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

[Axiom]

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

 

 

Now that cant be right... Just because she didn't have the dog on a leash doesn't mean she didn't care about it.. On the contrary, it more so suggests she cares more for her dog then other 100% law abiding dog owners.. Dogs like to run free.. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a phony animal lover... I let my dog ( RIP ) run free most of the time and will continue to do so no matter what the law says.. WHY, because I care about him  more then the law does.. With that said, If something where to have happened to him while running around off a leash, >>I

[Haskell_Hunter]

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.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arrested-for-letting-a-9-year-old-play-at-the-park-alone/374436/

 

I got more if you'd like to read them.

 

http://nypost.com/2015/12/16/your-kids-can-walk-to-school-alone-again/

 

Here's an excellent blog that follows and reports on these stories:

 

http://www.freerangekids.com/category/walk-to-school-stay-home-alone-wait-in-car/

Edited November 7, 2017 by Haskell_Hunter

[njdeerhunter54]

I am not a resident of Readington Twsp. , but I do own a piece of property there and I do hunt it. I guess since my property is just over eight acres this ordinance will not have an effect on my hunting there. I see the six acre rule as being arbitrary as like Dan stated an unleashed dog can certainly cover more than six acres . What is to keep the pols from increasing this acreage amount in the future ? We in the hunting community have to fight this hard as this could be only the beginning ! 

 

I would also state that this guy was a POS for shooting the dog. No way do I believe he thought a nearly white dog with a collar was a coyote ! He shot the dog in anger because it was ruining his hunt. When crossbows were made legal for the entire archery season it let a bunch of less commited people into the woods. I certainly do not think all crossbow hunters are like this as I use one under certain circumstances myself ! The husband of the dogs family is a hunter himself , so I can not understand how he can let this anti-hunting ordinance come up without speaking out. There are at least a couple of Readington police officers who bowhunt ,I wonder how they feel about this.

 

The dog should have been on a leash , but she claims that she was walking the animal on her own property when it bolted after deer . The general public will side with her for sure, but it should be brought up. I will try to attend the next meeting , I am not a resident ,but I am a taxpayer in that township. Hopefully that will at least count for something !

 

The more hunters we can get to that meeting , the more chance of overturning this knee-jerk ordinance we have! Please come out because what happens in Readington could become set a precedent throughout this lame state .

 

One more note - the polls are still open, if you did not vote yet get to it, as the Governors election could hurt us way more than the Readington proposed ordinance !

[Pathman]

Oh cmon HH, none of those accounts is even in the same ball patrk as to what we are talking about! I said show me one case where a parent was prosecuted because they let their kids play out in the street with other kids in the neighborhood, you did not meet your burden of proof counselor! But that’s another discussion altogether.

[hunterdan199]

If lazy owner had her dog on a leash this never would have happened

[Haskell_Hunter]

Oh cmon HH, none of those accounts is even in the same ball patrk as to what we are talking about! I said show me one case where a parent was prosecuted because they let their kids play out in the street with other kids in the neighborhood, you did not meet your burden of proof counselor! But that’s another discussion altogether.

 

Okay, okay, I can't find a narrow and specific case, but I got pretty darn close.

 

Last log on this fire...listen to at least the first couple of minutes of this.  They discuss something that happened in New Jersey.  Did you know this state has a "child abuse registry" similar to the sex offender registry?

 

[Cyanide02Z06]

I am not a resident of Readington Twsp. , but I do own a piece of property there and I do hunt it. I guess since my property is just over eight acres this ordinance will not have an effect on my hunting there. I see the six acre rule as being arbitrary as like Dan stated an unleashed dog can certainly cover more than six acres . What is to keep the pols from increasing this acreage amount in the future ? We in the hunting community have to fight this hard as this could be only the beginning ! 

 

I would also state that this guy was a POS for shooting the dog. No way do I believe he thought a nearly white dog with a collar was a coyote ! He shot the dog in anger because it was ruining his hunt. When crossbows were made legal for the entire archery season it let a bunch of less commited people into the woods. I certainly do not think all crossbow hunters are like this as I use one under certain circumstances myself ! The husband of the dogs family is a hunter himself , so I can not understand how he can let this anti-hunting ordinance come up without speaking out. There are at least a couple of Readington police officers who bowhunt ,I wonder how they feel about this.

