Bill > A3482

Introduced Session

This bill, to be known as the "Better Care Dog Act," would provide for the Department of Health, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, to establish a uniform Statewide system, which provides leashing and fencing requirements designed to restrain the movement of free-roaming dogs, and it would require all municipalities in the State to adopt ordinances consistent with this Statewide system. The bill would also clarify that certain special requirements that are applicable, under existing State law, to the owners of potentially dangerous dogs are also applicable to the owners of vicious dogs that have not been ordered to be euthanized. Finally, the bill would establish new criminal offenses and penalties for dog owners whose unrestrained dog attacks, injures, or kills another person, as well as civil penalties for dog owners who fail to restrain their dogs when those dogs are off the owner's property. Specifically, the bill would provide that, whenever a dog is off the property of its owner, the dog will be required to be on a leash or otherwise controlled with another appropriate restraint unless the owner is exempt from this requirement, as provided by the bill or by any other rule, regulation, ordinance, or resolution adopted by the State or a municipality pursuant thereto. The bill would expressly exempt, from its leashing requirements, any working or hunting dog while the dog is engaged in agricultural work or hunting activities. If a dog owner is found, by clear and convincing evidence, to have allowed a dog to be unrestrained while off the owner's property, or to have violated any similar provision of a municipal ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation concerning dog leashing or restraints, the owner would be subject to a fine of $100 for the first violation, $250 for the second violation, and $500 for the third and any subsequent violation, regardless of whether the unrestrained dog attacked or caused bodily injury to a person. Whenever an unrestrained dog, while off the property of the owner, attacks a person without causing bodily injury, the municipality would additionally be required to issue a warning notice to the dog owner indicating that, in addition to any applicable fines imposed for failing to restrain the dog, the owner may also be required to comply with fencing requirements to control the dog, in the discretion of the enforcing authority, in the event that the dog is again found unrestrained and off the property of the owner after the issuance of the warning notice. The bill would further provide that, upon the third time a dog is found unrestrained and off the owner's property, or, in the discretion of the municipality, the first time that the dog is found unrestrained and off the owner's property following the issuance of a warning notice for the dog, as described above, and provided that the unrestrained dog has not attacked or caused bodily injury to another person, the municipality will be required to order the owner to comply with the fencing requirements established pursuant to the bill, including any specifications for the installation of such fencing, in accordance with a compliance schedule established by the municipality. If a dog owner is found, by clear and convincing evidence, to have violated a municipal fencing order or compliance schedule, the owner would be subject to a fine of $200 per day of the violation, with each day's continuance of the violation constituting a separate and distinct offense. The municipality would additionally be required to revoke any registration previously issued for the dog. The bill's warning and fencing requirements would not apply in any case where: (1) the dog, while unrestrained and off the owner's property, kills a person, causes serious bodily injury to a person, or both causes bodily injury to a person during an unprovoked attack and poses a serious threat of harm to other persons or domestic animals, in which case, the dog and the dog's owner would be subject to the applicable provisions of the State's criminal code and vicious and potentially dangerous dogs act; (2) the dog owner is a resident of a condominium, townhouse, apartment, or other rental property where the installation of fencing is impractical, or the owner is otherwise exempt from fencing requirements established pursuant to the bill, in which case, the municipality is to require the owner to pay a fine for the failure to restrain the dog, in the amount described above, and may additionally require the owner to comply with alternative enclosure requirements, to the extent that such alternative enclosures are authorized by ordinance, rule, regulation, or resolution of the municipality; or (3) a person, other than the owner, intentionally removed the dog from the owner's property, such as by walking the dog beyond the boundaries of the owner's property, taking the dog to a park or other public open space, or taking the dog to the property of another person who is not the owner, and the dog, while unrestrained and off the owner's property, attacked a person without causing bodily injury, in which case, the municipality is to require the owner to pay a fine for failure to restrain the dog, in the amount described above, but may not require the owner to comply with fencing or alternative enclosure requirements. The municipal court would have jurisdiction to enforce the bill's provisions, in this regard, and to impose the fines described above. Any fines collected pursuant to the bill are to be paid to the municipality in which the violation occurred. The bill requires the Department of Health, in consultation with the New Jersey Certified Animal Control Officers Association, the League of Municipalities, and the New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association, to adopt rules and regulations, within 180 days after the bill's effective date, to implement the bill's provisions related to the leashing and fencing of dogs. Those rules and regulations are to: (1) establish standards and requirements, consistent with the bill's provisions, governing the leashing or other restraint of a dog when it is off the property of its owner; (2) identify the circumstances or areas of the State in which a dog owner will be exempt from the bill's leashing requirements, including, but not limited to, exemptions authorizing a dog to be unrestrained while exercising in a dog park; (3) establish standards and requirements for fencing, which would apply when the fencing of a dog is required pursuant to the bill. These standards and requirements would, at a minimum: address the appropriate height and other dimensions of the fencing; establish exemptions from fencing requirements; and identify acceptable alternative enclosure options, if any, that may be used by residents of condominiums, townhouses, apartments, and other rental properties where the installation of fencing is impractical and by other dog owners who are exempt from fencing requirements established under the bill; and (4) establish any other requirements for the control and regulation of the free movement of dogs, as deemed by the department to be appropriate, reasonable, and necessary for the public health and safety. In order to facilitate the enactment, across the State, of uniform municipal ordinances addressing the leashing and fencing of free-roaming