As recently reported, the NJSPCA has hefty legal fees, averaging nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year, as reported by Kane In Your Corner: NJSPCA refusing to show invoices for legal fees.

But, following an OPRA request for the invoices requested by Kane In Your Corner (“Kane”), NJSPCA first refused to produce the requested documents and later stated that they did not exist-they were allegedly discarded by “the organization’s former treasurer, Frank Rizzo.”

This latest incident followed the agency’s failure to file its required IRS 990 forms for 2013, 2014, and 2015 which resulted in the termination of its non-profit status, as least temporarily.

In addition to these federal requirements, the NJSPCA is required to provide financial (and enforcement) information to the NJ Attorney General and legislature, which it apparently has not provided as required,

Interestingly, Governor-appointed NJSPCA board member David Gaier resigned from the Board, “calling the organization ‘dysfunctional’ and citing its lack of transparency,” as previously reported by Kane In Your Corner.

Gaier resigned after learning from Kane about the organization’s failure to file the IRS financial reports, several months after the fact.  Gaier’s observations about the NJSPCA are remarkably similar to those identified in the 2000 State of New Jersey Commission of Investigation (“SCI”) report-Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

According to Kane, Gaier noted:

the NJSPCA ‘lacks proper public oversight and accountability,’ adding, ‘the very concept of a non-profit law enforcement agency is unworkable, even absurd, and the result is an organization mired in controversies and lawsuits.’ Gaier says he believes the NJSPCA needs to be ‘reconstituted as a proper state agency with genuine government oversight, transparency, and new leadership, or it should be dissolved.’

The SCI report found:

[d]espite its reputation for advancing innovative animal welfare and control programs, New Jersey remains mired in an archaic legislative scheme that places the enforcement of animal cruelty laws in the hands of unsupervised, volunteer groups of private citizens. The 1868 and 1873 laws that created the New Jersey and county Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals arose at a time when law enforcement agencies were in their infancy and the enforcement of laws was entrusted frequently to private citizens. Today, the SPCAs represent a rudimentary system that has not kept pace with the state’s advancements in law enforcement or its interest in the welfare of animals. Against the backdrop of a highly stratified and professional law  enforcement system, it is an anomaly that the state continues to empower organizations of private citizens to carry weapons, investigate criminal and civil conduct, enforce laws, issue summonses, effect arrests and obtain and execute search warrants. The issue is no longer whether or how to fix this errant group of self-appointed, self-directed and uncontrolled entities, but whether to eliminate the archaic system entirely. The Commission concludes that the time has come to repeal the government authority vested in the SPCAs and place the function of enforcing the cruelty laws within the government’s stratified hierarchy of law enforcement. Those who are truly devoted to animal welfare may continue that effort by forming humane  organizations or participating in the numerous groups already in existence.

Currently there are several proposed bills that would provide for greater accountability of the NJSPCA to government entities.

  • A706/S1429 would require accountability of the NJSPCA and county societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals to the NJ Attorney General and county prosecutors; and
  • A707/S1427 would change the membership of, and election process for NJSPCA board of trustees.

Notably, in Bergen County the county prosecutor already requires accountability and reporting for all SPCA-related activities.  Expanding that requirement throughout the State is attainable and would enhance the role that professional law enforcement agencies have in protecting the animals throughout New Jersey.

 

 

The New York Times recently published an article addressing an issue that is close to the heart of pet owners across the country, namely, pet-custody rights in the event of a divorce or separation. The article notes that courts across the nation have treated family pets in varying fashions: some courts treating pets as personal property alone, while others have attempted to act in the best interests of the animals, awarding shared custody, visitation rights and even alimony payments to custodial pet parents.

In January of 2017, Alaska became the first state to enact “pet-custody legislation”, which explicitly allows matrimonial courts to take into consideration a pet’s well-being in issuing awards. The legislation defines an animal, as “vertebrate living creature not a human being.” The legislation also includes other protections for animals commonly enacted by states around the country including the addition of animal cruelty as an offense defined as “domestic violence.” Such classification allows a pet owner to petition a court for a protective order, and financial assistance, in the event that a member of the household commits an act of animal cruelty.

