New Jersey
Protection Dogs
A New Jersey household that wants a bite-trained dog meets a state bite statute that ignores the dog’s record, a dangerous-dog process rewritten in 2019 and town codes that disagree with one another, and a dog from Texas may also meet a state quarantine order. Our home base is North Texas, and a family receives its dog from us in person. Every point links to its text, and the time-sensitive ones carry the day we read them.
Protection Dogs For Sale In New Jersey:
Three Layers Of Rules And One Quarantine Order
The first layer is the bite statute, N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, which makes the owner liable for a bite “regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.” The second is the dangerous-dog process, run by a municipal court and rewritten by P.L. 2019, c. 82. The third is the town: Woodbridge, Mahwah, Millburn and Saddle River, the places whose own documents we could read, each say something different about dogs.
Two things stand out for a buyer of a trained dog. The 2019 amendment removed the ground that let a court call a dog potentially dangerous because it had been “trained” to engage in unprovoked attacks, so on our reading the state test now looks at conduct. And a dog starting in a state with a New World screwworm zone needs paperwork, and possibly a treatment, that dogs from other states do not; on the sources we read on 14 October 2026, that includes Texas.
We bring each dog ourselves and train your household in the home where it will live. The two programs are a fully trained protection dog and Build Your Own Pup; the rules below turn on conduct and paperwork, not on the program. Read it as a trainer’s summary of public documents, not as advice from a lawyer or an insurer. New York City’s guard-dog registration is on our New York page, and Texas’s bite law is in our Texas guide.
N.J.S.A. 4:19-16:
The Dog’s Training Is Not An Element
Model Civil Jury Charge 5.60A, revised in October 2022, tells a jury a plaintiff must prove three things: the defendant owned the dog, the plaintiff was in a public place or “lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the defendant,” and the dog bit the plaintiff there. Training is not on the list.
In A Public Place, Or Lawfully On Private Ground
“upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner thereof”
A person doing a duty the law imposes, including under postal regulations, is also lawfully there, and the charge tells jurors that anyone “expressly or impliedly permitted” on the property is protected. How far an implied invitation reaches is a question for a New Jersey attorney.
No Broken Skin Required
“no explicit requirement in N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 that the injury result in broken skin”
The charge’s summary of DeVivo v. Anderson, a 2009 trial-court ruling, not a Supreme Court one: the elements are ownership, a lawful place and a bite.
Fault Can Still Be Shared
“the Legislature did not intend to abolish the defense of contributory negligence”
The charge quotes that line from Foy v. Dayko. Under Goldhagen the Comparative Negligence Act applies to the statutory claim, and a plaintiff found fifty-one percent or more at fault recovers nothing.
Groomers And Kennel Staff Can Sue
“strict liability standard applies to the claim of an independent contractor who agrees to care for a dog”
In Goldhagen a groomer and kennel assistant was bitten at the facility boarding the owner’s dog. The Court found no contractor exception, but said being “a professional experienced in the care of dogs” bears on how fault is divided.
Goldhagen v. Pasmowitz matters to anyone who will pay someone to handle the dog. The charge’s footnote on it lists “warnings provided” among the factors in a comparative-negligence defense against such a plaintiff, so, in our reading, tell any groomer, boarder or trainer in writing what the dog is.
The statute’s words name two settings, a public place and lawful presence on private ground. The charge’s third footnote says a court may need to add instructions on “the duty, under ordinary negligence theories, of the owner of premises to invitees, licensees, infant trespassers, and other trespassers,” so a victim who was not lawfully there raises a separate question, for a New Jersey attorney rather than for us.
P.L. 2019, c. 82:
“Trained” Left The Dangerous-Dog Test
Until May 2019 a municipal court had three grounds for declaring a dog potentially dangerous, and the third looked at upbringing. The bill’s first reprint shows it struck out, and the chapter law, approved 7 May 2019 and effective at once, records it as “Deleted by amendment.” We read the act as enacted; later changes to chapter 19 would not appear in it.
