Archive

Posts Tagged ‘HB 1624’

HB 1624 – Defeated

February 10th, 2010 No comments

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.

  • Share/Bookmark

House Calendar on HB 1624

February 6th, 2010 No comments

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


  • Share/Bookmark

February 5, 2010 Legislative Update

February 5th, 2010 No comments

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…

  • Share/Bookmark

January 23,2010 Legislative update

January 23rd, 2010 No comments

Update on HB 1624 (Dog Breeder Requirements) & HB 1639 (Tethering and Animal Confiscation Criteria)

This past week, two bills that would restrict the rights of dog breeders and animal owners had legislative public hearings. Many thanks to all who prepared and presented testimony and signed in opposed as well as those who sent letters.  No matter what the outcome of the bill, we can be very proud of our articulate messages, engaging presentations and knowledgeable demeanor.  Feedback indicates that the legislators were impressed and became more informed.

NEXT STEPS

Those who testified are encouraged to send a note to the committee members thanking them for listening to your concerns and offering to provide any further information to address any concerns or questions.
Supporters of the bills are reaching out work on amendments. HB 1639 and HB 1624 NEED TO BE KILLED – amendments to make the bills “better” are not an option as the bills are totally flawed, unjustified and lack funding for enforcement. If the bills were to be passed with exceptions for certain breeds or activities, the supporters would only return to the legislature in the future to remove the exceptions.
At this time neither bill has been scheduled for a subcommittee meeting by the respective committees.  The House Environment & Agriculture Committee may vote on the bill during their executive session on January 28th.  Stay tuned for more updates.

If you have not yet send a letter to the committee members and your local state representative, please do so now!  Remember to individualize your letters.

Your local legislator and their contact information can be found at here.

HB 1639 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.
House Criminal Justice Committee Members.

HB 1624 is proposed as a bill to stop “puppy mills” but it will impose unnecessary and onerous requirements on responsible dog owners and breeders. Education about and enforcement of the current laws, such as the requirement of a health certificate and the veterinary medical practice act, would be more effective than HB 1624 .  The Dept. of Agriculture rules  (AGR 1702) referenced in the bill can be found at  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/state_agencies/agr1700.html

House Environment and Agriculture Committee Members

  • Share/Bookmark

More on HB 1624

January 10th, 2010 No comments

Dogged Dogdom has a great post about HB 1624.

The bill infringes on the individual owners rights to make decisions about their animal’s particular needs, and does more to create irresponsible breeding practices and care of animals than it does to protect it.

The bill uses an arbitrary number to define a limit on how many dogs can be adequately cared for by an individual and by a breeder.

Please read it all.

  • Share/Bookmark