Council Passes Controversial 'Dangerous Dog' Ordinance

Ridgewood officials also endorsed the creation of a responsible pet ownership committee, widely supported by animal groups.

Owners of dogs determined to be 'potentially dangerous' will have to cough up $700 annually for licensing costs in Ridgewood.

The village council on Wednesday unanimously agreed to increase the licensing fee from the state minimum of $150 to the maximum of $700 on an annual basis. Officials said they were prompted to act following an alleged unprovoked dog attack in December.

Although there are roughly 50 dog bite incidents investigated by the Ridgewood Health Department per year, it's extremely rare that a dog is designated "potentially dangerous." No dog had been officially labeled potentially dangerous in nearly a decade, according to village officials.

"The expectation and hope is we won't have to use it," Mayor Paul Aronsohn said, referring to the ordinance passed Wednesday.

Procedurally, a dog is determined to be potentially dangerous by a New Jersey municipal court, and in the majority of cases, the dog has a history of bites or unprovoked attacks.

Once a dog is declared potentially dangerous, the health department must make monthly visits to ensure the animal is being properly monitored. Determination is made by dog, not based on breed. Once the declaration is made, it cannot be reversed. A potentially dangerous dog is branded one for life in New Jersey.

Legally, the $700 fee can only be applied to administrative costs and not site visits or investigations. Canine groups have spoken out against the increased fee, which is based on state statute. They contend the fees do not address the issues.

So while the ordinance itself drew headlines, a flurry of dog groups pledged support for an educational committee on pet ownership Wednesday night, to be headed by Jeffrey Ball.

Ball, a Ridgewood resident and the current president of the NJ Federation of Dog Clubs, said many dangers are preventable with proper education.

"Too often now people go on the Internet, buy dogs and put themselves in situations where they don't know how to deal with it," Ball said. "Dogs can then become dangerous."

There was a reported dog biting three weeks ago, where owners attempted to break up a fight between their scrapping dogs. They suffered minor cuts to hands and arms, police said.

"That would have been prevented, and simple education does that," Ball remarked.

"With drunk driving, drugs, don't we educate the public on things not to do? It's the same thing that needs to be done here. So I put a proposal to the mayor, to the council, to start a responsible pet ownership committee here in town."

The committee, he hopes, will draw participation from village residents, officials and citizens from nearby towns. The American Kennel Club will supply materials without cost to Ridgewood, Ball said. Residents and the council have supported the idea of a committee.

The committee will address issues affecting owners of other animals, like cats, birds and rabbits.

Several dog trainers, representatives from local shelters, and kennel club members told the council they would offer their expertise and time free of charge when the committee gets off the ground.

Sean February 15, 2013 at 04:42 PM
This is one of the riches towns in New Jersey. Just another way to make money. Disgusting....
Revolution February 15, 2013 at 05:50 PM
totally ridiculous law
Mike Kender February 15, 2013 at 10:46 PM
$700 is pretty cheap compared to the amount that the owner could get sued for if their dog, which had already been declared to be dangerous, with a history of biting, attacked and seriously bit anyone, especially a child.
Ridge92 February 16, 2013 at 04:37 AM
The law is for dogs deemed by a court to be "potentially dangerous." Which means there has to be an incident, and that incident has to reach a court level. It's not breed specific or size specific. It's also not a ploy to raise revenue on every dog in a town. The fee is only for those dogs deemed by a court to be dangerous. Comments on this article and the others linked to this article should read the law first before jumping to conclusions.
Joseph Alvaro February 16, 2013 at 05:44 PM
So, what is the point of raising the fee from $150 to $700 if the fee can only be used to cover administrative costs? Who did the cost analysis to determine that it requires the Village $700 to administer the annual paper work to issue such a license?
longtimer66 February 16, 2013 at 07:26 PM
If you look at the video from the meeting, the Health person explains some of the required State components in this. (avail from Vill website about 56:00 in- responding to a question from Riche) She says that monthly inspections and reports are required by the State. I don't know who calculated the amount, but if you look at the public salary databases online to see what muni employees make here, and add to that the big benefits and other costs which they don't show (often 30% over salary or more) -- it's not hard to see how the number gets large quickly. I think it's good to have such a law which hopefully never or only seldom has to be put to use. Seems more fair to me that ALL taxpayers should not have to pay these mandated costs for the hopefully very few animals to which it might apply. I'm from here, family here over 50 years and we have always owned dogs. We have all sorts of other laws-- from train whistles (which can't be enforced!) to silly string-- to more serious ones Read 'em on Vill e-code site. Applying most of them involves costs. But I think it's fair to require an owner of a dog that a judge has declared dangerous to be responsible for the added cost to taxpayers of compliance with the State regs regarding such an animal. We should not all have to pay for it. I also agree that the education part is great and a lot of groups seem to be happy to help with that - I'm all for it, and the price (free) sure seems right.
Ridgewooder February 17, 2013 at 02:18 AM
It should be more.
Phil Ross February 17, 2013 at 03:19 AM
So - the $700 fee is dog specific, not breed specific? That's not how the law is being popularized or presented.
Phil Ross February 17, 2013 at 03:23 AM
There are plenty of programs available at shelters, pet stores and online for concerned pet owners. The gov't doesn't need to be involved. This will ultimately wind up costing the taxpayer more. A colossal waste and another gov't agency sucking money out of the wallets of the taxpayer. Well thought out!
longtimer66 February 17, 2013 at 03:24 PM
If you saw the meeting video, the education part is being given for free via other groups. I don't see a problem with the Village publicizing those or helping give people access to them, am I missing something? The money part is to cover what it costs the Village to comply with the mandatory State regs- though I don't know how the figure was determined. To me it's more like if your dog requires such inspections and monitoring per State regs which the Village didn't make, then you have to pay for that rather than everyone else having to pay the cost. But that would only apply if a judge-- after a process- determined your animal was subject to those State-made requirements.
Mike Kupchik February 17, 2013 at 11:25 PM
Based on some of the regulations heaped on an innocent populace by all those in power, we should require financial bonding for the latter, or make sure no immunity exists from any personal lawsuits that could result, making them think twice before any rush to judgements! Sounds like just another episode of masked town-greed to me.
Gina Mastrogiovanni February 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM
This is a ridiculous ordinance! Who exactly deems a dog dangerous? More $$$ for Ridgewood!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something