What The Old Text Allowed
“has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited, or encouraged to engage in unprovoked attacks upon persons or domestic animals”
The first reprint of S1923 shows this as the third ground on which a municipal court could call a dog potentially dangerous, printed in brackets as text to come out. On its face that ground has no injury element: it asks how the dog was brought up.
What The Act Says Now
“(3) (Deleted by amendment, P.L.2019, c.82).”
The ground that remains for an injured person is a dog that “caused bodily injury to a person during an unprovoked attack” and “poses a serious threat of serious bodily injury or death to a person.” The vicious-dog ground is now only a dog that “killed a person or caused serious bodily injury,” its dog-fighting ground having been deleted too.
Who Carries The Burden
“The municipality shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the dog was not provoked.”
Provocation is an exemption in both sections, and the town, not the owner, has to disprove it. Both findings require clear and convincing evidence.
Crimes On The Property
“committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner”
No potentially dangerous finding for bodily injury to such a person. The same paragraph exempts a person committing an offense “upon the owner or person with custody or control of the dog,” and the next exempts one abusing, assaulting or physically threatening the dog.
Our reading, as a trainer and not a court: training is gone as a ground, but nothing in the act exempts a trained dog, and the remaining test applies to every dog alike. A bite that fits a listed exemption, such as a provoked dog or a person committing an offense on the property, falls outside a potentially dangerous finding; a courier or a neighbor going about their business fits none of the listed exemptions. Whether an incident fits an exemption is for the court and your attorney. Woodbridge still keys its local rule to training, as the town section shows.
If A Court Finds Against The Dog:
A Fence, A Sign And A Ten-Day Clock
Under the amended text a dog is declared vicious only on clear and convincing evidence that it “killed a person or caused serious bodily injury to a person,” and the court may then order restrictions at least as strict as a potentially dangerous dog’s, or, if no appeal is made of the ruling, euthanasia, “except that no dog may be euthanized during the pendency of an appeal.” The lower label carries the conditions below, which we have from the text a 2020 Senate bill reprinted; we found no sign the bill passed and have not read the codified section, so ask the municipal court clerk for the current wording.
Six Feet Of Fence, Three Feet Of Gap
The reprinted conditions call for a locked enclosure “within a fence of at least six feet in height separated by at least three feet from the confined area.” Outside it, the dog is “securely muzzled and restrained with a tether.”
A Sign Readable From 50 Feet
The owner posts a warning sign, “visible and legible from 50 feet of the enclosure.” The dog is impounded until the owner obtains a municipal license, a registration number and a red tag.
Insurance As The Court Sets It
The court “may require” liability insurance “in an amount determined by the municipal court.” That wording sits among the potentially dangerous conditions; for a dog declared vicious, the court may order restrictions at least as strict, or euthanasia, though never while an appeal is pending.
Ten Days After Any Bite
Apart from any court finding, a local board may order an animal confined for “at least ten days after the animal has attacked or bitten a person,” and a physician who treats a bite must report it within twelve hours. Both apply to any bite, whatever the dog’s training.
A bill, not law. Assembly Bill A3319, pre-filed for 2026, would make it a third-degree crime for a handler to instruct a dog “by verbal command, bodily gesture, or other command to injure a person, cat, or other dog where there is no threat or imminent danger,” with an affirmative defense that “the conduct of the dog was justified.” Its text page read “Introduced Pending Technical Review by Legislative Counsel” on 14 October 2026. We could not confirm its current status, so check before relying on this paragraph.
Same Words, Opposite Reach:
Woodbridge And Mahwah On “Guard Dogs”
The Department of Health page that collects state dog provisions mentions no guard-dog registration. That proves little: it says it features “select provisions,” and we have not read all of Title 4, chapter 19. What we can show is that two townships wrote their own rules, and they disagree about where the rule applies.
