Town mulls dog control

Harsh terms in suggested ordinance, say officials

By: Lacey Korevec
   The Township Committee decided Monday not to introduce an ordinance that would allow the township animal control officer to shoot loose dogs.
   The Cranbury Board of Health proposed the ordinance because of a series of complaints members received about menacing dogs, Board of Health President Bernice Shapiro said Wednesday. Ms. Shapiro talked about the proposal Monday with residents and Township Committee members.
   According to the proposed ordinance, menacing dogs are dogs that pose a threat "of bodily injury or death to a human being."
   The proposal said that if a dog is caught walking freely in the township without its owner, it could be "impounded or killed" by an animal control officer or dogcatcher.
   Township officials said the wording of the ordinance was subjective and the terms it set were harsh.
   "It’s so strong on first read that it seems like we have a chronic problem," Committeeman David Stout said. "That’s what worries me. Do we have a problem? Or do we have a series of isolated incidents?"
   Resident John Ritter said the ordinance sounded "draconian" and that it’s not safe or fair to allow a dogcatcher to walk the township armed and decide whether or not a loose dog is menacing and should be killed on the spot.
   "This animal control officer could go into anyone’s property armed and they’re going to shoot a gun," he said. "We should really get rid of all this subjective criteria and should make sure the person making these judgments is qualified."
   Ms. Shapiro said the proposed ordinance has a lot of holes in it and will be rewritten by the Board of Health in 2007.
   "We’re just going to take a different approach. I want the residents of Cranbury to be comfortable and protected and we have to do what’s best for everybody," she said. "Everything has to be thoroughly evaluated."
   She said the board also is considering a law that would make residents who use electric fences for their animals put a sign on their lawn to indicate that the animal is not loose. She said many residents have complained about feeling threatened by animals kept on lawns with electric fences.
   "The concern is, if they start barking, a kid on a bike could get scared and go into the street and, God forbid, be injured," she said.
   Resident Connie Bauder said she would like to see a section of the ordinance that deals with disturbances in the neighborhood caused by barking or howling reworked. The section proposes that residents be fined if their dog barks or howls for "an unreasonable period during three consecutive days or nights," which Ms. Bauder said is impossible to enforce.
   "I feel like I live in a pound," she said. "I am surrounded by barking dogs. I listen to it all day long."
   Ms. Bauder said complaints of dog barking should be enough for an officer to fine a resident, without he or she having to prove it has lasted for three days.
   "The rest of the neighborhood shouldn’t have to suffer because the owner hasn’t taken the time to train the dog," she said. "I didn’t sign up to have to live next door to a dog pound."
   Ms. Shapiro said the language throughout the whole ordinance, including the barking and howling section, needs to be revised and made more specific.
   "There were certain things that we need to clarify a bit more," she said.