By Nick Norlen, Staff Writer
Though Congo’s owners have said thousands are contacting the governor to support the dog and the bill that bears his name, one local Assemblyman said the majority of the feedback directed to his office has been from those opposed to the bill.
According to the office of state Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Princeton), approximately 60 percent of the correspondences he has received oppose the bill — and the bulk of those are coming from Princeton.
The calls and e-mails in support of the bill have come from all over the state, according to Assemblyman Gusciora’s legislative aide, Michael DeLoreto, who said the office has received approximately 60 comments on the bill.
A state Assembly vote on the so-called “Congo’s Law” — named for the German shepherd ordered to be euthanized after it attacked a landscaper in Princeton Township in June — has not yet been scheduled.
In a telephone interview Tuesday — during which he said he received at least five more e-mails about the bill — Assemblyman Gusciora said people’s views on the proposed law are “all over the map.”
Its supporters “are animal welfare people who e-mail that Congo should be saved,” he said.
Opponents, on the other hand, have questioned whether the legislature could be spending its time on what they see as more important issues, such as property taxes.
Others have said the law should not include a “beyond a reasonable doubt standard,” he said, noting that he has the same reservations.
”Particularly when you can’t get testimony from a dog, it would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the dog’s intentions were,” he said, noting that he has concerns about the potential difficulty of euthanizing dogs raised to be vicious.
Despite the approximately 30 amendments made during the committee session on the bill, Assemblyman Gusciora said he won’t support the bill as it is currently written.
The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Neil Cohen (D-Union), was successfully approved for a floor vote by the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee last week.
Assemblyman Cohen introduced the bill to amend the current state statutes that govern consequences and requirements for dogs labeled as “vicious” and “potentially dangerous” after he heard about Congo’s case.
That ruling is currently being appealed to the Superior Court by the James family.
If passed, the legislation could have the same result — it would apply to current and pending cases and retroactively to dogs facing euthanasia by court orders back to Jan. 1.
Among other changes, the bill provides an alternative for the euthanizing of dogs declared “vicious” by allowing their owners to comply with the same precautions mandated for keeping a “potentially dangerous” dog, which include posting signs and restricting the dog’s contact with people and other animals.
In addition, the bill would hold prosecutors to stricter standards for proving that dogs were not provoked during attacks.
Provocation will be among the primary issues raised during the appeal, according to the James family’s attorney, Robert Lytle.
It has also been a source of debate among those who have joined the widespread discussion of the case since the ruling.
In an e-mail response to a constituent requesting her support for Congo’s Law — which was later forwarded to The Packet — state Sen. Shirley Turner (D-Lawrence) noted that she has “been informed that this was an unprovoked attack.”
That claim, she said, has been substantiated by Princeton’s animal control officer and the police report from the incident.
However, Sen. Turner did not mention in the e-mail whether she will support the bill if it in fact reaches the Senate.
Neither Sen. Turner nor Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman could be reached for comment.
A member of the legislature’s Democratic press office said a vote on Congo’s Law is possible before the end of the year, but declined to speculate on when it might be scheduled.