The Alaskan measure may be viewed as a step toward changing the legal status of pets from property, to something else, where pets would be granted certain legal rights and protections. Jeff Pierce, legislative counsel for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, is quoted in the article discussing the beneficial effect that the law in Alaska has not only in reducing potential conflicts in divorces, but also in drawing attention to pet-custody and wellbeing questions in general. Pet-custody legislation of this nature has the potential to increase litigation costs in divorce proceedings. For example, experts may have to be retained in order to determine how to actually consider a pet’s well-being in issuing an award.

For more detail about Pet-Custody legislation please see “When Couples Divorce, Who Gets to Keep the Dog? (or Cat.)” by Christopher Mele, published by the New York Times on March 23, 2017.

I previously described concerns about S3019’s impact to veterinarians.

There are additional concerns about the impact of this bill to animal shelters and NJ taxpayers.  And, it is inexplicable why S3019 exempts animal rescue organizations from provisions governing shelters since these unregulated organizations are becoming the primary way people are obtaining pets—through retail rescue channels.  See The Phenomenon called “Retail Rescue.”

Animal shelters are under increasing pressure from the no-kill movement to decrease or eliminate the number of animals they euthanize.  This creates a near impossibility for those shelters that provide for the euthanasia of pets as a service to pet owners who rely on shelters for that very purpose.  Additionally, some animals are unfortunately not suitable for adoption because of behavioral or medical disorders.  For these animals and the people who may unwittingly adopt them, euthanasia may be the best option.

Animal rescue organizations do not have to comply with any provisions that would govern shelters if S3019 becomes law.  They simply have to register with the Department of Health.  Certainly animals housed in any facility should be provided with proper care, but with the draconian and costly provisions in S3019, it is not clear why any private brick and mortar shelter would continue to exist.

Unlike “regulated animal facilities,” animal rescue organizations would not have to: (1) employ a State-certified director, (2) comply with strict feeding, housing, exercise, and medical care requirements, (3) maintain records of any sort, or (4) be subject to a civil action in Superior or municipal court brought by any person for failure to comply with this law.

Other concerns about the bill include, but are not limited to:

  1. The Department of Health would have to draft regulations regarding the recognition of cat and dog breeds by shelter staff.  However, studies have proven that “regardless of profession, visual identification of the breeds of dogs with unknown heritage is poor.”  See K.C. Croy, et al., What kind or dog is that? Accuracy of dog breed assessment by canine stakeholders.   Published by College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.  Hopefully, DOH’s proposed regulations, if drafted, will include the deficiencies related to the visual identification of randomly-sourced pets.
  2. The cost of enforcing this bill will be significant.
    1. The law would require at least three inspections of regulated animal facilities by specially trained inspectors each year. While training is certainly a welcome and important advance, the cost would be considerable.
    2. The bill would require the Board of Veterinary Medicine, the Department of Health and Rutgers to develop certain training and certification programs that would be costly to develop and implement.
  3. The law would limit euthanasia of animals to veterinarians or a veterinary technician with specific training and certification in euthanasia. The law would require that the Board of Veterinary Medicine, in consultation with the Department of Health, establish training and certification, but it is unclear how this can proceed without requiring the licensure of veterinary technicians, something the legislature has not provided for.
  4. The law would encourage shelters to provide for “temporary” housing, even with other animals, instead of performing euthanasia.  While decreasing euthanasia is laudable, shelters should not be encouraged to violate DOH’s sanitary regulations adopted to decrease disease spread and behavioral incompatibilities that prohibit such housing.

S3019, in addition to its well-meaning intent, would have some positive effects, such as increased tracking and reporting of the movement of animals into and between regulated animal facilities.  Of course, this data should include movement through animal rescue organizations.

The provisions of S3019 that would help ensure that any adoptable animals are not unnecessarily euthanized is clearly laudable.  However, unless the State prohibits the unregulated importation of animals from other states and countries to rescues and shelters through retail rescue channels, animals that are unsuitable as pets will continue to reside in shelters and some will be euthanized.

Senator Linda R. Greenstein introduced S3019 on Feb. 27, 2017, a bill that would establish “additional requirements for operation and oversight of animal shelters, pounds, kennels operating as shelters or pounds, and veterinary holding facilities.”