 

The dog should have been on a leash , but she claims that she was walking the animal on her own property when it bolted after deer . The general public will side with her for sure, but it should be brought up. I will try to attend the next meeting , I am not a resident ,but I am a taxpayer in that township. Hopefully that will at least count for something !

 

The more hunters we can get to that meeting , the more chance of overturning this knee-jerk ordinance we have! Please come out because what happens in Readington could become set a precedent throughout this lame state .

 

One more note - the polls are still open, if you did not vote yet get to it, as the Governors election could hurt us way more than the Readington proposed ordinance !

Yes, please come support us!

[Cyanide02Z06]

I've been racking my brain trying to find some kind of legal precedence regarding this to no avail.  I was flipping through the digest last night and came across page 28 which specifically notes the Landowner Liability Act section which reads:

 

(Excerpted from N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-2 et seq.) a. An owner…of a premises, whether or not posted and whether or not improved or maintained in a natural condition, or used as part of a commercial enterprise, owes no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for sport and recreational activities, or to give warning of any hazardous condition of the land or in connection with the use of any structure or by reason of any activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes; b. An owner of a premises who gives permission to another to enter upon such premises for a sport or recreational activity or purpose does not thereby (1) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose, or (2) constitute the person to whom permission is granted an invitee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of persons to whom the permission is granted. Note: A landowner’s liability changes if a fee is charged (or other consideration) or if there is a “willful or malicious failure” to warn of a dangerous condition on the property.

 

The full text can be read here:  http://www.teamhammer.org/Worksheets/LandownerLiabilityActNJ.pdf

 

Please note the definition specifically defines hunting as a "sport or recreational activity". 

 

I'm not a lawyer but doesn't this contradict the town's proposed ordinance?

[BenedictGomez]

 The husband of the dogs family is a hunter himself , so I can not understand how he can let this anti-hunting ordinance come up without speaking out.

 

Speaking out?    They're the ones who WANT this. 

 

  The "family" had anti-hunting zealot Senator Ray Lesniak over at their house last week, and they're looking to make the Readington ordinance the law for THE ENTIRE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

 

Thus, for all the selfish, non big picture, "this wont effect me so I dont care" crowd out there, YES, this WILL effect you (eventually) if you don't fight it now.   Democrat Governor.  Democrat Senate.  Democrat House/Assembly.

[BenedictGomez]

 

Last log on this fire...listen to at least the first couple of minutes of this.  They discuss something that happened in New Jersey.  Did you know this state has a "child abuse registry" similar to the sex offender registry?

 

 

Honestly, as respectfully as possible -  Can you and others please stop littering this thread with 100% extraneous content?   

 

This is supposed to be an advocacy & get the word out thread about something that is potentially going to negatively effect everyone who posts here, it's not a theoretical armchair non-licensed pretend lawyer spam thread.

Edited November 8, 2017 by BenedictGomez

[dlist777]

I've been racking my brain trying to find some kind of legal precedence regarding this to no avail.  I was flipping through the digest last night and came across page 28 which specifically notes the Landowner Liability Act section which reads:

 

(Excerpted from N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-2 et seq.) a. An owner…of a premises, whether or not posted and whether or not improved or maintained in a natural condition, or used as part of a commercial enterprise, owes no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for sport and recreational activities, or to give warning of any hazardous condition of the land or in connection with the use of any structure or by reason of any activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes; b. An owner of a premises who gives permission to another to enter upon such premises for a sport or recreational activity or purpose does not thereby (1) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose, or (2) constitute the person to whom permission is granted an invitee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of persons to whom the permission is granted. Note: A landowner’s liability changes if a fee is charged (or other consideration) or if there is a “willful or malicious failure” to warn of a dangerous condition on the property.

 

The full text can be read here:  http://www.teamhammer.org/Worksheets/LandownerLiabilityActNJ.pdf

 

Please note the definition specifically defines hunting as a "sport or recreational activity". 

 

I'm not a lawyer but doesn't this contradict the town's proposed ordinance?

