nyrgravey9 wrote:
This thread has spiraled way out of control like many of these do.

I have to ask: what exactly are you trying to accomplish, Pier?

vegasjamone wrote:
Thanks, that's good to know. I've been over at the those fields with my dogs before. I'll be sure to opt for the dog park which is just right there next time.

vindication15 wrote:


True, I've never been to LP football field or the field you are talking about. I prefer to stay out of the ghetto. I'm in downtown so I enjoy the parks in dtjc and in newport.

Just a quick question, if she did not take her eyes off of him for a sec, was she also looking out for other people? Was she keeping one eye on him and one eye on other people? lol


At the end of the day, what is your point? That the cops have more important things to do to improve jc? I refuse to believe that cops can't walk and chew gum at the same time...

Cops should look the other way? Which laws should they enforce and which laws should they look the other way? Are you going to decide? Healy did a good job at that.

You want empathy? From who - random strangers on a forum? lol

vegasjamone wrote:
Piert1025 that sucks about the tickets. Was your girlfriend on that astroturf field or some other football field at LP?

dtjcview wrote:


I was not the one that chose to ignore the ordinances that you and your GF did. I didn't get fined. And your GF must know that it's almost impossible to guarantee a dog won't relieve itself in an outside area. Even if you could, you couldn't stop other dogs from marking your dog's scent.

Oh and ideology isn't telepathy, however much you love, trust and respect your GF. You and your GFs cred is a little suspect when you chose to ignore the rules in the first place. What other rules do you choose to ignore? Curbing your dog? Picking up its poop?

vindication15 wrote:


So you are telling me she scanned the whole entire football field before taking the dog off leash AND kept scanning field the entire time to make sure no person was around and that the dog had no escape route whatsoever (cause if the dog is off leash, they could run away at any time). If she went to those two extremes then yeah, in this particular instance, you did not endanger anyone.

Is it unreasonable for me to assume here that this is what she did, if even that, - "Hey, don't see anyone in my peripheral vision, let's let my dog run free"......pays attention to other stuff....10 mins later...cops come and writes a ticket.

If she was scanning the field for people the entire time, she should have seen the cop coming....not seeing the cop suddenly come means she did not have a good idea of who was around and that is dangerous....not for you or the dog but for people who don't want to encounter a dog off leash.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
But that's exactly why you, as a responsible dog owner, have to lead by example. People see you with your dog off leash, they think they can do it too. That's the whole crux of the problem at place like Morris Canal park.

People assume it's a dog park because they've made it one. But in my conversations with our Ward E councilwoman and head of the PA neighborhood association, it most certainly is not. Hence why plans are in the work to educate residents and change the behavior to align with the laws.

But again, that's why the onus is on responsible dog owners to abide by the rules and do their part to correct those who dont - it's in your own best interest to do so. Agree?

dtjcview wrote:


How do you know your dog didn't piss nor poop when you weren't there? How do you know your dogs piss and poop didn't end up on my kids clothes? How do you know that your actions didn't encourage other dog owners to let their dogs loose on the sport fields?

You don't. That's ignorance. And ignorance of the reason the ordinance exists in the first place.

When my dog is unleashed, and yes, I'm guilty of unleashing him as well, I make it a point to only do it when:

1. There are no other people or dogs around.
2. When he's in a controlled environment , in which I can control his movements.
3. Only after he has 'done his business' (that's what I meant when I said 'I know my dog')
4. When others (children, adults or other pets) come within proximity of the area, I immediately re-leash him.

I'm posting to expose your blatant ignorance and idiocy when you can ask such a question below, and reply that your dog doesn't piss and poop on sports fields. It's people like you that give us dog owners a bad name.

Man up, pay the fine, and keep your dog off sports fields.


Quote:

Piert1025 wrote:
.....
How, in any way, in this particular instance, did my girlfriend or my dog affect any single persons QOL?

nyrgravey9 wrote:
But Pier, the larger point is that "I know my dog" is not a valid excuse. I don't know your dog. The cop doesn't know your dog. And even most owners don't truly know their dogs (they think they do, but they really don't).