Woodbridge Township, Middlesex County
A guard dog is one “trained to attack a person at the command or instruction of a trainer.” Anyone owning or controlling a guard or attack dog “on premises within the Township” registers it with the Director of Health within 72 hours of the dog arriving, for $25, and gets a tag, issued only on proof of rabies vaccination. Signs reading “Warning: Attack or Guard Dog On Premises” go on, over or beside every exterior door and at each driveway, visible from the curb line or 50 feet, whichever is less, and lit at night. Each day without registration or tag is a separate offense. The text has no split between a home and a business.
Mahwah Township, Bergen County
Mahwah requires a clerk’s permit for a dog left alone on nonresidential premises for security, “whether or not professionally trained as a guard dog”; it lasts three years and costs $25 to file. The same chapter defines a vicious dog as one that “attacks and bites or attempts to attack and bite,” unprovoked, and lets a police officer destroy one found at large. “At large” means off the owner’s property and not on a leash, and letting a dog be at large is unlawful unless it is securely confined in a vehicle under close supervision.
Both documents are undated PDFs; the latest ordinance cited in Woodbridge’s § 11-3 is #07-82 and in its whole chapter #13-61, so neither tells us whether a later amendment exists. The difference to carry away, on the face of each text: in Woodbridge the trigger is what a dog is trained to do and nothing excludes a house; in Mahwah the permit concerns a dog left alone on nonresidential premises for security. Whether a particular dog meets either definition is a question for the Woodbridge Health Department or the Mahwah Township Clerk. On its face, Mahwah’s “attempts to attack and bite” wording is also wider than the state tests, which need an injury.
No Off-Leash Exception, Four Dogs To A Lot:
Millburn And Saddle River
Millburn Township, which includes Short Hills. The township’s dog-code brochure says all dogs must be leashed “when out & about in the Township” and that “there is no exception made for dogs ‘trained to walk off-leash.’” Dogs are barred from township parks except a pilot, “Paws On Path,” confined to Taylor Park, with leashes of at most six feet. The brochure was printed in November 2021 and calls the pilot “currently underway,” so ask the township whether it still runs.
Saddle River, Bergen County. The borough’s animal-control page says “Residential lots may not keep more than four dogs,” defines an animal at large as one “off the owner’s or custodian’s premises and not under immediate control,” and cites Chapter 79 for barking that lasts more than 20 continuous minutes between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., or 15 minutes at night. It calls itself a guide, and the Code controls.
Our reading: obedience off the lead earns nothing under Millburn’s rule, so exercise there is planned around a leash held in the walker’s hand. In Saddle River the barking clock gives you a number to hold a seller to: not whether the dog alerts, but whether it settles once the visitor has gone.
Roughly 1,520 To 1,560 Road Miles,
Two Certificates And A Quarantine Order
On 14 October 2026 we asked a public routing engine, OSRM, for the driving distance from downtown Dallas. It returned 1,518 road miles to Princeton, 1,526 to Morristown, 1,539 to Newark, 1,552 to Franklin Lakes and 1,561 to Saddle River, at 27.5 to 28.5 hours of driving time with no stops; these are our numbers from one query, not a published table. At that distance a handover cannot be improvised, and the paperwork windows below are what a date must be built around. We do not ship dogs and we publish no delivery time, so ask any seller, us included, for the schedule before you commit. Our guide to flying with a large dog covers the airline side, and the out-of-state guide the rest of buying at a distance.
A Certificate Within 30 Days
The Department of Health says a dog needs a health certificate signed by a vet licensed in the state of origin, “within 30 days of travel.” The regulation it quotes has the certificate name the breed, sex, age, point of origin and destination, the owner or consignee, and “the consignor or seller.”
A License Within Ten Days
N.J.S.A. 4:19-15.4 sets ten days from acquisition, through the municipality. The Department of Health says dogs seven months or older are licensed by the town where they live, that “current rabies vaccination is a prerequisite,” and that a rabies shot is not specifically required for import itself. The clerk’s office is also the first place to ask about a guard-dog or leash rule.
