[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6642448,"mediaKeyId","2542988-82c80edc6d0c25bceee2fd188585f81b","parentId",2542988,"title","Draft amendment narrows powers to alter confiscated animals; committee debates euthanasia, imminent‑danger exception","audioSeconds",3943,"startMs",3832000,"endMs",7775000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2542988-82c80edc6d0c25bceee2fd188585f81b&start=3832&end=7775","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2542988-82c80edc6d0c25bceee2fd188585f81b/thumbnail_3832000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6642448/New-Hampshire/Draft-amendment-narrows-powers-to-alter-confiscated-animals-committee-debates-euthanasia-imminentdanger-exception","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6642448-f7ee698ed3f5e6d7eb05e84efeb9e8e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168553&Signature=e8RM8pw6d0x9IGI~O9RK3mYQYISu1lowlCiEZrFJGE0O8GE6QXkFPmS8pY-Fro2iDVg2--XxISMsqceYNrMTfGhZmn2ex8fglFPYNrr2HRSP-pYAAG2MR-92TPen8RrZesPRSZu3IsE9n9-Gd11KYRBGlxdvCF3fu0rv1YSin9CQ0CA3Wcf7imv96ieuRyTFwXfJEay~ZXOyhpVtqJ209ZDJqsiDi1cl2Ogd9ATNh5Our8Cez0ziBZsWSt1EyCQ49dQW0roTUYm1~z2mVns9OdrPo8Rza7WLiXJzTy9Ee~fM5AGBGdwSJiVZajA9uLwzRLcVwdhhXOYM0PXp~B-Esw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-03-11T16:39:40.287Z","article","The committee considered an amended draft of HB 616, a bill that revises statutes governing confiscation and protective custody of animals during cruelty or neglect investigations. The amendment would restrict custodians from spaying, neutering or otherwise permanently altering confiscated animals before the final disposition of the case unless the owner signs notarized authorization or a court authorizes the procedure; an exception for animals in imminent danger was proposed.

Sponsor Representative Potenza explained the change was intended to protect owners’ property interests while preventing unnecessary alterations pending adjudication. She told the panel that language protecting animals from alteration had been added after testimony and negotiation with stakeholders.

Members and witnesses debated two central issues: (1) who makes emergency decisions for an animal in serious distress, and (2) how to prevent public disclosure of investigative material that might lead to threats or vigilante actions against owners before a court decides a case. Commissioner Jasper (for the record) said officers must retain discretion in emergency situations: \"I don't think any of us would wanna say, oh, well, just leave them there to die,\" he told the committee, arguing that officers should be able to act when an animal's life is at imminent risk. Several lawmakers asked to add the word \"imminent\" to the exception language to clarify its scope.

Law‑enforcement officials pressed for operational clarity. Chief David Suckling of the Alexandria Police Department described on‑scene conditions officers face and the need to seize animals immediately in some circumstances; he urged the committee not to constrain officers’ ability to protect animals and public safety. He said that small agencies sometimes cannot arrest immediately yet must act to remove animals in serious distress.

The draft also includes new procedural protections: an investigating officer would be accompanied by a state veterinarian or designee to assess probable cause when practical, and third parties assisting in seizures could be required to sign nondisclosure agreements to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations. Representative Contois asked whether a veterinarian must be called; members agreed the practical reality is that a law‑enforcement officer makes the immediate decision and documents the reasons, with a veterinarian available when possible.

Committee members flagged timing questions: current rules provide a prompt status hearing after seizure, but longer adjudication timelines remain possible. Several representatives recommended adding explicit language that a court order could authorize euthanasia or other permanent procedures if medically necessary and the owner refuses to grant permission.

Next steps: sponsors and staff agreed to clean up the language — including an \"imminent danger\" exception and clarifying the role of veterinarians versus law enforcement — and to circulate a revised amendment before the next meeting. The committee did not take a final vote on HB 616 on March 11.

