts serve a constitutional and proper role of government; telling me what's good for ME, and requiring me to do things by law that the government thinks are good for ME, is an improper and unconstitutional role of government.

That's the fundamental principle, though it's not always so simple, and there is often room for disagreement about where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin. However, there are other approaches to writing law than simple fines and jail time for every possible action that might hypothetically result in the violation of another person's rights. Instead of fining people for having an unrestrained dog in their car you fine or jail them when an unsecured dog leads to negligent behavior that injures another person --which I suspect, in the scheme of things, RARELY happens. There is no fine for changing CD's in your car or talking to passengers either, but if a driver's inattention results in an accident that injures another party, he his responsible for that negligence, and appropriate consequences may be reasonable and necessary. This particular situation is a little more complicated because it involves dogs, not people. Dogs don't have the same legal rights as people, and for the most part, are considered property. Whether I agree or disagree with that isn't an issue, as this treatment is mostly settled law.

[barstoolguru]

"If I have an accident and die because I wasn't wearing a seat belt that's MY problem, not the government's. Courts serve a constitutional and proper role of government; telling me what's good for ME, and requiring me to do things by law that the government thinks are good for ME, is an improper and unconstitutional role of government."

If you want to kill yourself I have no problem with that but when you do it puts a strain on the system because someone (obviously not you) is going to have to clean up the mess. the problem here is when someone has a loose animal in the car distracting them they create a road hazard which affected everyone including the government because when you crash they/we have to clean up the mess and that makes it everyone’s problem. So we can say that the government has a right to protect the population by making a law for the good of everyone. Remember if people were not so self-centered and though past the nose on their face we would not have so many laws to start with

[G26ster]

[ the problem here is when someone has a loose animal in the car distracting them they create a road hazard which affected everyone including the government because when you crash they/we have to clean up the mess and that makes it everyone’s problem. So we can say that the government has a right to protect the population by making a law for the good of everyone.

I think what you meant to say is, "when someone has/uses cell phone, ipod, ipad, mp3 player, drink, food, radio, CD player, GPS, notepad, pen, comb, brush, make-up, passenger, animal, child, etc. in the car distracting them they create a road hazard. So we can say that the government has a right to protect the population by making a law for the good of everyone"

The key word is "distracting." If you pass a law requiring that animals be restrained, wouldn't you have to pass laws saying the items I listed must be "out of reach" or "unused" or "out of sight" or "prohibited" as their use may distract the driver just as the unrestrained animal may?

[barstoolguru]

WOW, who would have figured dogs doing this? Thank god they don't have a goldfish restraint law !

While the exact numbers are not available, it is estimated that tens of thousands of people are injured in car accidents by unrestrained dogs. We all know of the dangers of texting or using the phone while driving, but being distracted by a pet free in the car has now been added to the list of distracted driving activities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, almost 5,500 were killed in accidents caused by distracted driving in 2009. So far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association does not have a specific category that identifies accidents caused by drivers distracted by pets; however, the statistic is housed in categories like distracted passengers.

Dog in cars contributing to car accidents
http://www.pennsylvaniaaccidentinjuryla ... ents.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and by the way everyone knows why the chicken crossed the road.... to show the amadillo it could be done

[VMI77]

"If I have an accident and die because I wasn't wearing a seat belt that's MY problem, not the government's. Courts serve a constitutional and proper role of government; telling me what's good for ME, and requiring me to do things by law that the government thinks are good for ME, is an improper and unconstitutional role of government."

If you want to kill yourself I have no problem with that but when you do it puts a strain on the system because someone (obviously not you) is going to have to clean up the mess. the problem here is when someone has a loose animal in the car distracting them they create a road hazard which affected everyone including the government because when you crash they/we have to clean up the mess and that makes it everyone’s problem. So we can say that the government has a right to protect the population by making a law for the good of everyone. Remember if people were not so self-centered and though past the nose on their face we would not have so many laws to start with

All I can say to that is: you're a scary guy with a scary attitude.That logic justifies everything a government might want to do. With it, there is no limit to government except the good will of those administering it. The founders knew where that kind of thinking leads --tyranny-- so they attempted to place limits on our government.

Sorry, but the US is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic with a Constitution that grants rights to individuals, not groups. There is no such thing as a law "for the good of everyone," so the default is always the "greater good." That, my friend, is the essence of collectivism: the greatest good for the greatest number; and the opposite of the type of government created by our founders. It's exactly the kind of logic that leads to governments killing a few million people in the name of benefiting the majority.

[VMI77]

WOW, who would have figured dogs doing this? Thank god they don't have a goldfish restraint law !

While the exact numbers are not available, it is estimated that tens of thousands of people are injured in car accidents by unrestrained dogs. We all know of the dangers of texting or using the phone while driving, but being distracted by a pet free in the car has now been added to the list of distracted driving activities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, almost 5,500 were killed in accidents caused by distracted driving in 2009. So far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association does not have a specific category that identifies accidents caused by drivers distracted by pets; however, the statistic is housed in categories like distracted passengers.

Dog in cars contributing to car accidents
http://www.pennsylvaniaaccidentinjuryla ... ents.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and by the way everyone knows why the chicken crossed the road.... to show the amadillo it could be done

Are you joking with this? You're quoting an unsubstantiated assertion by a personal injury attorney? Seriously? It says this in your own quotation: the NHTSA "does not have a specific category that identifies accidents caused by drivers distracted by pets," so the the "tens of thousands" and "5,500" numbers are completely bogus. Here's what it says in the LA Times article the attorney links to:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleash ... afety.html

This is meaningless hype from a self-interest group, not a statistic. The article says this:

Tens of thousands of car accidents are believed caused every year by unrestrained pets, though no one has solid numbers.

I can "believe" the moon is made of green cheese, that doesn't make it true. Not one scintilla of evidence is provided to support this dubious claim. All that is provided in support are anecdotal claims by people who caused an accident and have an incentive to place the blame on some factor other than their driving. Laws should be based on fact and reality, not "belief."

Cellphones were the top distraction -- the cause of 18 percent of the fatalities and 5 percent of the injury crashes. The agency does not track accidents caused by pets, but said they are counted among other distractions such as disruptive passengers, misbehaving children or drivers who attempt to put on makeup or read.

The claim then is that the TOP distraction --cell phones-- "caused" 18% of the fatalities. Since the article is trying to claim loose pets cause accidents, if there was any evidence at all that this was the case, and anywhere close to the claim about cell phones, some percentage for loose pets would be provided. "Caused" is merely someone's assertion --no evidence is given to support the assertion, and no methodology for determining "cause" is given, so there is absolutely no reason even to believe the claim that 18% of fatalities are "caused" by cell phone distraction (and as much as it aggravates me to see people driving with cell phones glued to their ears, I don't believe the claim the article makes).

IOW, your claim that "exact" numbers aren't available misrepresents the reality, which is that there is NO DATA AT ALL on the number of accidents caused by unrestrained pets.

And finally, the laws the article talks about being passed regarding pets are for pets on the driver's lap.....not nearly so odious as the law discussed here.

[barstoolguru]

you need to take them rose colored glasses off

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, almost 5,500 were killed in accidents caused by distracted driving in 2009. So far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association does not have a specific category that identifies accidents caused by drivers distracted by pets; however, the statistic is housed in categories like distracted passengers.