Background

Banning Pig Gestation Crates with Bill, S1298/A1970 would establish that confinement of a pig or cow a disorderly persons offense. Cruel confinement is defined as tethering, confining, or creating a gestating sow in a manner that prevents her from turning around freely, laying down, standing up, or fully extending their limbs.

READ THE BILL >>

Why Advocate

Animal cruelty has no place in a civilized society, but sadly it is still legal in New Jersey to confine a mother pig and veal calf in a crate so small they are unable to stand up, turn around, and take more than one step forward or backward. The Coalition to Ban the Crates proudly supports legislation (A1970/S1298) to ban the cruel confinement of mother pigs in gestation crates and newborn calves in veal crates. Similar legislation to outlaw gestation crates in prior sessions passed not once, but twice, overwhelmingly, only to be vetoed by then-Governor Christie, despite bipartisan backing by our state’s residents and lawmakers. Polling has shown that 93% of New Jersey voters support a ban on the extreme confinement of mother pigs. Ensuring that the cruel confinement of pigs and calves is prohibited in New Jersey is a matter of animal cruelty prevention, and also a proactive step in safeguarding public health and reflecting our state’s values.

Background

S2211/A1965 would establish an animal advocate program in the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). This bill would establish a two-year statewide animal advocate program. As part of this program, in any criminal court proceeding that affects the welfare or care of an animal, the court may order that a separate advocate be appointed to represent the best interests of the animal. The advocate will be chosen from a list of pro-bono attorneys with knowledge of animal issues and the legal system and a list of law schools that have students with an interest in animal issues and the legal system. Law students will be able to act as advocates in the court cases with the supervision and guidance from their professors.

READ THE BILL >>

Why Advocate

There is a clear and distinct intersection between animal abuse and co-occurring human abuse. Those who are cruel to animals are over five times as likely to commit cruelty against humans; one study found that sixty-five percent of those arrested for cruelty to animals had also been charged with other offenses; and the Federal Bureau of Investigation tracks acts of animal cruelty because of the distinct risks of such abusers. Animal cruelty crimes often fall through cracks in the justice system. Giving more proper intentional attention to these cases by providing the animals with representation would allow for the court to deliver justice for these animals. We already have the existing structure within the court system to implement this program, so it would require no additional funding.

Background

S981/A2354, The Cost of Care legislation proposed is concerned with allowing law enforcement officers to interfere in cases of animal cruelty and requiring lawfully seized animals’ owners to either pay for their care or relinquish their rights. The legislation shifts the responsibility of paying for a lawfully seized animal’s care onto its owner, the alleged abuser, rather than allowing the debilitating costs of housing these animals while the courts come to a decision to overwhelm local shelters or deplete allocated taxpayer dollars. Should said owner choose not to relinquish their rights to the seized animal, they would be required to pay for the animal to be housed, fed, and cared for until the court proclaims them guilty, in which case they would lose the animal, or not guilty, in which case they would be given their animal and reimbursed by the shelter for all reasonable costs of care.

READ THE BILL >>

Why Advocate

Animals seized from abusive or neglectful circumstances by law enforcement officers remain the property of the person they were rescued from until said owner chooses to relinquish their rights or the courts do it for them. Depending on the case, this process can drag on for months to years and, in that time, the animal cannot be rehomed or returned to their owner until the courts reach a decision. This results in animals being stuck in shelters in a legal limbo that negatively impacts the animals who could otherwise be rehomed, burdens the budgets of animal shelters, and limits the resources available for law enforcement officers to remove other animals from unsafe homes. Placing the responsibility to pay for the animal’s care on the owner will help alleviate the financial burden of housing seized animals and make it possible for more rescues to occur.

Background

We are working with individual municipalities across NJ and the legislature to allow the opportunity to implement humane deer management methods. Rather than relying on lethal methods to reduce the deer population, wildlife professionals would control the population through sterilization of female deer. First the doe is tranquilized with a dart. The doe would then be transported to a temporary surgical sterilization site where a veterinarian would perform a rapid ovariectomy, administer antibiotics, and return it back to where it was darted. For maximum success, the program relies on monitoring the population to make sure that the proper ratio of sterilized deer is reached within herds. The cost of the program is shown to decrease within the first few years of implementation.

