Congo’s Law is unnecessary

David Henry, Princeton Regional Health Officer
    I am writing to express my concerns about Assembly Bill # A-4597 “Congo’s law. The Bill has the express purpose of saving one dog and reducing the effectiveness of the current Vicious Dog Law in protecting the health and safety of our communities. My specific concerns are as follows:
   1. The author of this Bill, Assemblyman Neil Cohen wants to get this legislation passed before the end of December without any detailed input from public health officials or municipal officials. What is the hurry?
   2. Congo does not have to die. There has been a plea agreement available since July that would save Congo. Congo’s owners have chosen not to take the plea agreement.
   3. The Bill is retroactive to January 1, 2007. This means that any dog in any municipality in the State will be free from their designation as a potentially dangerous or vicious dog. How does this serve to protect the public if owners of these dogs no longer have to abide by the restrictions of the current law? This is Assemblyman Cohen’s way of saving Congo. The new law allows Congo and the other four dogs that mauled the landscaper to be immediately pardoned and the result will be as if the mauling never happened. We have seen the pictures of the 96 bite marks requiring extensive surgery and the 65 rabies shots that the landscaper has experienced. This new law will reduce his situation to a mere accident. In fact it reduces any injures or deaths caused by vicious or potentially dangerous dogs in 2007 to mere accidents.
   4. The new law allows people who have been injured by a dog the opportunity to sign away their rights and say that the attacking dog did not mean to attack them. In addition, if you do not report the dog bite to authorities within 90 days, you are not allowed to report it after that time. It is not a good idea to have a time limit on dog bite reporting.
   5. The law puts more emphasis on animal life than human life. We would have to view the matter of provocation from the viewpoint of the dog. Where are the professionals who have reviewed why dogs are provoked? This matter can be interpreted in any way since there are no real criteria thus creating a legal quagmire.
   6. The municipal court must prove these cases on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a higher standard than the current law and will paralyze legitimate enforcement to the detriment of public safety and health.
   7. Owner control or responsibility is not even stressed in this law. Municipalities bear a higher responsibility to prove their case, while dog owners are given a free pass.
   For these reason, I feel that Congo’s Law is a step backwards in terms of the public’s health and safety. Since this Bill may be up for a vote on Thursday Dec. 13, we all need to ask our legislators to give this Bill the thoughtful consideration it deserves so that more time can be taken to fully review the law and have a better balance of human and animal rights. As matters now stand this is proceeding too quickly in a highly charged emotional atmosphere to the detriment of public safety and health.
   Why should every New Jersey municipality and taxpayer have to suffer increased danger because of one bill based on one case that does not have to lead to the death of the dog involved. This legislation is not necessary in its current form and the real fate of Congo remains in the hands of its owners (the same as it has since July shortly after the attack incident occurred).
David Henry, Health Officer
Princeton Regional
Health Department
One Monument Drive
Princeton