The bill creates liabilities for veterinarians who provide certain critical services to municipalities.  If enacted, it is unclear why veterinarians would expose themselves to such liability.  Therefore, critical services currently provided by these veterinarians to communities could place both people and animals at unnecessary risk.

The following provisions are of greatest concern:

The bill defines “veterinary holding facilities” as “any facility owned or operated by a veterinarian, veterinary hospital, clinic, veterinary boarding facility, or similar facility that houses stray, surrendered, or otherwise impounded animals as a boarding agent or holding facility for an animal control provider, the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or any of its humane law enforcement officers or agents, a county society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or any of its humane law enforcement officers or agents, or local law enforcement.”

If an animal control officer, an agent of the NJSPCA or a country SPCA, or a professional law enforcement officer brings an animal in need of veterinary medical care to a veterinarian for emergency care, that veterinarian is required to provide such care.  See N.J.A.C. 13:44-4.7.  If part of that care requires short or long-term housing for that animal, the veterinarian could be defined as a “veterinary holding facility” which then qualifies that facility as an “animal holding facility.”  S3019 would require each animal holding facility, including a veterinary holding facility to:

  1. provide specific vaccinations to each animal in the facility;*
  2. apply for a pound license from the municipality in which it operates;
  3. employ a properly trained and certified director of the facility; and
  4. establish specific hours of operation during which time they must be open to the public.

This bill would expose veterinarians to liability for serving their communities by providing care to abandoned, injured, and rescued animals they treat on an emergent basis.  Many of these provisions are not appropriate and are unnecessary for veterinary facilities which are governed by statutes and regulations enforced by the State Board of Veterinary Medicine Examiners which “supervise[s] the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery and dentistry; ensure[s] that veterinary medicine is performed in a manner consistent with acceptable medical and ethical standards; and adjudicate[s] consumer complaints against licensees.”

These provisions of S3019, while well-meaning, should be amended.

*While vaccination generally should be required in animal facilities, it is unwise to require specific vaccines in statutes or regulations, since recommendations change over time, as informed by advances in veterinary medicine.  Instead, laws should incorporate by reference recommendations from appropriate veterinary associations such as the American Animal Hospital Association.

 

At the request of New Jersey Department of Agriculture (NJDA), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (NJAES), and New Jersey Farm Bureau, State legislators adopted a law in 1996 “which directs the Department of Agriculture—in consultation with the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station—to adopt ‘standards for the humane raising, keeping, care, treatment, marketing, and sale of domestic livestock,’ as well as ‘rules and regulations governing the enforcement of those standards.’”  35 NJR 1873(a) 2003.  At the time, livestock owners were increasingly concerned about the uneven-handed enforcement of the State’s animal cruelty statutes by state and county societies for the protection of animals (SPCA), who often had minimal, if any, knowledge about the proper care of livestock and horses.  As the State Commission of Investigation reported, there were “no standards, rules or guidelines governing [SPCA’s] composition, operation, training or activities, there is no consistency or uniformity in their make-up, functioning or enforcement of the laws.”  NJSCI Report 2000.

The law was adopted to “[p]rotect. . .  the health and well-being of New Jersey’s livestock . . . to ensure farm animals are humanely treated.  This includes livestock farmers whose livelihood depends on raising healthy animals and who, therefore, have an added financial incentive to properly care for their animals.”  35 NJR 1873(a) 2003To ensure that experts qualified to investigate complaints of cruelty involving livestock the law also requires notification of NJDA of complaints received by investigating authorities.

The NJSPCA, county SPCAs or other State or local government authority receiving a complaint shall immediately notify the New Jersey Department of Agriculture and, if the complaint is in writing, provide a copy to the NJDA at the address provided in N.J.A.C. 2:8–8.3(c).

Unfortunately, while the standards mandate humane care, the enforcement of those standards remains problematic.  It is not clear if NJDA has been notified immediately upon receipt of complaints to SPCA’s, as required by law.  This notification is critical to ensure that only the approved standards are used as guidelines, and to ensure that all inspections are conducted in accordance with accepted biosecurity protocols referenced herein to prevent the spread of infectious or contagious agents on or off farm premises.

