Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Muzzling And Local Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows muzzling bill to let municipalities require muzzles for dogs deemed nuisance or vicious
Summary
The committee agreed to amend a proposed muzzling bill so municipalities may adopt ordinances requiring muzzles for dogs classified under existing nuisance/menace/vicious definitions, tying any local requirements to RSA 466:31 definitions to protect hunting and working dogs.
The House Environment and Agriculture Committee reworked a proposed muzzling bill during its work session to limit state preemption concerns and preserve municipal discretion.
Committee members said their intent is to allow local governing bodies to adopt ordinances requiring muzzles when appropriate, but only in cases where a dog meets the existing statutory definitions of nuisance, menace or vicious behavior in RSA 466:31. Members emphasized exclusions already in RSA 466:31 for hunting, herding and working dogs, and asked that muzzling authority be explicitly tied to that definition to avoid sweeping local rules that would affect hunting or working animals.
The drafting change agreed in principle would replace or amend the bill’s original muscling language with a targeted sentence that the local governing body may adopt bylaws or ordinances requiring muzzling or other reasonable management for dogs deemed a nuisance, menace or vicious under RSA 466:31, and otherwise retain existing local authority on licensing and restraint. Committee members indicated they would keep other preexisting restraint and licensing language in place and preserve the penalties already specified in statute for vicious animals.
Members cited examples municipal officials raised — sustained nighttime barking, dogs chasing bicycles or running at large, and small handlers unable to physically control powerful dogs — as circumstances where local rules could require additional safeguards such as muzzles, but asked that any state language be limited so it does not outlaw normal hunting or working behavior. Stakeholders who submitted model ordinances and materials from municipal law associations were noted as references for municipal drafting.
The committee instructed staff to prepare an amendment reflecting the narrower, municipal‑centered approach and to offer it as a substitution. The session did not include a final committee vote on the muzzling amendment; members said they will file the amendment for the next business meeting.
Ending: The committee agreed to handle the muzzling change as a narrowly tailored municipal authority tied to RSA 466:31 and to submit formal amendment language in advance of the next work session.
