Thank you to everyone who took action on legislation this winter by contacting lawmakers, attending hearings, or submitting online testimony.
If only legislative outcomes were determined by a majority vote from the public, animals would win every time. But unfortunately it is typically a powerful few who determine the outcome for animals.
Below is the status report for bills we actively supported or opposed.
House Bill 152 – Prohibiting the sale and use of adhesive-based rodent traps
The House of Representatives voted 190–140 to “Indefinitely Postpone” this bill. A vote of Indefinitely Postpone ensures that the bill cannot be re-introduced the following year.
Prior to the House vote, the Environment and Agriculture Committee voted 9-5 to kill the bill (Inexpedient to Legislate).
Majority Report: Rep. Judy Aron for the Majority of Environment and Agriculture. Rodents and rodent infestation are a problem. Rodents carry diseases like the black plague. In the interest of public health, the majority of the committee sides with the health of human beings over rodents. Testimony demonstrated that glue traps are an effective way to monitor and capture rodents. Glue traps/glue boards are an effective non chemical (non poisonous) means to control rodents in places where food is stored and prepared, and in facilities where there are children and senior citizens. They are an important part of an integrated pest management plan. Eliminating their use would be very problematic for those places. Glue boards are also used to control pests like cockroaches and other insects, and while this bill bans them for use for rodents, how can you enforce one use over another? Additionally, you cannot control where people purchase these glue traps. It would be simple for people to buy them over the internet or go to a neighboring state to purchase them. Furthermore, any way that you kill a rodent can be considered cruel. Snap traps are cruel if they do not snap the rodent in the correct way. Cats killing rodents can also be considered cruel, so is drowning rodents in a bucket of water. Sealing openings and using other exclusionary techniques do not always work, as rodents will in time find new entrances, and rodent contraception takes a long time to be effective. The majority of the committee believes that non target species would not get ensnared in glue traps if the product is used as directed on the package by the consumer and that more public education is needed. Overall, the majority felt that people who do not wish to use these products are free not to use them, but we cannot deny everyone else the ability to use an effective non chemical means of controlling rodents if they feel that works best for their rodent problem.
Minority Report: Nicholas Germana for the Minority of Environment and Agriculture. Adhesive traps, or glue traps, are a very old, very basic, very primitive form of pest control. Animals (not just rodents) who are caught in these traps suffer agonizing deaths. The minority of the committee recognizes the importance of being able to effectively manage rodent populations; fortunately, there are a wide variety of affordable, non-chemical pest control options on the market. This bill keeps coming back to the legislature because there is a demand among our constituents to stop this practice – online testimony was nearly 30:1 in favor of this bill (295 to 10). The minority of the committee believes that time is now.
House Bill 201 – Prohibiting the removal of claws from cats
The House of Representatives voted 191-177 to kill this bill (Inexpedient to Legislate).
Prior to the House vote, the Environment and Agriculture Committee voted 9-7 to kill the bill (Inexpedient to Legislate).
Majority Report: Rep. Judy Aron for the Majority of Environment and Agriculture. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. The majority of the committee voted Inexpedient to Legislate because there is no real need to ban this procedure or codify harsh penalties to veterinarians. We do not have statistics that demonstrate that NH has a problem with our veterinarians performing cat declawing procedures for non medical reasons. In fact, we heard testimony from NH veterinarians that the overwhelming majority of NH veterinarians already discourage or do not offer cat declawing procedures and instead work with cat owners to use behavior modification and other techniques to prevent the cat from scratching family members or destroying property. When those techniques fail, and the veterinarian determines that declawing is the only remaining solution (aside from rehoming or euthanasia) then that should remain a choice between the cat owner and the veterinarian. If an owner has tried all methods available to cease chronic scratching and if declawing was made illegal, their options would be to: abandon the cat, rehome it to an unsuspecting home, or surrender it to a shelter, or they might even take their cat to a state where cat declawing is not banned. The committee heard in testimony that cat declaw procedures are only done by NH veterinarians when medically necessary for the cat, or for instances when cat owners have medical conditions that could be life threatening if they are scratched by their cats (i.e. on blood thinners, etc.), or if it is an absolute last resort to chronic cat scratching behaviors. We also heard that modern techniques, such as laser surgery yield better and much safer results than techniques used in the past, and that declawed cats can and do live long, healthy, and happy lives. Most importantly, the majority felt very strongly that we as a legislature should not go down the road of removing autonomy from NH veterinarians and dictating to them what procedures they can and cannot offer. Our licensed veterinarians have the knowledge, experience, and wisdom to work with their clients to determine what procedures are the right ones for their pets and the legislature should not interfere with that relationship. We also understand that certain animal activist organizations are flooding state legislatures across the country with these types of bills and once they get one procedure banned they continue to try to ban others, and they use these campaigns to fundraise. For all these reasons, and more, the majority in the committee voted to Inexpedient to Legislate this bill.
Minority Report: Rep. Nicholas Germana for the Minority of Environment and Agriculture. While reliable statistics are not available, the committee heard testimony, even from opponents of the bill, that this procedure is performed in New Hampshire. The committee heard a great deal of testimony from veterinary professionals and members of the public about the profound adverse effects that cats can suffer as a result of this procedure. The minority of the committee concludes that unnecessary declawing is inhumane and, however infrequently it might occur, should not be permitted in New Hampshire.