The screwworm order, as we read it on 14 October 2026. Above those standing rules sits a time-sensitive layer. On 30 June 2026 the Department of Agriculture’s quarantine order began requiring that a domestic animal “originating in a US state or transiting through a US State that contains an infested zone or adjacent surveillance zone” carry a veterinary certificate issued “within 5 days prior to entry into New Jersey,” stating it was “individually and completely inspected by an accredited veterinarian and found free of any wounds or NWS infestation.” Paragraph 2(f) adds that a dog “originating from any place in a US state that contains an infested zone” must be treated by an accredited veterinarian with an authorized systemic product before entry, with product, date and route on the certificate. A first offense carries penalties of at least $1,000 and up to $2,000 per violation. The state’s quick-reference sheet (current as of 29 June) and its 1 July press release say the same, its screwworm page links the order, and the release adds that the confirmed cases in Texas and New Mexico “have involved livestock and canine species.”
Whether Texas counts as a state “that contains” a zone depends on the zones in force. The Texas Animal Health Commission’s current-situation page listed twelve counties with an infested zone on 14 October while also listing release orders dated 10 and 13 October, and does not reconcile the two, so we cannot say what it will show on your delivery date. Our reading is that on those words a dog starting anywhere in Texas that day fell within paragraphs 2(d) and 2(f), since both turn on the state rather than the county, and that the “transiting through” clause makes the route matter too. Confirm the requirement in force with your own veterinarian before delivery is fixed, and ask every seller, us among them, how the inspection, the treatment and the 30-day certificate would be timed against one another and against the five-day window.
North Jersey Winters:
Snow, Ticks And A Winter Coat
The State Climatologist’s office at Rutgers puts annual precipitation at “about 40 inches along the southeast coast to 51 inches in north-central parts of the state,” with snowfall averaging 40 to 50 inches in the northern zone and 10 to 15 in the extreme south: a winter-coat and winter-footing matter, the opposite of our Texas heat guide. Rutgers Extension adds that the lone star tick “is now detected north of Monmouth” and that companion animals are at risk from it.
Buying From Us
And Other States
Buying From Us
Statutes, One Court Decision And The Town Documents We Relied On
The bite statute and the Supreme Court decision come from the New Jersey Courts, the amendment and bills from the Legislature’s files, the township rules from each township, and the entry rules from the Departments of Health and Agriculture. What they mean for a household with a protection dog is our interpretation; take your own questions to a New Jersey attorney, a town office or your veterinarian.
- New Jersey Courts — Model Civil Jury Charge 5.60A, Statutory Owner – Dog Bite Liability (N.J.S.A. 4:19-16), revised October 2022 — the statute as the charge reprints it: the owner of a dog that bites a person on or in a public place, “or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog,” is liable “regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness”; a person is lawful on private property when on it “upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner thereof”; footnote 2, of DeVivo v. Anderson, 410 N.J. Super. 175 (Law Div. 2009), “no explicit requirement in N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 that the injury result in broken skin”; footnote 3, supplementing the charge may need instructions on “the duty, under ordinary negligence theories, of the owner of premises to invitees, licensees, infant trespassers, and other trespassers”; footnote 5, quoting Foy v. Dayko, “the Legislature did not intend to abolish the defense of contributory negligence”; text, “one who beats or torments a dog has no call upon the owner if in self-defense the dog bites back”; footnote 6, of Goldhagen, “experience working with dogs, warnings provided, and plaintiff’s conduct in handling the dog.”