The point is that the law wasn't written just for those people whose dogs are uncontrollable and wild beasts.

There are places where dogs are allowed, and places where they are not. The law can't be written any clearer.

It's like the old joke "something can't be sort of wet", it's either wet or dry. Black and white. It's pretty straightforward.

I'm trying to be as cordial and straightforward as I can as it relates to the dog issue, but you guys make it difficult sometimes. It's up to you to introspect and come to the realizations that rest of us already have.

dtjcview wrote:

Take that argument to court. I'm sure the judge will assign the appropriate level of credibility to the excuse, and file it with all the other "I'm sure my Fido would never..." arguments.

dtjcview wrote:

You expect us to have empathy for you, when you have no empathy for the kid that has to take your dog's crap and urine home on his sports clothes. Hmmm.

Man up, and pay the fine you deserved.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
You're truly clueless and I pity you and those like you.

Guess what, clueless person, I was born and raised in JC, and not even downtown JC. So, I have a pretty familiar grasp of what's going on outside of DTJC. But, I happen to live in a nicer part of the city now, and this is what I choose to dedicate my time to.

And like I said before, keep the insults coming. This doesn't take much effort at all on my end, and I'm making waves and affecting change. It's starting with this issue, where I've learned how all the appropriate channels work. And once that's been taken care, I'll move on to other things that make the neighborhood better. You, my friend, are clearly not contributing to your neighborhood and in fact are engaging in behaviors that are detrimental to your neighborhood.

I've in no way shape or form said ALL dog owners. I've been a dog owner for many years, a RESPONSIBLE one. If you walk your dog on leash, and clean up after them, then clearly this does not apply to you.

You're in the wrong on every issue you've presented here, and you're too self absorbed to realize it. If someone's idea of QOL is skirting existing laws and ordinances and not getting ticketed when caught, then clearly that person needs to rethink what comprises a positive quality of life.

Quote:

Piert1025 wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Buddy, you don't read very well. I've minded my business, for a long time. Until I was out there with kids (and no, im not one of those "think of the kids" people), and someone's dog was off leash and took a dump right next to us. My nephew almost fell right in it when chasing a frisbee. I approached the owner and politely asked them to pick up after their dog, and was summarily berated in front of other people and made to look like I was a bad guy. So game on.

Again, the few ruining it for the many.

And again, it's not important that it's a big open space. It's ILLEGAL TO DO IT. What part of this are you people having difficulty understanding?? Much like the OP complaining about being ticketed for things he should be ticketed for. What is wrong with you people??

You're of the typical "if it feels good to me, I'm going to do it" crowd. That's not how it works my friend.

I'm glad you had a positive experience with the dogs at the park, I truly do. Many of us haven't, when dealing with these few dog owners who feel entitled to do whatever they want.

And again, that's why they create dog parks and designated areas for dogs.

And again, if you're that concerned for your dogs exercise, it begs to ask why you bought one while living in such a densely packed neighborhood. It doesn't mean you just do what you want because of you're personal situation.

And yet again (see a theme here?), there are lovely, large dog runs in towns like Lyndhurst, Leonia, etc. Dogs can run wild and free all day.

If you don't have the means to get to these places, then AGAIN, it begs to ask what decision making process went into the decision to buy the dog in the first place. Answer: you wanted a dog, so you bought one.

Lack of preparation on your part does not constitute me giving a sh*t about your problems. The difference here is that the law is on my side. Period.

[quote]
Area_Man wrote:
You could always take this route:

Mind your business and keep to yourself unless someone is directly bothering you.

I was down having a catch at the Colgate clock park over the weekend. There were dogs everywhere. One was even nice enough to return an errant throw that went over my head back to me. Thanks pup! How kind of you.

It's a large, self contained open space. It's a park. Let a dog be a dog and run around a little bit.

[quote]

You are ruining it for many.... You had a bad experience with one dog and now you feel that ALL dog owners are the same- after the many, many times that you've said so yourself.

It's not the few that a ruining it for the many. It's you, with you constant bitching and complaining... You want to talk about QOL issues, you are affecting my QOL, and every other dog owner's QOL, by not minding your own business!

