Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill replacing 'colt' with gender-neutral 'foal' in animal cruelty law
Summary
A legislative committee held a brief hearing on House Bill 277, which would change the statutory term “colt” to “foal” to extend existing protections to all baby equines; the committee moved the bill by consent.
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A legislative committee opened and closed a short hearing on House Bill 277, a housekeeping change to the state’s animal cruelty statutes that would replace the gendered term “colt” with the neutral term “foal,” extending a protection that currently applies only to male foal terminology to all baby equines.
The sponsor told the committee the change corrects “a long time, longstanding injustice” in current law, noting that under existing statute colts are protected from being separated from their mothers before 90 days (weaning) while the corresponding female term is not. “As it stands right now, colts are protected from being taken away from their mothers before they are weaned at 90, but fillies are not,” the sponsor said. The sponsor said the bill simply changes the statutory term from “colt” to “foal.”
Rob Johnson, federation policy director for the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, testified in support, saying members had noticed the discrepancy and asked the committee to move the bill forward. Representative Judy Aaron, chair of the House Environment and Agriculture Committee, said the bill had come through her committee as a cleanup item and urged support.
Committee members had no substantive questions. The chair closed the hearing and the committee moved the bill forward by consent. Committee discussion on the record was brief; no amendments or contested hearings were recorded in the transcript.
The bill, as described at the hearing, is limited to changing terminology (from colt to foal) and does not add new substantive duties or penalties beyond existing animal-cruelty provisions. The hearing record does not show language beyond that change, nor does it reference a specific statute citation for the existing protection.

