Dog restraint code to have
public hearing on June 11
By dave benjamin
Staff Writer
MANALAPAN — With electronic fences becoming a popular device to deter, but not guarantee, a dog from running loose and leaving its owner’s property, municipal officials indicated that it has become necessary to impose certain controls.
A proposed ordinance is expected to make owners more responsible for their pets by imposing certain controls on dogs that are left outside and are not fenced in. The ordinance also aims to control dogs that have bitten people, or are menacing and pose a threat of bodily injury or death to a human being.
A public hearing on the proposal is expected to be held at the Township Committee’s meeting on June 11 at 7:30 p.m. in the municipal building. At that time it is expected that Robert Hulbert, a spokesman with the Canine Fence Company, which features an invisible fence, will speak on the matter.
Manalapan health officer David Richardson said, "We’re internally reviewing the proposal as it is offered to the community. Hopefully, some questions that we have will be addressed over time."
In a recent incident in the township, one youngster was bitten by a neighbor’s dog when he entered the neighbor’s yard to retrieve a toy. The dog was restrained only by an electric fence.
Under existing laws, dogs are not permitted to run loose in public places or on the street.
The amended version of the present law regarding the regulation of dogs will add the definition of the term "control." As indicated in the proposed amended version, control will mean secured by a leash or lead, under restraint, and/or obedient to the commands of an owner over the age of 12 or a responsible person over the age of 12 who is present with the dog.
The new subsection of the ordinance will focus on control of dogs on the owner’s property. As written, the new addition said, "Control of dogs on owner’s property: No owner or keeper of a dog shall permit the dog to run at large on the property of the owner or keeper unless the dog is restrained by a fence, enclosure or leash, or under control by an owner the age of 12 or a responsible person over the age of 12."
According to the ordinance, an electronic, electric or radio fence or containment system will not constitute a sufficient restraint, fence or enclosure.
The amendment also deals with the restraint of a dog which has previously bitten a person. The amended portion states, "No person who owns, keeps or harbors any dog which shall have bitten any person shall, after being given written notice by the chief of police or by the animal control officer ordering the confinement of such dog, suffer or permit such dog to be out of doors unless confined on a leash and accompanied by a responsible person of at least 18 years of age, or unless confined within a secure enclosure."
The amended section regarding menacing dogs gives the animal control officer, when he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the dog poses a threat, the authorization to require the owner to do one of three things: immediately erect an enclosure to restrain the menacing dog; muzzle and tether the dog with a 3-foot tether approved by the animal control officer: and maintain certain levels of insurance.
The amendment states that no person shall use a menacing dog to threaten or coerce action from another individual.