Do I have the means to get anywhere I want to go? Absolutely. Not the point I was making. Why don't you get up and go volunteer if you are so worried about the QOL issues. I've thrown out there, many times, to start a neighborhood watch group. What was the result? People saying... "We don't have any authority so it's a waste of time." What did I hear? We are too damn lazy to start a neighborhood watch program so I'd rather go on JC List and bitch about it!"

I AM a responsible dog owner of two great bulldogs. I clean up after them when they go, I even carry extra bags with me, in case they go again. I am the epitome of what a responsible dog owner should be. But then people, with nothing better to do, complaining to city hall that my dog in a fenced in area, with no people around is ruining the QOL of the area because he may pee or poop at any given time. Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

You claim that you don't give a shit about my problems? Then explain why you've posted to this thread 15 out of 103 times... That doesn't sound like somebody that doesn't care to me!

The law may be on your side, great! But when, if ever, will you focus on a real issue? You've dedicated so much time and effort to the whole "dog leash" thing and if that's you're biggest concern about JC, I implore you to step away from you're computer screen and go out into the various neighborhoods of JC and see what the real issues are. You seem to be stuck in this bubble that all dog owners are specifically out to get you. Like we all have this secret vendetta against you to not clean up after our dogs to piss you off! Dude, enough. You've made your point; move on....

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Piert1025 wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
I know why dog owners walk their dogs off leash - cause they are too poor to afford a house with a backyard. Think about it....just saying.

For your information, I am a homeowner. I own a condo.

I DO know why people here are snarky for posting things that they would never say in person- because they are douchbags!!!!

Who bought you your house- mommy or daddy or was it Uncle Jim back in Iowa?

I'm just throwing out ideas.

On a serious note, leashing your dog is a law designed to protect the safety of other individuals. You may think your dog is well behaved but it only takes 1 time. Also, you may not see anyone around you but unless your superman, you never know.

I rather be a douchebag and hurt someone's "feelings" than be responsible for injuring another person...

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Buddy, you don't read very well. I've minded my business, for a long time. Until I was out there with kids (and no, im not one of those "think of the kids" people), and someone's dog was off leash and took a dump right next to us. My nephew almost fell right in it when chasing a frisbee. I approached the owner and politely asked them to pick up after their dog, and was summarily berated in front of other people and made to look like I was a bad guy. So game on.

Again, the few ruining it for the many.

And again, it's not important that it's a big open space. It's ILLEGAL TO DO IT. What part of this are you people having difficulty understanding?? Much like the OP complaining about being ticketed for things he should be ticketed for. What is wrong with you people??

You're of the typical "if it feels good to me, I'm going to do it" crowd. That's not how it works my friend.

I'm glad you had a positive experience with the dogs at the park, I truly do. Many of us haven't, when dealing with these few dog owners who feel entitled to do whatever they want.

And again, that's why they create dog parks and designated areas for dogs.

And again, if you're that concerned for your dogs exercise, it begs to ask why you bought one while living in such a densely packed neighborhood. It doesn't mean you just do what you want because of you're personal situation.

And yet again (see a theme here?), there are lovely, large dog runs in towns like Lyndhurst, Leonia, etc. Dogs can run wild and free all day.

If you don't have the means to get to these places, then AGAIN, it begs to ask what decision making process went into the decision to buy the dog in the first place. Answer: you wanted a dog, so you bought one.

Lack of preparation on your part does not constitute me giving a sh*t about your problems. The difference here is that the law is on my side. Period.

[quote]
Area_Man wrote:
You could always take this route:

Mind your business and keep to yourself unless someone is directly bothering you.

I was down having a catch at the Colgate clock park over the weekend. There were dogs everywhere. One was even nice enough to return an errant throw that went over my head back to me. Thanks pup! How kind of you.

It's a large, self contained open space. It's a park. Let a dog be a dog and run around a little bit.

[quote]

Area_Man wrote:
You could always take this route:

Mind your business and keep to yourself unless someone is directly bothering you.

I was down having a catch at the Colgate clock park over the weekend. There were dogs everywhere. One was even nice enough to return an errant throw that went over my head back to me. Thanks pup! How kind of you.

