HB 1639 (Dog Tethering Requirements & Unlawful Taking) will be voted on by the full House on March 10th.
From the N.H. House Calendar –
HB 1639-FN-L, relative to the tethering of dogs. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Larry G Gagne for Criminal Justice and Public Safety: This bill would amend RSA 644:8, III to add, as a separate category of cruelty to animals, the tethering of a dog for more than fourteen cumulative hours in a twenty-four hour period. It also would contain requirements for a proper tether which the majority felt was unduly intrusive. We also felt that the current statutes are adequate at this time because this bill, if enacted, would punish all animal owners, including mushers, rather than the occasional animal abuser. Vote 13-2.
Thanks to everyone who wrote letters and emails and to those who came to Concord to testify – you did a good job.
The Legislature is on its winter vacation break until March 1st.
Recent Legislative Action -
HB 1417: allowing companion dogs in certain areas of restaurants. Passed the House.
HB 1596: changes the time period by 15 days during which dog owners who have failed to license their dogs shall be notified of the civil forfeiture of each unlicensed dog and increases the warrant fee from $5 to $10. Killed by the House.
We’ve been asked about HB1417. It does not require all restaurants to allow dogs. It simply lets restaurant owners, who might wish to allow dogs, to do so – provided they post a notice. New Hampshire has a lot of Inns and Bed and Breakfasts whose owners live on their premises. There have been some enforcement questions about whether or not those owners could even have a dog anywhere on their property.
Here is the wording of HB 1417:
II. A restaurant owner may allow, at the restaurant owner’s discretion, any person possessing a properly disciplined companion dog inside his or her place of business. Such dogs shall not be allowed in food preparation or production areas. Restaurant owners allowing companion dogs shall prominently display a sign at all public entrances advising patrons that companion dogs are allowed on the premises.
The N.H. House voted to kill HB 1624 (breeder restrictions). The vote was 318-25. Thank you to everyone who contacted the committee members with your concerns about this bill.
From the N.H. House Calender:
HB 1624-FN, relative to the care and treatment of dogs by breeders within the state. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Warren J Groen for the Majority of Environment and Agriculture: Although amendments have been introduced to try to make this better legislation, this bill is overreaching and unnecessary with too many unintended consequences. Everyone on the committee abhors the thought of a puppy mill in New Hampshire. This is a very emotional issue for everyone, however, we must reserve the discussion to the facts. There have been only five cited cases of “puppy mills” in New Hampshire over the course of the past ten years. This bill will place undue restrictions on breeders and dog owners alike. The rules that would be applied are very generic and not breed specific, thus, dog owners could be charged with cruelty to their pets. Cruelty laws are already in existence in RSA 644:8, making this legislation unnecessary. Local animal control and law enforcement have the authority to remedy any abuses that may arise. Vote 12-1.
Rep. Susan E Wiley for the Minority of Environment and Agriculture: Given that the existing legislation does not require that dog breeders exercise or socialize their dogs, there is a need to add language to existing statute that would allow for enforcement of minimal acceptable standards for housing and husbandry. The minority felt this bill was a first step
HB 1639 (Dog Tethering Requirements & Unlawful Taking)
House Criminal Justice Committee Schedules Vote.
The House Criminal Justice Committee has scheduled HB 1639 for a committee vote on February 9th or 11th. This clearly indicates that there will not be a subcommittee convened to discuss the bill further. HB1639 adds a new section to the animal cruelty laws that sets specific requirements for dog tethering. It also amends RSA 644:8, IV-a(a), the animal cruelty statute, to allow an animal, suspected of being abused or neglected, to be taken into custody without a warrant.
NEXT ACTION STEPS
If you have not already sent a note to the members of the House Criminal Justice Committee, there are still a few days to remind them of the problems inherent in the bill and why it should be recommended “Inexpedient to Legislate” (Killed). It is also a good time to start contacting your local representative to inform them about the bill and the need to for it to be voted “Inexpedient to Legislate”. Your local legislator and their contact information can be found here.
STATUS UPDATE ON OTHER BILLS
HB 1624: Breeder restrictions. On February 10th, the House will vote on the committee recommendation of “Inexpedient to Legislate”. Representative Groen stated in his report in the House Record describing why the committee voted 12-1 for this recommendation, “This bill will place undue restrictions on breeders and dog owners alike. The rules that would be applied are very generic and not breed specific, thus, dog owners could be charged with cruelty to their pets. Cruelty laws are already in existence in RSA 644:8, making this legislation unnecessary. Local animal control and law enforcement have the authority to remedy any abuses that may arise.” It is unlikely that the committee recommendation will be overturned during the House floor vote and DOGS appreciates those who contacted their local representatives to help insure that the bill will be killed.
Read more…
House Environment & Agriculture Committee Votes 12-1 to Kill the Bill
On January 28th, the House Environment Committee voted 12-1 to send HB 1624 to the house floor with the recommendation of “Inexpedient to Legislate”. Rep. Susan Wiley was the only vote in favor of the bill. Representatives Gandia, Knox, Tucker and Poznanski were not present. Representative Allen noted that a couple of the letters he received from supporters were identical but he received more letters from opponents that noted a variety of objections.
NEXT STEPS Read more…
SB 365 – requiring the sterilization of animals adopted from shelters mandates that licensed animal shelter sterilize all dogs and cats that they “sell, give away, adopt or otherwise transfer ownership of.”
There are no exemptions for the health or well-being of the animal nor is it clear whether this would apply to dogs and cats being reclaimed by their owners.
HB1417 – allowing companion dogs in certain areas of restaurants adds:
“A restaurant owner may allow, at the restaurant owner’s discretion, any person possessing a properly disciplined companion dog inside his or her place of business. Such dogs shall not be allowed in food preparation or production areas. Restaurant owners allowing companion dogs shall prominently display a sign at all public entrances advising patrons that companion dogs are allowed on the premises.”
to RSA 466:44 Dogs; Restaurants and Food Stores.
HB 1596 – relative to the civil forfeiture of unlicensed dogs makes changes to the licensing law. It shortens the grace period for late licensing of dogs and increases the costs.
- Changes from between June 1 and June 20 to between May 15 and May 31 as the date for the town clerk to create a list of unlicensed dogs.
- Sets June 10 as the latest date for the town to issue a forfeiture warrant for unlicensed dogs.
- Doubles the costs of service of the forfeiture warrant from $5 to $10.
And
Visit our 