House Bill 251 – Allowing the ownership of certain squirrels and raccoons
The House of Representatives voted 226–115 to “Lay on Table.” Laying a bill on the table postpones voting indefinitely, avoiding debate and the need for lawmakers to choose a side.
Prior to the House vote, the Environment and Agriculture Committee voted 12–2 to kill the bill (Inexpedient to Legislate).
Committee Report: Rep. Kevin Scully for Environment and Agriculture. The committee is sympathetic to the intent of this bill, an attempt to save squirrels and raccoons that can’t be returned to the wild, after being rehabilitated by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, by allowing them to be kept as pets. The committee listened to all testimony and felt the experts from our Fish and Game Department made a compelling argument that these animals, despite any injuries, remain wild. The bill also sought to allow people who move into our state to be allowed to keep their pet gray squirrel or pet raccoon if they are coming from a state that allows such pets. We saw that the Fish and Game statute RSA 207:14 allows for a permitting process for people bringing wildlife into NH, so it is possible for people coming into the state with their wild animal to apply for a permit. We also heard testimony that gray squirrels and raccoons pose a heightened risk, particularly since there is no trustworthy rabies vaccine regimen has been developed for this species of wildlife.
House Bill 401 – Relative to animal testing funded by New Hampshire state fund
The Environment and Agriculture Committee was unanimous (14-0) in voting this bill Inexpedient to Legislate.
Committee Report: Rep. Lisa Freeman for Environment and Agriculture. Essentially, this bill presents as a solution looking for a problem. New Hampshire, currently, has to our knowledge, only one in-state cosmetics company and it has voluntarily committed not to perform testing on animals. They are a private business and do not receive state funds. Further, there was no tangible evidence that our state funds any type of animal testing anywhere in our state in relation to this bill. Finally, in-state colleges and universities must comply with federal Animal Welfare Act legislation and standards pertaining to any animal testing or research. The committee unanimously agreed that we do not believe that there is the type of animal testing occurring in New Hampshire that this bill is concerned about, nor are any state funds are being used to support said testing. Lastly, we were concerned about the repeated testimony from supporters that they wanted to put this legislation in place and be able to expand on it in the future. For those reasons, we unanimously rejected this legislation.
House Bill 589 – Defining and prohibiting wanton animal waste and prohibiting certain wildlife hunting contests
The House of Representatives voted this bill Inexpedient to Legislate by a voice vote.
Prior to the House vote, the Fish and Game and Marine Resources Committee voted 12–3 to kill the bill (Inexpedient to Legislate).
Majority Report: Rep. Paul Tudor for the Majority of Fish and Game and Marine Resources. This bill does two things, first it makes it illegal to intentionally leave a wounded or killed animal in the field or forest without making a reasonable effort to retrieve the animal. Second, it prohibits wildlife killing contests. During testimony we heard from fish and game that this was not really a problem in New Hampshire and that they were planning on dealing with it with rules. It was the position of the majority that rules were the best place to deal with these issues.
Minority Report: Rep. Loren Foxx for the Minority of Fish and Game and Marine Resources. The minority believes that wanton waste and killing contests are not acceptable hunting practices as outlined in the pillars of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which states that “wildlife must only be killed for a legitimate, non-frivolous purpose.” It is essential that we address these issues for the well-being and conservation of New Hampshire’s outdoors. We agree with this important legislation, which mandates that Fish and Game address the issues though their rule making process.
House Bill 593 – Relative to loss of consortium involving pets
The House Judiciary Committee was unanimous (11-0) in voting this bill Inexpedient to Legislate.
Committee Report: Rep. Donald McFarlane for Judiciary. This bill seeks to expand the definition of “loss of consortium” to include pets, allowing pet owners to claim damages for the loss or impairment of companionship with their animals. Whereas the committee acknowledges the deep emotional bonds between individuals and their pets, several concerns have led to the recommendation that this bill is inexpedient to legislate. The bill fails sufficiently to define pet, and fails to clarify which relations, by ownership or otherwise, of the pet would be able to claim loss of consortium. The bill would limit owners in what they can do with their own animals, in ways which are clearly undesirable. The bill would expand potential liabilities in the case of veterinary care, leading to higher costs for veterinary care, pet grooming and other pet-related services. Traditionally, animals are classified as property under the law. Altering this classification to recognize pets similarly to human relationships could have far-reaching legal implications, potentially affecting areas such as property rights, liability, and insurance. Expanding loss of consortium claims to include pets may lead to increased litigation. This could inadvertently impact pet owners, service providers, and the legal system, creating burdens that outweigh the intended benefits of the bill. Current laws already provide avenues for pet owners to seek compensation in cases of intentional or negligent harm to their animals. To the extent that there is a need to increase the provisions for such damages, this bill is not the appropriate mechanism to achieve that end. Given all of these considerations, the committee believes that the potential negative consequences of enacting this bill outweigh the benefits.
Overall, it has been a frustrating legislative session for those seeking better protections for animals. However, we must celebrate the fact that issues such as cat declawing and glue traps even came before lawmakers and had as much support as they did.