READ ABOUT EFFECTIVE DEER STERILIZATION >>

READ ABOUT THE CLIFTON DEER PROJECT >>

Why Advocate

For too long, we have been relying on only lethal methods to control deer populations while not considering other long term solutions. In residential communities, lethal deer management strategies have become concerning for safety and ethical reasons. Deer fertility control programs not only offer a safe and humane alternative, but result in long term solutions to deer overpopulation- something that lethal methods have not done. We should invest in non-lethal programs to keep our communities safe and treat our wildlife with respect.

Background

There are many opinions regarding the bear hunt, but it is undeniably a trophy hunt. Hunters justify the killing of bears as a necessary means of population control. Many of them believe that the bear population has grown too large this past decade, and that hunting is the only way to decrease human-bear conflict. Scientists on the other hand disagree, questioning the state’s methods used to quantify the population, and referencing recent studies showing no relationship between hunting and the reduction of human-bear conflict.

Petitioners are calling on the state Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Game Council to oppose reinstating rules permitting black bear hunting along with the corresponding Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy.

Why Advocate

Bear hunts do not reduce human-bear conflict, and are no more than trophy hunts, spilling blood of innocent creatures for pleasure. As it stands, the proposed bear hunt also fails to meet the requirements set by the New Jersey Supreme Court to keep NJ’s neighborhoods safe from disease. Hunting creates an increase in opportunity for animal–human interactions and can even be attributed to facilitating zoonotic disease transmission. The widely used practice of bating promotes bears to congregate at designated locations, raising the risk of disease introduction, and spillover into other wildlife species, domestic livestock, and humans. Baiting related diseases like Bovine Tuberculosis and Chronic Wasting Disease, have cost affected states hundreds of millions of dollars in direct costs over the past decade. It is possible to live in harmony and co-exist peacefully with bears, and that calls for more effective trash management, and bear-smart policies, not more killing.

Background

Banning killing contests with bill S2409/A502 would put an end to the senseless killing and torment of New Jersey wildlife. This legislation would prohibit competitive events, often referred to as derbies or tournaments, wherein hunters compete to kill the most or largest wild animals to win prizes. The bill would make organizing and participating in these events unlawful, and anyone who violates the prohibition would be guilty of a disorderly persons offense and a suspension of licenses or permits issued by the Division of Fish and Wildlife along with privileges to take or possess wildlife.

READ THE BILL >>

Why Advocate

Killing contests represent the worst humankind has to offer, and they happen far more often than many realize. Killing senseless amounts of animals for enjoyment is both ethically wrong and ecologically irresponsible. These events normalize an astounding degree of violence. Organizers and participants perpetuate the myth that killing predators such as coyotes and foxes protects livestock and game species; however, this belief is not based on scientific evidence. Rather, scientists warn that the indiscriminate mass killing of predator species can lead to detrimental ecological effects. These killing contests are inhumane and needlessly cruel. They must be stopped.

Background

The effort to ban puppy mills is a push to revise the “Pet Purchase Protection Act,” signed into law in 2015, to prohibit the retail sale of animals from puppy mills. Legislation would require pet stores to disclose the origins of the dogs and cats they sell, and would bar animal rescue organizations, shelters and pounds from obtaining cats or dogs from breeders or brokers in exchange for payment or compensation. In 2016 Assembly Democrats Joe Lagana and Nancy Pinkin introduced a bill (A3645) that would prohibit pet shops in New Jersey from selling dogs obtained from puppy mills. A bill has been introduced in the past to address this issue, so it should be introduced again. We are asking the NJ legislature to put an end to the inhumane treatment of animals by adopting policies that better monitor and restrict the sources of cats and dogs sold by pet dealers in New Jersey.