It's a large, self contained open space. It's a park. Let a dog be a dog and run around a little bit.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
That's some very nice, "we are the world" writing there Duh. But, as I discussed in the original thread regarding dogs off leash, the irresponsible dog owners caused this, not individuals like me.

I've explained ad nauseum what happens when people approach offending dog owners (whether it's dog off leash, or not cleaning poop), and the absolute nasty responses received. There are many responsible dog owners out there (many of whom agree with our stance on this), but it's the few ruining it for the many.

And unlike our friendly neighborhood Batman believes (Vigilante), those behaviors will change, or people will face the consequences via increased enforcement (as the OP has experienced). The difference between the past and now, is that you've got my voracity behind it (and before the usual taunts of "loser" and "got nothing better to do" save your breath, I can multi task my life, this doesn't take much effort at all). The laws are not written to be selectively enforced. If you see cops willfully ignoring stuff like this, get the badge number and call it in.

Maybe this way, Batman over here will have less and less friends giving him the free pass he's enjoyed for so long. At least now we know to focus more on HP.

Either way, it's being addressed at the neighborhood level and you will eventually see an increase in enforcement over time. That's the unfortunate side effect of progress.

I love how people are posting here mad at the mayor for enforcing laws and making the cops get off their asses to do their jobs. You can argue the point all day whether or not it's right to enforce this law or that law, but you're still in the wrong. I've gotten a ticket once for rolling slowly through a stop sign in Montclair at 1 AM after playing ice hockey. No one was around. It added points to my license. It sucked big time. But I'm in the wrong. I don't go crying to the Montclair message board that the cops were mean and I'm mad. I paid my fine and moved on.

I don't think it's cheering our neighbors' misfortunes as much as it is tired of hearing them whine like children when they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Let's grow up guys and actually live like responsible adults. Probably get a lot less tickets that way.

Quote:

duh wrote:
I hear ya Piert1025. I actually find people cheering on their neighbors being fined and summoned, to be a compromise of the quality of life. Perhaps a little understanding, even if accompanied by criticism, would temper the complete self-satisfying douchebaggery typically displayed here. The issue is not the ordinances themselves, it is that they need not always be applied. The spirit of the law is to keep people, dogs - whatever - safe, clean, well maintained...civil. But the letter of the law can be used to punish someone drinking a beer on their steps (?work it out in court!?), or letting their dog run off the leash in an uninhabited place which does not pose a threat to dog or person. It is incredible that most of the people on this site, are able to ascertain such critical perspective, given the immeasurable height of the horse from which they view the situation. Forget about the horrid crumbling school system, shootings, murders, entrenched trans-generational poverty - it?s not drinking a beer on the street and leashing your dog that will save us all. I will cut this shorter than I'd like, as I know most of you have to get to planning your Friday night of washing the shart stains out of your underpants and listening to your neighbors with a decibel meter.

bodhipooh wrote:
Unbelievable! The nerve of police to enforce the law...

Dude, seriously, give it a rest. At this point, we have surmised the following:
- You feel that because you own a property, you get to make your own rules.
- You want police to enforce the laws, but not the ones you choose to break.
- Your friends have an uncanny knack for getting pinched for QOL crimes.

Honestly, I hope JCPD keeps it up. Soon enough, they will be able to increase their focus on other, more serious issues, like speeding, aggressive drivers, etc.

duh wrote:
I hear ya Piert1025. I actually find people cheering on their neighbors being fined and summoned, to be a compromise of the quality of life. Perhaps a little understanding, even if accompanied by criticism, would temper the complete self-satisfying douchebaggery typically displayed here. The issue is not the ordinances themselves, it is that they need not always be applied. The spirit of the law is to keep people, dogs - whatever - safe, clean, well maintained...civil. But the letter of the law can be used to punish someone drinking a beer on their steps (?work it out in court!?), or letting their dog run off the leash in an uninhabited place which does not pose a threat to dog or person. It is incredible that most of the people on this site, are able to ascertain such critical perspective, given the immeasurable height of the horse from which they view the situation. Forget about the horrid crumbling school system, shootings, murders, entrenched trans-generational poverty - it?s not drinking a beer on the street and leashing your dog that will save us all. I will cut this shorter than I'd like, as I know most of you have to get to planning your Friday night of washing the shart stains out of your underpants and listening to your neighbors with a decibel meter.