I recently discussed these ongoing issues at the 2017 New Jersey State Agricultural Convention, where the delegates adopted a resolution to address “continued concerns from stakeholders because of humane-law enforcement personnel’s inconsistent and inappropriate enforcement of animal cruelty statutes against the owners of livestock and poultry in New Jersey, by largely ignoring the Humane Standards, even when they are being followed by the livestock owner, have not changed since the adoption of the law, despite the clear rules to guide the investigation of complaints.  See Resolution No. 6, Humane Treatment of Livestock.

The delegates “urge that New Jersey’s agricultural community evaluate the consistency and appropriateness of the implementation of the Humane Standards by the SPCA and other humane-law enforcement personnel who are tasked to respect and follow them with enforcing animal-cruelty statutes.”

They also encourage the Legislature to adequately fund the implementation and enforcement of the Humane Standards and to require SPCA agents to comply with the provisions set forth therein.

Moose’s Law, currently A308, prohibits persons convicted of criminal animal cruelty offenses from owning domestic companion animals and from working or volunteering at animal related enterprises, continues to suffer flaws that must be corrected to avoid constitutional violations and unintended consequences.

The amendments to this bill attempt to limit its provisions to conduct constituting criminal violations of New Jersey’s animal cruelty statutes, but actually fails to do so.

While new section 2 applies only to individuals who is convicted of an animal cruelty offense (an improvement over former versions, but still not appropriate), Section 3 of P.L.1983, c.525 (C.4:19-15.16a) is amended to 39 read as follows:

(1) The commissioner shall establish a list of all persons : (a) for whom a certificate , issued pursuant to subsection b. of this section, has been revoked, or (b) who have been convicted of, or found civilly liable for, a violation of any provision of chapter 22 of Title 4 of the Revised Statutes. The commissioner shall provide each municipality in the State with a copy of this list within 30 days after the list is established and not less often than annually thereafter if no revised list required pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection has been issued in the interim. The commissioner shall also post the list, together with a statement identifying the list’s proper use and purpose, at a publicly accessible and readily identifiable location on the Department of Health’s Internet website. (emphasis added).

Therefore, anyone found civilly liable pursuant to a provision of the animal cruelty statute will be included on this list and the long-term negative impact to those individuals listed will continue.

Animal cruelty registries can serve the public and the animals they intend to protect if limited to the inclusion of certain criminal offenders of the animal cruelty statutes, so long and the terms of inclusion on such lists are sufficiently limited and can be corrected for those found to be improperly convicted.

A308 does not include such provisions.

Additionally, A308’s pre-employment requirements effectively preclude the ability of pre-veterinary students and others interested in animal-related careers to obtain employment (voluntary or otherwise) at veterinary hospitals, zoos, aquaria, and other animal-related industries who have historically employed such students.

Assembly bill No. 2052 includes the following definition of “necessary care: in the definition section of New Jersey’s animal cruelty statute that could be problematic for farmers raising livestock and poultry in the state, if it were to apply to them:

“Necessary care” means care sufficient to preserve the health and well-being of an animal, and except for emergencies or circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the person responsible for the care of the animal, providing the following: (1) food of sufficient quantity and quality to allow for normal growth or maintenance of body weight; (2) open or adequate access to drinkable water of an appropriate temperature in sufficient quantity and quality to satisfy the needs of the animal; (3) access to adequate protection from the weather, including an enclosed non-hazardous structure sufficient to protect the animal in which there is adequate bedding to protect the animal against cold and dampness; (4) adequate protection for the animal from extreme or excessive sunlight and from overexposure to the sun, heat and other weather conditions; (5) veterinary care to alleviate suffering and maintain health; and (6) reasonable access to a clean and adequate exercise area.