- Goldhagen v. Pasmowitz, A-17-20, 247 N.J. 580 (New Jersey Supreme Court, decided 5 August 2021) — Clerk’s syllabus — a groomer and kennel assistant at a pet-care facility where the owner boarded her dogs was bitten in the face; “The Dog Bite Statute’s strict liability standard applies to the claim of an independent contractor who agrees to care for a dog”; “plaintiff’s status as a professional experienced in the care of dogs is relevant to an allocation of fault”; “If the trier of fact allocates fifty-one percent or more of the fault to the plaintiff, the plaintiff does not recover damages.” The syllabus says it is not part of the Court’s opinion.
- P.L. 2019, c. 82 (S1923 1R), approved 7 May 2019 — vicious and potentially dangerous dogs (amending C.4:19-22 and C.4:19-23) — C.4:19-22(a): “The municipal court shall declare the dog vicious if it finds by clear and convincing evidence” that the dog “killed a person or caused serious bodily injury to a person”; (a)(2), “(Deleted by amendment, P.L.2019, c.82)”; (c)(2), “the dog to be euthanized in a humane and expeditious manner, except that no dog may be euthanized during the pendency of an appeal”; C.4:19-23(a)(1): a dog that “caused bodily injury to a person during an unprovoked attack, and poses a serious threat of serious bodily injury or death to a person”; (a)(3), “(Deleted by amendment, P.L.2019, c.82)”; (b)(3), no finding for bodily injury to a person “committing or attempting to commit a crime or offense upon the owner or person with custody or control of the dog” or “committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner”; “The municipality shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the dog was not provoked”; “This act shall take effect immediately. Approved May 7, 2019.”
- S1923, first reprint (2018–2019 session) — the bill that became P.L. 2019, c. 82 — the bill prints the third ground in C.4:19-23(a) in brackets as text to be removed: “has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited, or encouraged to engage in unprovoked attacks upon persons or domestic animals,” followed by “(Deleted by amendment”; it likewise brackets the dog-fighting ground in C.4:19-22(a)(2).
- Senate Bill S3247 (219th Legislature, introduced 10 December 2020) — text of C.4:19-24 as the bill reprints it — a bill to remove the registration-number tattoo; we found no sign it was enacted. Its reprint of the section orders the owner of a potentially dangerous dog “to display, in a conspicuous manner, a sign on his premises warning that a potentially dangerous dog is on the premises” that “shall be visible and legible from 50 feet of the enclosure”; an enclosure “within a fence of at least six feet in height separated by at least three feet from the confined area”; a dog outside it “securely muzzled and restrained with a tether approved by the animal control officer”; and says the court “may require the owner to maintain liability insurance in an amount determined by the municipal court.” “A potentially dangerous dog shall be impounded until the owner obtains a municipal potentially dangerous dog license, municipal registration number, and red identification tag.”
- New Jersey Department of Health, Veterinary Public Health — “It’s the Law” (selected provisions of Title 4 and Title 26) — N.J.S.A. 26:4-79, “Every physician shall, within twelve hours after his first professional attendance upon any person bitten by a dog, cat or other animal, report”; 26:4-82, the local board may serve notice to confine an animal “for at least ten days after the animal has attacked or bitten a person”; 4:19-15.4, “within ten days after such acquisition or age attainment”; 4:19-15.2a, no license “unless the owner thereof provides evidence that the dog to be licensed and registered has been inoculated with a rabies vaccine.” The page says it features “select provisions” only.
- Woodbridge Township, Chapter XI Animal Control, § 11-3 Attack and Guard Dogs (township Document Center PDF, undated; § 11-3’s latest ordinance citation is #07-82, the chapter’s #13-61) — § 11-3.1, “Guard dog shall mean any dog or canine trained to attack a person at the command or instruction of a trainer,” and “Attack dog shall mean any dog or canine trained to attack persons entering an area” “except for the trainer of such guard dog or canine”; § 11-3.2, all persons “owning or controlling an attack or guard dog on premises within the Township” must register it, “within seventy-two (72) hours from the time the dog is brought to the premises,” for a fee of “twenty-five ($25.00) dollars for each dog,” and get a tag that is issued only on proof of rabies inoculation; § 11-3.4, signs stating “Warning: Attack or Guard Dog On Premises,” “on, over or next to all exterior doors,” one at each driveway or entrance, with lettering visible from “the lesser of the curbline or fifty (50) feet” and “illuminated so as to be visible at night”; § 11-3.5, “Each day that a guard or attack dog is maintained upon any premises in the Township without registration and/or tag” and “shall constitute a separate offense.”