Ending: The committee left the major protections in place but asked OLS to redraft ambiguous passages and to confirm that racing/parimutuel provisions remain in current law rather than the amendment.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Environment and Agriculture (03/11/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers reviewed a revised draft of HB 616 that would bar permanent alteration of animals confiscated during cruelty or neglect investigations prior to conviction, while adding an exception for animals in imminent danger and procedural safeguards for investigators.","taxTitle","Public Works and Highways, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17759,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6642452,"Lawmakers press for clearer \"aquifer\" language, debate monitoring and setbacks in landfill bill",7092,859000,7951000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2542988-82c80edc6d0c25bceee2fd188585f81b&start=859&end=7951","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2542988-82c80edc6d0c25bceee2fd188585f81b/thumbnail_859000.jpg","/articles/6642452/New-Hampshire/Lawmakers-press-for-clearer-aquifer-language-debate-monitoring-and-setbacks-in-landfill-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6642452-cf0b6b7589554f138f41bc626c048d2f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168553&Signature=gHdWbBKEZwhsar6ECz~SNX3KrbscmNgnSymr7Y66cD2wYAZHT-GdWBIrlAqwp7USe5iMMVtZE9qdLaizMwRQuVfLSIpx1aCdggB03g9fMchfhzvdOk7bDR9fOvIN89PTuGAv-Rm6D87VkANkABSr2ov9Hwu14DjwsSnw3OR0tp7X0HUgvkiRGUs6W3wHpdfadswN8dN5Smmkua6KUc2OCeAjY5134rqdjmT-QL8wNlY8~i-pmlTDLOCE7Rg-5hRFwDnSYdCT6Y7VFCqDbiC7wgKGRgKg~rKrPj-PfQa0U5yB91x8FFcrj4RwduBJOYd9jREfq61bo~KPkBR7t9Z-~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Potenza presented a revised amendment to HB 707 on March 11 and answered questions from committee members and Department staff about wording, numeric thresholds and site-protection measures for new landfills.

The draft drew focused debate over three technical points: the use of the term \"aquifer,\" the numeric groundwater standard (10^-5 versus 10^-4), and a combination of a prescriptive setback with a five‑year time‑of‑travel performance test. Representative Potenza said she kept the 10^-5 standard because \"10 to the negative 5 was what how the rules first came out ... they're more protective, and it's where we should be at.\" She told the committee that two places in the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) text had inconsistent phrasing for aquifer-related protections and that she would ask OLS to make the language uniform.

Department of Environmental Services staff warned the committee that the single word \"aquifer\" can be read very broadly. Mike Wimsatt, director of the Waste Management Division at New Hampshire DES, told the panel that \"virtually all of New Hampshire is underlain by an aquifer of some sorts,\" and cautioned that using only the term \"aquifer\" could be interpreted to forbid siting anywhere in the state. Wimsatt suggested that references to \"drinking water wells\" are more precise when the statutory goal is to protect potable water supplies.

Committee members also discussed how a two‑part protection—both a prescriptive setback and a five‑year groundwater time‑of‑travel criterion—functions on the ground. Representative Potenza said the 1,500‑foot setback replaces an older 500‑foot rule and is smaller than an earlier 3,000‑foot proposal; she said the new map leaves substantially more of the state available for siting than the old map. She said both approaches were kept because a surface spill behaves differently than a subsurface plume and the two protections serve different failure modes.

Members pressed DES on monitoring and response requirements. Potenza argued that an on‑site, live employee is necessary because automated dialer systems can fail and a missed alarm may allow a weekend spill to go undiscovered. Wimsatt said DES favors robust electronic alarms and automated notifications to responsible facility staff, and questioned whether a 24‑hour on‑site employee would always be the most effective use of resources: \"It is not clear to us that that would necessarily result [in better detection],\" he said, noting the cost and the possibility that an on‑site person might be a security guard without operational knowledge.

Representative Gruber and others urged a layered approach—technology plus human oversight—so that alarms are backed by a reliable local response plan.

Next steps: Representative Potenza said she will send clarified language to OLS (particularly to make \"aquifer\" references consistent with protections for drinking‑water wells) and will bring outstanding issues to the committee's work session next week for further drafting and a potential vote. The subcommittee did not take a final vote on HB 707 on March 11.

Ending: The chair scheduled follow‑up work and said the committee has one week before it must act on the revised amendment; members asked DES to review the \"significant history / repeated serious violations\" language before final action.