The reason for concern is that provisions (3), (5), and (6) are inconsistent with the provisions set forth in the Humane Treatment of Domestic Livestock (N.J.A.C. 2:8-1.1 et seq.) as provided for in N.J.S.A. 4:22-16.1. which provides:

Rules and regulations; standards for humane treatment of domestic livestock-

  1. The State Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station and within six months of the date of enactment of this act, shall develop and adopt, pursuant to the “Administrative Procedure Act,” P.L.1968, c. 410 (C. 52:14B-1 et seq.): (1) standards for the humane raising, keeping, care, treatment, marketing, and sale of domestic livestock; and (2) rules and regulations governing the enforcement of those standards.
  2. Notwithstanding any provision in this title to the contrary:

(1) there shall exist a presumption that the raising, keeping, care, treatment, marketing, and sale of domestic livestock in accordance with the standards developed and adopted therefor pursuant to subsection a. of this section shall not constitute a violation of any provision of this title involving alleged cruelty to, or inhumane care or treatment of, domestic livestock;

(2) no person may be cited or arrested for a first offense involving a minor or incidental violation, as defined by rules and regulations adopted pursuant to subsection a. of this section, of any provision of this title involving alleged cruelty to, or inhumane care or treatment of, domestic livestock, unless that person has first been issued a written warning.

  1. For the purposes of this act, “domestic livestock” means cattle, horses, donkeys, swine, sheep, goats, rabbits, poultry, fowl, and any other domesticated animal deemed by the State Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, to be domestic livestock for such purposes, according to rules and regulations adopted by the department and the board pursuant to the “Administrative Procedure Act.”

CREDIT(S) L.1995, c. 311, § 1, eff. Jan. 5, 1996.

The bill statement for A2052 states:

This bill amends the definition for “necessary care,” established 43 by P.L.2013, c.88 (designated as Patrick’s Law), to provide for 44 additional specific care requirements.

Before consideration by the senate, since the bill statement clearly indicates its intention was to provide for domestic companion animals and not domestic livestock, the definition of “necessary care” should be amended to exclude provisions regarding domestic livestock which are prescribed in N.J.A.C. 2:8-1.1 et seq. as the legislature previously mandated.

A2052 was passed by the Assembly on December 19, 2016.

New Jersey Bill S2848 does far more than described in the official bill statement which states that the bill requires:

1) all cats and dogs brought into the State from other jurisdictions to have an animal history and health certificate certified by a licensed veterinarian providing the information about the cat or dog specified in subsection a. of section 1 of the bill; and

2) animal rescue organizations, shelters, and pounds to accept the return of a cat or dog received from the facility for up to one year 10 after the receipt of the animal from the facility.

The bill authorizes shelters, pounds, and animal rescue organizations to charge a fee of up to $100 for such a return.

The provisions in S2848 that miss the mark include the following:

  1. A shelter, pound, or animal rescue organization must accept the return of any cat or dog adopted and may charge the person returning the cat or dog a fee of up to $100.00, but a pet store is required to accept the return of a cat or dog for any reason within one year of the date of purchase without the ability to charge the person returning that animal any fee. These provisions clearly unreasonably favor shelters and rescues and importantly do not place the appropriate responsibility on the adopter or pet owner before deciding to bring a pet into a home.  While there should be provisions for returns under certain conditions, the bill as proposed does not include reasonable provisions.
  2. The bill unrealistically and unreasonably extends the pet purchase time frame for returns to pet stores for pets diagnosed with infectious, contagious diseases from 14 days to 1 year after sale, and for pets diagnosed with congenital, hereditary conditions or a sickness [or death] brought on by a congenital or hereditary cause or condition from 180 days to 1 year after sale. These provisions ignore sound science.  The provisions limiting returns resulting from infectious diseases to those diagnosed within 14 days after sale were based on typical incubation periods for such diseases.  Infectious diseases that occur outside of those time periods are typically unrelated to the care provided by the pet store or their sources, who should not remain liable for situations outside of their control.  Similar concerns arise from the extension of pet store liability for congenital or hereditary conditions that are influenced by the pet’s environment, and not the responsibility of the pet store or its sources.
  3. The bill properly mandates registration of animal rescue organizations and requires reporting of some important information about the number of adopted animals. However, information about the source of animals, whether from other states or countries, should also be required.  The myth of the local overpopulation of dogs in New Jersey can only be exposed when the numbers of dogs imported into the State for adoption is required to be reported.