dogs, the department would be required to adopt model ordinances, incorporating the leashing and fencing standards and requirements adopted by the department, which ordinances may then be adopted by municipalities pursuant to the bill. The bill would require each municipality, within 180 days after the department publishes its rules and regulations, to: adopt an ordinance, resolution, or regulation that, at a minimum, incorporates the standards and requirements established by the department and provides for the municipal enforcement of the leashing and fencing provisions of the bill; and establish a dedicated fund to finance the municipal enforcement of the bill, which fund is to be separate from the other funds of the municipality. The municipality would be authorized to allocate to, and deposit in, the fund, moneys obtained from dog licenses and other related fees, as well as monetary penalties collected pursuant to the bill. Moneys in the dedicated fund may be used for the following purposes only: (1) to facilitate the enforcement of any standard, requirement, law, ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation adopted by the State or municipality in relation to vicious dogs, potentially dangerous dogs, or other dogs registered in the municipality; (2) to publicize the provisions of the bill and the rules, regulations, ordinances, or resolutions adopted thereunder; (3) to publicize the telephone number, established pursuant to the bill's provisions, that can be used by members of the public to report violations of the State's vicious and potentially dangerous dogs act and the "Better Care Dog Act"; (4) to post signage related to vicious dogs, potentially dangerous dogs, or other dogs registered in the municipality; (5) to provide free or discounted leashes, collars, and other dog restraints to dog owners who would otherwise be unable to afford such restraints; and (6) to cover any other municipal expense incurred pursuant to this bill. In addition to providing for the establishment of a uniform, Statewide dog leashing and fencing system, the bill would establish the following new criminal offenses for dog owners whose unrestrained dog attacks or injures another person while off the property of the owner: (1) Simple assault, as a crime of the fourth degree, when a person purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly allows a dog owned thereby to be unrestrained in a residential neighborhood, park, or other publicly accessible open space, or purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly fails to comply with requirements imposed by a court, pursuant to P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-17 et seq.), in association with the person's ownership of a potentially dangerous dog or vicious dog, and the dog, as a result of the owner's actions, attacks and causes bodily injury to another person; (2) Aggravated assault, as a crime of the third degree, when a person purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly allows a dog owned thereby to be unrestrained in a residential neighborhood, park, or other publicly accessible open space, or purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly fails to comply with requirements imposed by a court, pursuant to P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-17 et seq.), in association with the person's ownership of a potentially dangerous dog or vicious dog, and the dog, as a result of the owner's actions, attacks and causes serious bodily injury to another person; (3) Criminal homicide via death by dog, when a person purposely, knowingly, or recklessly allows a dog owned thereby to be unrestrained in a residential neighborhood, park, or other publicly accessible open space, and the unrestrained dog kills another person in an unprovoked attack; (4) Endangering the welfare of a child, as a crime of the second degree, when a person purposely, knowingly, or recklessly allows a dog owned thereby to be unrestrained while in a residential neighborhood, park, or other publicly accessible open space in which a child may be present, and the dog, while unrestrained, kills a child; (5) Endangering the welfare of a child, as a crime of the third degree, when a person purposely, knowingly, or recklessly allows a dog owned thereby to be unrestrained while in a residential neighborhood, park, or other publicly accessible open space in which a child may be present, and the dog, while unrestrained, causes serious bodily injury to a child; (6) Endangering the welfare of a child, as a crime of the fourth degree, when a person purposely, knowingly, or recklessly allows a dog owned thereby to be unrestrained while in a residential neighborhood, park, or other publicly accessible open space in which a child may be present, and the dog, while unrestrained, causes bodily injury to a child; and (7) Endangering the welfare of a child, as a disorderly persons offense, when a person purposely, knowingly, or recklessly allows a dog owned thereby to be unrestrained while in a residential neighborhood, park, or other publicly accessible open space in which a child may be present, and the dog, while unrestrained, attacks a child without causing bodily injury. The bill would further provide that, in any prosecution undertaken pursuant to the bill's provisions, it will be an affirmative defense that the dog: (1) was provoked into attacking the victim; (2) was defending or protecting itself or its offspring from injury or attack; or (3) was defending or protecting its owner from injury or attack, provided that the owner was not, at the time, engaged in a criminal offense. The bill would also amend the State law pertaining to potentially dangerous and vicious dogs, in order to clarify that the law's special registration and licensure requirements and enhanced dog care restrictions are equally applicable both to potentially dangerous dogs and to vicious dogs that have not been ordered euthanized. Finally, the bill would provide that, whenever a person registers or licenses a dog with a municipality, the municipal clerk or other official issuing the license will be required to provide the person with notice of: the new criminal offenses established by the bill; the provisions of the State's vicious and potentially dangerous dogs act; the provisions of sections 4 of this bill, pertaining to dog leashing and fencing; and any other provisions, adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation of the State or municipality, that govern the leashing, restraint, or movement of dogs. The provisions of the bill requiring the Department of Health to adopt rules and regulations to implement the new, uniform dog leashing and fencing system, and the provisions of the bill requiring each municipality in the State to adopt ordinances, regulations, or resolutions consistent with that uniform Statewide system, would each become effective immediately upon the bill's enactment. In order to provide the department and each municipality with enough time to complete the regulatory action needed to effectively implement the bill, the remaining provisions of the bill would remain inoperable until the first day of the first year next following the date of enactment.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Yvonne Lopez (D)*, 

Introduced, Referred to Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee (on 01/13/2026)

Official Document