- Mahwah Township Code, Chapter 5 Animal Control (township Document Center PDF, undated) — § 5-1, “AT LARGE — Shall mean off the property of the owner and not on a leash,” and a vicious dog is one “which attacks and bites or attempts to attack and bite persons or dogs or other animals without being incited to do so”; § 5-4.1, a dog at large is unlawful “unless securely confined in a vehicle and under the direct and immediate close supervision of a person capable of controlling such dog”; § 5-4.4, “Any vicious dog found at large … may be destroyed immediately by any Police Officer”; § 5-5(b), a permit from the Township Clerk for “any dog, whether or not professionally trained as a guard dog, to remain alone on any nonresidential premises” when it is “to be used for security or guard purposes”; (d), a $25 filing fee; (e), a permit “valid for a period of three years.”
- Township of Millburn — “Know & Respect The Laws In Millburn Township” dog code brochure (printed November 2021) — “All dogs must be on a leash when out & about in the Township” (cited as Municipal Code Chapter 5 §5-6.2 to 6.3); “There is no exception made for dogs ‘trained to walk off-leash’”; “Any person walking a dog must be holding a leash that is attached to the dog being walked”; “Dogs are not permitted to enter any park located within the Township” (Chapter 8 §2.1); the “Paws On Path” pilot applies “ONLY to Taylor Park,” on a leash “not more than 6’ long,” “Maximum of 2 dogs per person,” and is described as “Currently Underway” in the November 2021 printing.
- Borough of Saddle River — Animal Control (borough summary of Chapter 79) — “Residential lots may not keep more than four dogs and separately may not keep more than four cats”; “An animal is at large when off the owner’s or custodian’s premises and not under immediate control”; Chapter 79 addresses vocalization “lasting more than 20 continuous minutes from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., or more than 15 continuous minutes from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.”; the page calls its summaries “a practical guide, not a substitute for the Code.”
- New Jersey Department of Health — Requirements to Import a Dog or Cat into New Jersey (May 2026) — a health certificate “completed and signed by a veterinarian licensed in the country or state of origin,” “completed and signed within 30 days of travel”; N.J.A.C. 8:23-1.1 as quoted there, the certificate “shall also state the breed, sex, age, point of origin, point of destination” and “the name and post office address of the consignee or owner and the consignor or seller”; “rabies vaccination is not specifically required for importation of dogs into the State”; “New Jersey law requires all dogs 7 months of age or older to be licensed by the municipality where they are housed” and “Current rabies vaccination is a prerequisite for dog licensure.”
- New Jersey Department of Agriculture — Quarantine Order To Prevent New World Screwworm from Entering New Jersey (30 June 2026, Division of Animal Health director) — paragraph 2(d), domestic animals “originating in a US state or transiting through a US State that contains an infested zone or adjacent surveillance zone” need a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection from an accredited veterinarian “within 5 days prior to entry into New Jersey,” with the statement “individually and completely inspected by an accredited veterinarian and found free of any wounds or NWS infestation”; 2(f), “Dogs, cats, exotic pets, and rabbits originating from any place in a US state that contains an infested zone or adjacent surveillance zone” are to be treated by an accredited veterinarian with an authorized systemic product before entry, with “The name of the product used, and the date and route of administration” noted on the certificate; 2(i), “monetary penalties of at least $1,000, and up to $2,000 per unit or violation for the first offense.” Re-opened 14 October 2026.
