Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hundreds testify on bill to ban wildlife killing contests; commission split over enforcement and scope
Summary
Lawmakers received hours of public testimony on HB589, which would ban wildlife killing contests and define wanton waste of wild animals; supporters called the contests cruel, while commissioners and hunting groups warned against overbroad drafting.
Representative Schultz introduced HB589, a bill to ban wildlife killing contests and to clarify and prohibit wanton waste of wild animals. The sponsor said an amended approach relies on rulemaking to define exemptions and implementation details while protecting lawful, regulated hunting.
Numerous citizens, conservation groups and animal-welfare organizations urged passage. Witnesses described contests in which participants seek cash or prizes for the largest number or weight of animals killed, often posting photos online. Susan Garcia said such contests are “bloody, barbaric, cruel,” and other speakers described how children’s participation or exposure could normalize violence. Kurt Ehrenberg of the Humane Society of the United States asked for clear statutory language to prevent loopholes and for the list of targeted species to be explicit.
Several wildlife scientists and conservation advocates, including Chris Schaedler (UNH educator and livestock producer) and representatives of the New Hampshire Wildlife Coalition, testified about population-level concerns. Schaedler presented harvest and trapper records suggesting declines in red fox, gray fox and fisher; he said indiscriminate lethal control can produce ecological harm and wrote that killing contests generate wanton waste.
Opposition came from Fish and Game commissioners, some hunting interests and guide groups that supported targeting wanton waste but opposed blanket statutory bans that could unintentionally sweep in lawful contests (for example, fishing derbies or traditional competitions measuring biggest catch or longest season-long harvest). Ray Green, chair of the Fish and Game Commission, said the commission voted previously to oppose the bill as originally drafted because it combined two subjects (wanton waste and killing contests) and would remove decision-making authority from the commission; he said the commission supports prohibiting wanton waste but preferred a carefully drafted rule or statute that preserves legitimate hunting and nuisance control. New Hampshire Guides Association and New Hampshire Wildlife Federation also opposed the bill as drafted and asked for narrower, enforceable language.
Commissioner and Fish and Game witnesses noted existing authority to address cruelty and unlawful methods; proponents countered that contests can occur under the legal hunting seasons and that explicit prohibition was needed to stop commercialization of mass killing. The sponsor said the amended bill would place the detailed exemptions and definitions in the director’s rulemaking process so the commission and public would have input through hearings.
No committee vote was taken at the hearing. Why it matters: The bill draws a collision line between hunters and trapping interests who fear overbroad enforcement and conservationists and animal-welfare advocates who describe contests as a public-safety and moral problem. The committee must balance enforceability, statutory clarity, and protection for legitimate hunting and property-rights-based nuisance control.