JCbiscuit wrote:
Quote:

Piert1025 wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
I know why dog owners walk their dogs off leash - cause they are too poor to afford a house with a backyard. Think about it....just saying.

For your information, I am a homeowner. I own a condo.

I DO know why people here are snarky for posting things that they would never say in person- because they are douchbags!!!!

Who bought you your house- mommy or daddy or was it Uncle Jim back in Iowa?

I think our friend Piert here is proving that the off-leashers are entitled crybabies.

vindication15 wrote:
I know why dog owners walk their dogs off leash - cause they are too poor to afford a house with a backyard. Think about it....just saying.

CapnJon wrote:
the fines are supposed to be excessive, and the pain in the butt of a mandatory court appearance is excessive as well, and they are done to act as a deterrent!

Obiviously, people ignore the laws (my dog deserves to be off leash), so if a simple law of the land doesn't work, then yeah, give it a nasty fine, and a court appearance. Maybe next time the dog owner will think twice.

And as for drinking on a stoop - for nearly ten years we sit on my stoop almost nightly with a drink, when the weather is nice. The cops have never said a word about it.

Similiarly, when we were having problems with the residents of a house on our block, and they would be all sitting on the stoop drinking beer - the police told us there was nothing they could do, that the people were not breaking any laws....

bodhipooh wrote:
You came to the wrong place for sympathy (or, to vent) as very few people, if any, will feel anything but glee at the fact that basic, quality of life, issues are finally being addressed.

Instead of bitching, or complaining, about a friend being booted for unpaid fines, why don't you ask your friend why he (she?) has failed to pay three tickets? BTW, I say three, because I believe that is the standard for booting a car: three unpaid tickets. And, furthermore, that is what Fulop fought for some years ago: for strict adherence to the rule that allows booting if, and only if, a car owner has failed to pay the defined number of tickets (which, IIRC, is three). Don't get it twisted, or try and frame to your convenience.

As for the unleashed dog, I have to agree with nyrgravey9 (despite our differences in other threads) that this is also a QOL issue and that the police should be vigilant about enforcing these rules. As others have said in other threads, an off leash dog is unpredictable, even a perfectly, well behaved one.

About beer on a stoop, that's definitely BS. That one, if really happened the way you describe it, could/should be fought.

CapnJon wrote:
the fines are supposed to be excessive, and the pain in the butt of a mandatory court appearance is excessive as well, and they are done to act as a deterrent!

Obiviously, people ignore the laws (my dog deserves to be off leash), so if a simple law of the land doesn't work, then yeah, give it a nasty fine, and a court appearance. Maybe next time the dog owner will think twice.

And as for drinking on a stoop - for nearly ten years we sit on my stoop almost nightly with a drink, when the weather is nice. The cops have never said a word about it.

Similiarly, when we were having problems with the residents of a house on our block, and they would be all sitting on the stoop drinking beer - the police told us there was nothing they could do, that the people were not breaking any laws....

paulushooker wrote:

Looks like it's legal to drink on YOUR stoop:

Jersey City Municipal Code

§ 84-38. Definitions.

§ 84-38. Definitions.

As used in this Article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE - Any liquid intended for human consumption containing more than one-half of one percent (1/2 of 1%) of alcohol by volume.

PUBLIC PLACE - A place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, including but not limited to any highway, street, road, sidewalk, parking area, shopping area, place of amusement, playground, park or beach located within the city, except that the definition of a "public place" shall not include those premises duly licensed for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises or within their own private property.

bricks wrote:
Quote:

JC parks need fenced in dog runs so dog owners have a space where they can let their dogs go free without risking a fine and so that everyone can enjoy JC parks without dogs damaging them.

The park in questions here is Lincoln and there is a nice sized dog park there where the dog could have run free and no fine would have been incurred. The owner chose to knowlingly violate the law, ignore the area provided for them, and now wants to complain? No sympathy here.