Summary: These New Jersey statutes comprise the laws for licensing, impounding, appointment of animal control officers, and kennel/pet shop regulations. It also includes a provision that prohibits impounded animals from being sold or donated for experimentation, as well as pet sterilization provisions.
Summary: A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. Note: this section replaces the original law (3B:11-38) enacted in 2001 and repealed in 2016.
Summary: This set of New Jersey laws comprises the state's hunter harassment provisions. No person may, for the purpose of hindering or preventing the lawful taking of wildlife. A person who violates this act shall be liable to a civil penalty of not less than $100 nor more than $500 for each offense. In addition to bringing a civil action for injunctive relief or any other relief provided by law, a person who is adversely affected by a violation of this act may bring a civil action for damages, including punitive damages and special damages, against the violator.
Summary: These statutes comprise the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act. The definitions used in the Act are described as well as the rules for listing species, the powers and duties of the supervising department, and the designation of funding. Under the statute, violation of the Act incurs a civil penalty of $250-5,000. In 2014, provisions were added for the prohibition on import, sale, or purchase of ivory products. In 2018, a law was added that prohibits a person from using a wild or exotic animal in a traveling animal act.
Summary: <p>A supplement to the New Jersey Revision of Statutes for 1877. The supplement covered standing for officer's of New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition, the supplement addresses the question of jurisdiction for the enforcement the anti-cruelty laws.</p>
A supplement to the New Jersey Revision of Statutes for 1877. The supplement covered standing for officer's of New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition, the supplement addresses the question of jurisdiction for the enforcement the anti-cruelty laws.
Summary: <p> A compilation of the New Jersey anti-cruelty laws as of 1877. The laws covered include treatment of animals, penalties, and exceptions for scientific experiments. </p>
A compilation of the New Jersey anti-cruelty laws as of 1877. The laws covered include treatment of animals, penalties, and exceptions for scientific experiments.
Summary: <p> This Borough of Stone Harbor feral cat ordinance sets up a Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) program outside of the area between 111th Street and the southern end of the Borough, as well as outside of the entire Bird Sanctuary and Stone Harbor Point areas. Under this ordinance, any feral cats found within the area between 111th Street and the southern end of the Borough, the Bird Sanctuary, or the Stone Point area must be captured and transported to the County Animal Shelter for handling in accordance with the interlocal agreement between the Borough and the county applicable to such animals. Caregivers, who are uncompensated volunteers, serve to facilitate the TNR program and their duties, as well as potential penalties for not complying with their duties, are indicated within this ordinance. <br/> </p>
This Borough of Stone Harbor feral cat ordinance sets up a Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) program outside of the area between 111th Street and the southern end of the Borough, as well as outside of the entire Bird Sanctuary and Stone Harbor Point areas. Under this ordinance, any feral cats found within the area between 111th Street and the southern end of the Borough, the Bird Sanctuary, or the Stone Point area must be captured and transported to the County Animal Shelter for handling in accordance with the interlocal agreement between the Borough and the county applicable to such animals. Caregivers, who are uncompensated volunteers, serve to facilitate the TNR program and their duties, as well as potential penalties for not complying with their duties, are indicated within this ordinance.
Summary: <p> In Borough of Magnolia, New Jersey, any person desiring to operate a pet shop or kennel must obtain a license and must operate the establishment within the borough's business district. Thus, this ordinance contains provisions on applying for, renewing, and revoking a license. This ordinance also establishes animal care standards for pet shops and kennels, as well as requires that all dogs kept or maintained within these establishments wear a tag. Additionally, this ordinance also prohibits dogs kept in a kennel or a pet shop from going off the site’s premises except under certain circumstances. Anyone convicted of violating these provisions may be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, a period of community service not exceeding 90 days, or any combination thereof. </p>
In Borough of Magnolia, New Jersey, any person desiring to operate a pet shop or kennel must obtain a license and must operate the establishment within the borough's business district. Thus, this ordinance contains provisions on applying for, renewing, and revoking a license. This ordinance also establishes animal care standards for pet shops and kennels, as well as requires that all dogs kept or maintained within these establishments wear a tag. Additionally, this ordinance also prohibits dogs kept in a kennel or a pet shop from going off the site’s premises except under certain circumstances. Anyone convicted of violating these provisions may be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, a period of community service not exceeding 90 days, or any combination thereof.
Summary: <p> This case involves the construction of a Hoboken, New Jersey dangerous dog ordinance in light of the state Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act. The owner's dog that was the subject of this case was ordered by the municipal court to be destroyed after it bit a person on the hand. In applying the relevant preemption test, the court found that the Act preempted any city ordinance purporting to cover same subject. As noted by the court, it was the procedural conflict that caused the most concern. Thus, because the procedural/jurisdictional defect in the ordinance was not cured, the municipal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. </p>
This case involves the construction of a Hoboken, New Jersey dangerous dog ordinance in light of the state Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act. The owner's dog that was the subject of this case was ordered by the municipal court to be destroyed after it bit a person on the hand. In applying the relevant preemption test, the court found that the Act preempted any city ordinance purporting to cover same subject. As noted by the court, it was the procedural conflict that caused the most concern. Thus, because the procedural/jurisdictional defect in the ordinance was not cured, the municipal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Summary: <p> Respondent Raymond Kerlin, D.V.M., appealed a decision of the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Board), finding him guilty of "gross malpractice or gross neglect" in the practice of veterinary medicine after an employee at his office (his wife) stated that the office could not treat a deathly ill kitten after the owners requested payment by credit (apparently not accepted at the office). In this case, the court observed nothing in the findings of facts to support a conclusion that respondent was aware of the exchange which occurred between the kitten’s owner and Mrs. Kerlin in time for him to have prevented the situation or to have taken remedial steps. Nothing adduced at trial proved that Dr. Kerlin followed the policy of rejecting requests for emergency treatment on credit. Thus, the court concluded that the State failed to establish that respondent was guilty of a violation or of conduct warranting disciplinary action for "gross malpractice", and the decision of the Board was reversed. </p>
Respondent Raymond Kerlin, D.V.M., appealed a decision of the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Board), finding him guilty of "gross malpractice or gross neglect" in the practice of veterinary medicine after an employee at his office (his wife) stated that the office could not treat a deathly ill kitten after the owners requested payment by credit (apparently not accepted at the office). In this case, the court observed nothing in the findings of facts to support a conclusion that respondent was aware of the exchange which occurred between the kitten’s owner and Mrs. Kerlin in time for him to have prevented the situation or to have taken remedial steps. Nothing adduced at trial proved that Dr. Kerlin followed the policy of rejecting requests for emergency treatment on credit. Thus, the court concluded that the State failed to establish that respondent was guilty of a violation or of conduct warranting disciplinary action for "gross malpractice", and the decision of the Board was reversed.