","Representative Potenza presented a revised amendment to HB 707 on March 11 and answered committee questions about aquifer language, numeric groundwater protection levels and monitoring requirements for future landfills.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6642443,"Committee votes: ITL on several bills, resolution adopted urging federal and USDA action on small‑scale slaughter",1500,10320000,11820000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2542988-82c80edc6d0c25bceee2fd188585f81b&start=10320&end=11820","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2542988-82c80edc6d0c25bceee2fd188585f81b/thumbnail_10320000.jpg","/articles/6642443/New-Hampshire/Committee-votes-ITL-on-several-bills-resolution-adopted-urging-federal-and-USDA-action-on-smallscale-slaughter","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6642443-903b51d7674fe1db729e93b8a92183b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168553&Signature=Mss1hiGKFku20tO05t4bxiJtLwU3tXbS0mngXlxBxdKmnyUqcnnG7CYrO1rX~pc2oQx8yGLHHkOv1Lde4YTk5LLd-G1KNEVFiiT9ELoPr~edglCpT5ehx1EfmTqsrPiegYudbNxRecbkUBXsKdFcK3zfiYipiqO0daAp2PxQdUsLD9ibwY~ALtTXI4TjHltQH-js6nxpDBrlydomAjZEx~4xTSdaa-sltAOrFv1OqSJnGBedI~RuIpmXbMAvQtYJUqV91Ixq3StRi9kTPe3b0as4gmXeejWWuVIE6uamgy6f9-K3J8KbE9hTCNeJjNCZa8P2EL6PiEKkJlg3kvq4dg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Agriculture committee concluded its March 11 meeting with an executive session that recorded votes on multiple bills and adopted a house resolution urging federal and USDA action on small‑scale slaughter inspection rules.

Votes at a glance

- HB 424 (service‑animal business forms; study committee): Motion — ITL (inexpedient to legislate). Mover: Representative Howard; second: Representative Freeman. Outcome: passed (14–0). Clerk recorded the roll call and the motion carried unanimously.

- HB 262 (group dog licenses): Motion — ITL. Mover: Representative Bixby. Outcome: passed (14–0).

- HB 401 (state‑funded animal testing reporting): Motion — ITL. Mover: Representative Freeman. Outcome: passed (14–0).

- HB 250 (municipal muzzling bylaws; amendment mix‑up): Recessed for correction. The sponsor notified OLS that the wrong bill language had been placed in the amendment; committee recessed consideration until March 18, 11:15 a.m.

- HB 505 (allowing sale of freeze‑dried homestead foods): Recessed to March 18, 11:15 a.m.; the committee requested additional time to review the proposed amendment from HHS/food‑safety staff.

- HB 642 (dehydrated meat/homestead food): Motion — ITL. Mover: Chair (sponsor indicated preference); outcome: passed (14–0). The sponsor said meat raises different food‑safety concerns and required further work; she moved to send the bill ITL.

- HB 251 (possession of certain raccoons and gray squirrels for people moving into the state): Motion — expedient to legislate (the committee treated motion as an inadequacy motion); outcome passed 12–2. The committee discussed public‑health and vaccination concerns before voting.

- HB 152 (ban on adhesive rodent traps for rodents): Motion — ITL. Outcome: motion passed (9–5). Committee debate cited public‑health risks (e.g., hantavirus) and enforceability concerns; a minority report was requested.

- House resolution (urging federal delegation and USDA to advance inspection options for small‑scale slaughter/custom exempt plants): Motion — adoption. Outcome: passed (14–0). The committee agreed to send the text to OLS and pursue a floor resolution similar to a Ways & Means example cited in committee.

Notes and next steps: Two bills (HB 250 and HB 505) were recessed to the next meeting (March 18) so OLS can correct language and the sponsor can review amended text. The committee placed several passed ITL items on its consent calendar and instructed staff to prepare committee reports and any majority/minority writeups.

Ending: Committee members were reminded of an upcoming Farm Bureau young‑farmers breakfast and the committee's plan to reconvene on March 18 to complete votes and review corrected amendments.

","At an exec session March 11 the committee voted 'inexpedient to legislate' on multiple bills, recessed two items to March 18 and adopted a house resolution urging federal action on inspection rules for small‑scale slaughter plants.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Draft amendment narrows powers to alter confiscated animals; committee debates euthanasia, imminent‑danger exception

Lawmakers press for clearer "aquifer" language, debate monitoring and setbacks in landfill bill

Committee votes: ITL on several bills, resolution adopted urging federal and USDA action on small‑scale slaughter