- New Jersey Department of Agriculture — New World Screwworm: New Jersey Entry Quick Reference (current as of 29 June 2026) — for dogs, cats, exotic pets and rabbits, “Treatment is required when originating anywhere in a state containing an infested zone or in an adjacent surveillance zone”; the sheet says it “does not replace applicable regulations, official movement instructions, or standard New Jersey import requirements.” Re-opened 14 October 2026; it is older than the order’s current status.
- New Jersey Department of Agriculture — New World Screwworm (Division of Animal Health page) — links the quarantine order and the quick reference under “New Jersey Entry Requirements for Domestic Animals from NWS Affected States”; “The risk of NWS presence in New Jersey is low.” Re-opened 14 October 2026.
- State of New Jersey — press release on the screwworm import requirements (1 July 2026) — “The confirmed cases, in Texas and New Mexico, have involved livestock and canine species.”
- Texas Animal Health Commission — New World Screwworms: Texas Current Situation — read 14 October 2026: the notice cites “an established New World Screwworm Infested Zone in parts of the following Texas counties” and names Brewster, Crockett, Edwards, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Schleicher, Starr, Sutton, Terrell, Val Verde and Zapata; the same page lists orders headed “Modified and Release” dated 10/13 and 10/10 and an order for Starr and Zapata Counties dated 10/10 under “Released Area Executive Director Orders.” The page does not reconcile the two lists.
- Assembly Bill A3319 (222nd Legislature, pre-filed for the 2026 session) — negligent or reckless handling of a dog — the text page reads “Introduced Pending Technical Review by Legislative Counsel” (read 14 October 2026); section 2(d) makes reckless handling a crime of the third degree where the person handling the dog “instructs the dog, by verbal command, bodily gesture, or other command to injure a person, cat, or other dog” and uses the words “where there is no threat or imminent danger”; section 2(a), an affirmative defense that “the conduct of the dog was justified.” We could not read the bill’s current status on the Legislature’s bill-search page, which needs a script to load.
- Office of the New Jersey State Climatologist, Rutgers — New Jersey Climate Overview — “Average annual precipitation ranges from about 40 inches along the southeast coast to 51 inches in north-central parts of the state”; “Annual snowfall averages 40 to 50 inches in the northern zone as compared with an average of 10-15 inches in the extreme south.”
- Rutgers NJAES — Fact Sheet FS1281, the lone star tick in New Jersey (February 2018) — “it is now detected north of Monmouth, the central-coastal county that used to be the upper boundary of its range”; “Companion animals are also at risk from the lone star tick.”
- Open Source Routing Machine (OSRM), OpenStreetMap data — our own driving-route query from downtown Dallas on 14 October 2026, driving time without stops: Princeton 1,518 miles and 27.5 hours, Morristown 1,526 and 27.7, Newark 1,539 and 28.0, Franklin Lakes 1,552 and 28.2, Saddle River 1,561 and 28.5.
Every quotation was checked against its linked page on 14 October 2026. The Woodbridge and Mahwah documents are undated, the Millburn brochure dates from November 2021, the conditions after a finding come from a bill’s reprint, and the screwworm requirement can change with each Texas zone order, so the live source wins over this page wherever they disagree.
We have no New Jersey office or staff, and this page describes no New Jersey customers. A dog bound for New Jersey starts from our North Texas base.
Tell Us Which Town The Dog Would Live In
Name the town and county, whether the home is a house, a condo or a rental, who comes through the door in a normal week, whether the dog will be boarded or groomed, and what you want it to do for you. The town decides which rules apply and the date has to fit the veterinary windows, so those answers come first. Should a German Shepherd rather than a Malinois prove the better match, or no dog at all, we will tell you that first. Before you pay anyone, watch the dog work with a handler it does not know; our demo-reading guide shows what to look for, and the PSA trial schedules on which both of our owners are listed as decoys are on our about page. If a town rule settles it against a trained dog, whether to buy one at all lays out the alternatives.