This bill appears to be an attempt to require reporting of certain information about the source of pets provided to the public, but it requires significant amendments to ensure that the law actually provides for the health of pets, consumer protection, and the sustainability of properly run pet stores, animal shelters and animal rescue organizations.

On Monday, November 14, 2016, the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee will consider the Assembly version (A2338) of Senator Lesniak’s amendments to the Pet Purchase Protection Act (S63).  The problems with these amendments were previously discussed here.

Anyone interested in testifying should attend the Committee meeting at 2:00 PM Committee Room 9, 3rd Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, NJ.

A bill (A3899) prohibiting veterinary declawing procedures in New Jersey will be considered by the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Monday, November 14, 2016.

This bill would create civil and criminal liabilities for any person who shall:

Perform, or cause to be performed, an onychectomy (declawing) or flexor tendonectomy procedure on a cat or other animal in violation of section 1 of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill).

As summarized in the bill statement:

This bill would prohibit a person from performing, or causing to be performed, an onychectomy (declawing) or flexor tendonectomy procedure by any means on a cat or other animal, unless the procedure is deemed necessary for a therapeutic purpose by a licensed veterinarian. Any person who violates this provision would be guilty of a disorderly persons offense, which is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, a term of imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A violator would also be subject to a civil penalty of between $500 and $2,000.

Section 1(a) contains the same language that was included in an ordinance banning this procedure that passed in West Hollywood on April 21, 2003.

1.    (New section) a. No person shall perform, or cause to be performed, an onychectomy (declawing) or flexor tendonectomy procedure by any means on a cat or other animal, unless the procedure is deemed necessary for a therapeutic purpose by a licensed veterinarian.  A person who violates this provision shall be guilty of a disorderly persons offense.

This ordinance was upheld in court as constitutional when challenged by veterinary associations. Veterinary Med. Ass’n v. City of W. Hollywood, 61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).

Section 1(b) requiring veterinarians to “prepare and file a written statement with the Department of Health setting forth the purpose for performing the procedure and providing the name and address of the owner or keeper of the animal, and provide a copy of that statement to the owner of the animal” impermissibly restricts the veterinary license that is granted by the Division of Consumer Affairs, not the Department of Health.  Furthermore, the disclosure of the names and addresses of pet owners and their veterinarian present a public safety and privacy concern, and violates the state law mandating that veterinarians provide for the confidentiality of all medical records. N.J.A.C. 13:44-4.9(b).

The sad fact is that there are cat owners who will give up their cats because they are destroying furniture who would otherwise keep them as pets if they had this procedure.  Unlike dogs, there are too many cats in shelters, and living in feral populations, and this will only contribute to those numbers.

As reported in a literature review prepared by the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division, “Welfare Implications of Declawing of Domestic Cats,” published on Feb. 16, 2016, the benefits of the procedure were discussed.

In some cases declawing may be an alternative to relinquishment, outdoor housing or euthanasia. For example, in a 1991 survey of Ontario veterinarians, respondents indicated that approximately 50% of their clients would no longer own their cat if it had not been declawed. Following aggression, a survey of veterinarians reported scratching as the behavioral problem most frequently associated with abandonment of cats in Brazil. Unacceptable behaviors such as daily scratching increase the risk of relinquishment of an animal to a shelter, and declawing decreased the risk of relinquishment. As approximately 72% of cats relinquished to animal shelters are euthanatized, owners may feel they are faced with the choice of declawing their pet cat or potentially condemning it to death. Because outdoor cats are exposed to predators, street traffic, inclement weather, and diseases (e.g., feline leukemia, feline infectious peritonitis), owners may not consider keeping a scratching cat outside to be a viable alternative. Thus declawing may sometimes be necessary to ensure that a pet cat keeps its home. (Citations omitted).

The article also reviews the risks, including welfare concerns related to this veterinary procedure.

Veterinarians cannot perform this surgery, or any other, without obtaining informed consent from their patient’s owner.

The AVMA explains, in its position statement on this topic:

The decision to declaw a cat should be made by the owners in consultation with their veterinarian. Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively or when its clawing presents an above normal health risk for its owner(s).

Anyone interested in testifying on Monday should attend the hearing at 2:00 pm in Committee Room 15, 4th floor, State House Annex in Trenton.