I think it is a good point that should be raised.  Specifically, I believe their proposal creates a duty to "give warning of any hazardous condition of the land or in connection with the use of any structure or by reason of any activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes".  

 

I'm sure some lawyer could argue those two are not contradictory some way....but it appears to be contradictory and may at least slow this process down.  You should definitely bring it up.  

[Axiom]

I hope U guys voted in favor of the Library thingy.. Soon, sitting in a building full of books with a bunch of 4 eyed libtards with no life other than reading and voting for other Libtards  will be the only legal thing to do in NJ...      

[Haskell_Hunter]

I've been racking my brain trying to find some kind of legal precedence regarding this to no avail.  I was flipping through the digest last night and came across page 28 which specifically notes the Landowner Liability Act section which reads:

 

(Excerpted from N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-2 et seq.) a. An owner…of a premises, whether or not posted and whether or not improved or maintained in a natural condition, or used as part of a commercial enterprise, owes no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for sport and recreational activities, or to give warning of any hazardous condition of the land or in connection with the use of any structure or by reason of any activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes; b. An owner of a premises who gives permission to another to enter upon such premises for a sport or recreational activity or purpose does not thereby (1) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose, or (2) constitute the person to whom permission is granted an invitee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of persons to whom the permission is granted. Note: A landowner’s liability changes if a fee is charged (or other consideration) or if there is a “willful or malicious failure” to warn of a dangerous condition on the property.

 

The full text can be read here:  http://www.teamhammer.org/Worksheets/LandownerLiabilityActNJ.pdf

 

Please note the definition specifically defines hunting as a "sport or recreational activity". 

 

I'm not a lawyer but doesn't this contradict the town's proposed ordinance?

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

What the act does is remove landowner liability for people engaged in recreational activities.  It is to provide some immunity to civil torts (lawsuits, think "slip and fall") for the landowner.  As an example, if you are hunting on a lease and fall down a hole, the landowner isn't liable for your injuries.

 

What the town is trying to do is create a safety ordinance.  The two do not contradict one another.

 

My guess is that regardless of who shows up at the town meeting and whatever happens, the town is probably already set in its ways and will vote to approve the ordinance.  The only way to then get the ordnance removed is for a landowner in that township to sue the town over the ordinance.  The argument would be that the ordinance is an undue burden on the landowner that prevents them from engaging in a legal activity defined under state laws.  Because of this burden on the landowner, the ordinance is the equivalent of a hunting ban, meaning it would supersede state laws, which it can't.

 

Other points of argument:  If I send one letter out to my neighbors on January 1, 2018 notifying them that I will be hunting in 2018, does that meet the burdens of the ordinance?  Do I have to do it every time I want to go hunting?  If it's the latter, it's an undue burden.  Does notification give your neighbors the right to prevent you from engaging in a lawful activity?  That would not conform to state hunting laws as no neighbor has the right to prevent you from engaging legal activities on your private property.

 

The other thing I would look at are discharge ordinances.  Lots of NJ towns have them, but hunting in those towns is legal because state law cannot be changed by local ordinances.  Those laws are to prevent people like me from shooting trap and skeet off of their back porches.

 

The ordinance will pass, but it will fall apart with its first legal challenge.  More than likely that's how this is going to pan out.

 

Edit:  With further research it seems that ordinances can make existing laws more strict.  There hasn't been any legal challenges to local no discharge ordinances when someone is convicted of violating them while hunting, so they still stand.  But from what I understand, if an ordinance says you can't hunt within 1500 feet of a building, that may be permissible since it makes the existing law more strict and is only applicable to the locality where the ordinance is in effect.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Haskell_Hunter

[Cyanide02Z06]

The Township committee has decided to postpone addressing this new ordinance until the new year and new committee members are sworn in. So nothing will be heard tonight. I will keep everybody posted once this gets back on the agenda. Hopefully the new committee members have more common sense than the two departing. Thank you.

[NJSFSC]

The Township committee has decided to postpone addressing this new ordinance until the new year and new committee members are sworn in. So nothing will be heard tonight. I will keep everybody posted once this gets back on the agenda. Hopefully the new committee members have more common sense than the two departing. Thank you.

Great job to all those working in front, and behind, the scene. This type of nonsense will soon be the new norm....