Ordinance alert | Tonka's Law - Readington, NJ Zone 12

[Pathman]

GB and Hammer, I’m not arguing your points, but your passion is misplaced. If you take that tactic in this battle we will lose hands down! You will never sway the public opinion (which is what your battling like it or not) that the dog owner was at fault, especially the 100% at fault claim. It may make you feel better to vent against this, and I totally understand, but until you can base your arguments on more logical reasoning we will never get ahead of this.

 

Did someone mention UBNJ ? Even more illogical expecting them to come to the rescue then it is to expect the people of Readington to side with hunters!

 

Don’t get me started on how they’ve been dropping the ball for the last 15 years! Yes, I’ve been a member for decades.

[GhostBear]

Pathman, she is 100% at fault that is plain fact, and tip toeing around that is also a losing strategy. And I will continue to point that out.

[BenedictGomez]

Did someone mention UBNJ ? Even more illogical expecting them to come to the rescue then it is to expect the people of Readington to side with hunters!

 

Don’t get me started on how they’ve been dropping the ball for the last 15 years! Yes, I’ve been a member for decades.

 

I mentioned them because someone from that group posted here a few weeks ago that they'd be "all over this", but I haven't seen any updates.  I went to their webpage and didn't see anything on this legislation either.  I was hoping maybe somebody heard something or knew what they were up to in terms of fighting this.

Edited November 7, 2017 by BenedictGomez

[hammer4reel]

GB and Hammer, I’m not arguing your points, but your passion is misplaced. If you take that tactic in this battle we will lose hands down! You will never sway the public opinion (which is what your battling like it or not) that the dog owner was at fault, especially the 100% at fault claim. It may make you feel better to vent against this, and I totally understand, but until you can base your arguments on more logical reasoning we will never get ahead of this.

Did someone mention UBNJ ? Even more illogical expecting them to come to the rescue then it is to expect the people of Readington to side with hunters!

Don’t get me started on how they’ve been dropping the ball for the last 15 years! Yes, I’ve been a member for decades.

im not passing total blame on the owner. The guy shooting the dog was also horribly at fault .

But all that aside, if the intent of this law was to keep dogs safe the Only law that would do that is already in place, its the leash law.

 

As i stated the 100 acre piece behind tge municiple building guys hunt right against tge development. So if a free running dog went just 100 yards off their property onto 100 acres it isht any different than if it was just 6.

Its off the property it should have been contained on period.

 

Leaving the dig owner off the hook isnt doing anythjng to help hunters. Since they already feel it was only the hunters fault.

 

No different than letting your kids play on t h e street

[Pathman]

I’m not tiptoeing around anything, your black and white viewpoint of this will not win you the argument. Which is not against me BTW, it’s against the pols who are introducing this ridicules ordinance.

That being said, if you think you/we will win this battle based on your view, you are sadly mistaken. The residents and the pols will bury us in ordinances even if they can’t prevent hunting totally, the Twps have a lot more power to regulate then you think. They will never side with hunters, or people, that take the attitude that they don’t care if a family pet was killed because it got loose from its owner and ran into the woods, so it was 100% the owners fault (Even though we know it wasn’t an isolated incident on the owners part).

 

You seem to have this delusion that we as hunters have these great powers to get whatever we want. We are a very tiny minority of the population, we don’t (as bowhunters) have any real advocacy group that could handle issues like this, and the sympathy of the GP will always go to the pet owner, always! It’s time you faced the reality (as sucky as it might be) that you live in NJ and this is what comes with the territory.

[Pathman]

im not passing total blame on the owner. The guy shooting the dog was also horribly at fault .

But all that aside, if the intent of this law was to keep dogs safe the Only law that would do that is already in place, its the leash law.

As i stated the 100 acre piece behind tge municiple building guys hunt right against tge development. So if a free running dog went just 100 yards off their property onto 100 acres it isht any different than if it was just 6.

Its off the property it should have been contained on period.

Leaving the dig owner off the hook isnt doing anythjng to help hunters. Since they already feel it was only the hunters fault.

No different than letting your kids play on t h e street

Oh no, I was hoping nobody went with the “kids in the street” analogy, but since you did, let me use that as an example. So your kids are playing in the street, where its obvious it’s a hazard to do so. A driver comes around the corner not paying full attention to what he’s doing and hits a child. Who’s in trouble, the kid for playing in the street, or the careless driver?

[Pathman]

And even if you made the argument tat the kid shouldn’t have been in the street, and it’s the parents fault for allowing it to happen, how do you think that will end for the driver in a courtroom?

[GhostBear]

So you think we will win if we ignore the fact that she ignored the lash law resulting in her dog being mistakenly shot? I don't see how that's a winning approach, and in this case if the dog owner sues the hunter over this, she will lose based solely on the fact she violated the towns leash law, what part of this don't you get? The law as written is on our side, and you are saying to ignore it? I don't get it.

[hammer4reel]

And even if you made the argument tat the kid shouldn’t have been in the street, and it’s the parents fault for allowing it to happen, how do you think that will end for the driver in a courtroom?

It will be the drivers fault NOT the cars, BUT they would be going after THAT driver not everyone else who drives down the street nor would they be making you tell people you were going to drive down the street.

So the analagy absolutely fits

Edited November 7, 2017 by hammer4reel

[Cyanide02Z06]

I appreciate everyone's input but casting blame at this time won't help......facts and data will.  

 

I've started a new facebook page dedicated to Readington/Whitehouse Station is anyone is interested in joining.  Info will be published there as well:

 

Readington/Whitehouse Station NJ Hunting Board

 

-Adam

[Haskell_Hunter]

Oh no, I was hoping nobody went with the “kids in the street” analogy, but since you did, let me use that as an example. So your kids are playing in the street, where its obvious it’s a hazard to do so. A driver comes around the corner not paying full attention to what he’s doing and hits a child. Who’s in trouble, the kid for playing in the street, or the careless driver?

 

 

And even if you made the argument tat the kid shouldn’t have been in the street, and it’s the parents fault for allowing it to happen, how do you think that will end for the driver in a courtroom?

 

It ends with shared culpability.  In NJ the parents will be convicted of child neglect and any other children in the home will be removed by DYFS.  Yes, shit like this happens (I have worse stories about parents getting their children taken from them because they let them walk home from school).

 

In law, emotions really don't count.  It's all based on the rule of law, facts, and precedents.  I am fighting a case pro se right now and am in the thick of this.  If the hunter that committed this offense were a d!ck, he could file a civil lawsuit against the dog owner and more than likely would win damages.  If the local law enforcement deemed that it refused to enforce the law because of the family's emotions and instead filed charges against the hunter, that would be an improper application of the laws.  She must be found partially culpable for her actions, and if not, she more than likely would be in a civil case.  The entire foundation and justification for leash laws are to protect the pet and community from the pet.  What happened to her pet would undeniably not happened if she obeyed those laws.  So if she's not found criminals liable, she will undoubtedly be found civilly culpable because the standard is much lower.

 

Full disclosure:  I am not a lawyer, but I am rapidly learning more than I want to know about law.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Haskell_Hunter

[GhostBear]

^^ what he said!!

[Pathman]

Well good luck with that approach guys. I really hope it doesn’t pass, but I still feel that blaming the dog owner will give the public the perception that hunters could care less about the dog, and are only worrying about their places to hunt.

There’s more to this picture then what we feel is the right thing, public perception is a powerful thing...

[Pathman]

Oh and HH, show me one case of a parent being convicted for letting their kid play in the street with other kids in the neighborhood.

[GhostBear]

Please, the fact the owner didn't leash the dog as required shows me she didn't care about her dog.