Why Advocate

Puppy Mills are large-scale commercial establishments that breed dogs to sell typically on an intensive basis and in inhumane conditions. Dogs and cats are bred in conditions that maximize profit without consideration of the wellbeing of the animals, often producing dogs and cats with hereditary defects. These animals are then sold at pet stores, afflicted with serious psychological or health problems. Some of the many illnesses include zoonotic diseases which can be spread to other pets and humans. Many of these animals end up homeless or euthanized because of health issues, much like the fate of the animals which weren’t sold. Banning Puppy Mills will significantly reduce the amount of sick, homeless, and euthanized dogs/cats in NJ.

Background

The Compassion for Community Cats Bill, S179/A2275 would help municipalities in New Jersey to carry out humane, cost-effective, and efficient solutions to curb cat diseases and overpopulation. Trap-neuter-vaccinate-return, also known as TNVR, is a safe, effective solution that we can all agree upon. This revenue-neutral bill would also help New Jersey's residents who are caring for community cats through the Animal Population Control Fund.

READ THE BILL >>

Why Advocate

This bill would save thousands of cats from needless, expensive euthanasia which has not ever worked to reduce community cat populations long-term. More than 80% of all animals euthanized in NJ’s animal shelters in 2018 were cats. Municipalities wouldn't have a 'cat problem' if they implemented TNVR. Diseases carried by community cats, such as intestinal parasites, rabies, flea-borne typhus, and toxoplasmosis are no longer problems with vaccination as included in the bill. Furthermore, municipalities would be saving tax dollars by investing in low cost TNVR programs compared to higher euthanasia costs.

Background

The “Kangaroos Protection Act”, would end New Jersey's support of kangaroo culls in Australia by eliminating our market for kangaroo goods. The bill would prohibit the sale of kangaroo meat and any product made in whole or in part from a kangaroo. It would also make it illegal to advertise the sale of any of these products. Anyone who violates these provisions would be subject to fines and jail time. This legislation would affect very few New Jersey businesses; however, it could mean the difference between life and death for the innocent kangaroos being needlessly hunted in Australia.

READ THE BILL >>

Why Advocate

Every year 2 million kangaroos are killed by commercial shooters in Australia. This is the largest commercial slaughter of land-based wildlife, and our state indirectly finances it by allowing for the import and sale of kangaroo parts and products. The largest market for these products is shoes; however, companies that use kangaroo skin in their footwear can easily replace the material with synthetic leathers or other non-animal fabrics. It is unethical to continue supporting the mass killing of kangaroos. By banning the sale of kangaroo meats and skins, we reduce the market for these products and thus the demand. Passing this legislation would allow us to do our part to end kangaroo culls in Australia. We must take action for these innocent animals.

Overview

The ban on cosmetic testing on animals bill, S1726/A795, was signed into law on November 8, 2021 by Governor Murphy. The law strengthens New Jersey’s stance on animal testing for cosmetic products. Now, no cosmetic products are permitted for sale in NJ which have been tested on animals, regardless of if testing occurred outside of New Jersey.

Animals used in cosmetic testing spend their lives scared and in pain. They suffer in silence as substances are poured in their eyes, forced down their throats, and rubbed on their skin only to be killed and discarded when they are no longer useful. This process is not only cruel and inhumane, but also unnecessary. Cosmetic companies have thousands of ingredients that require no testing at their disposal. They can also use humane testing methods such as advanced computer models and human-cell based testing which are more reliable and less expensive.

READ THE PRESS RELEASE >>

Background

On January 9, 2020, Governor Murphy signed into law the ban of shark finning, which prohibits certain possession, trade, distribution, or sale of shark fins in New Jersey. The law’s prohibitions don’t apply to lawfully obtained shark fins used for scientific research or educational purposes. The law allows commercial and recreational fishermen to possess shark fins only if they were obtained lawfully in a manner consistent with the fisherman’s license or permit. Anyone found in violation of this law will face penalties including fines, and possible revocation of their fishing license. Approximately 100 million sharks are killed globally each year which leads to a ripple effect in their respective ecosystems. Due to their slow growth and low reproductive rates, some species of sharks are knocking on death’s final door.

READ MORE >>