Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Jody Newell seeks to let municipalities require muzzles for ‘‘vicious’’ dogs
Summary
Representative Jody Newell introduced House Bill 250 to allow local governments to require muzzles for dogs licensed in-state when the animals meet the statutory definition of ‘‘vicious’’ or similar behavioral thresholds. The committee discussed narrowing the language and held the bill for further amendment.
Representative Jody Newell introduced House Bill 250 to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, asking lawmakers to allow municipalities to require muzzles for dogs licensed in New Hampshire when dogs have demonstrated dangerous behavior.
Newell said the bill responds to a Keene city council request after a resident experienced a ‘‘tragic encounter with a known aggressive dog.’’ She told the committee the proposal would let local officials require protective muzzles for demonstrably aggressive animals in public, a step she described as aimed at public safety and the dog’s welfare.
The bill, as amended, ties any municipal muzzling requirement to behavior-based statutory categories such as nuisance, menacing and vicious dogs, rather than to breed. "We want to tie this to the behavior and not anything else," Newell told the committee. She also said veterinarians and trainers had described modern muzzles as humane and comfortable protective tools.
Representative Bixby, speaking for the amendment, explained that the original draft had raised concerns among sportsmen and owners of working dogs and the American Kennel Club because it could have been interpreted to impose breed-based muzzling. Bixby said the committee chose to reference the statutory definition of vicious dogs in RSA 466:31 to avoid opening the door to improper uses.
Committee members asked whether the definition in RSA 466:31 could be narrowed further; one senator suggested limiting the reference to a specific subsection that focuses on the activity-based conduct (for example, subsection 2(g)). Committee discussion also noted a separate technical issue: an unrelated change to how dog-license fee revenues were moved last year that had inadvertently reduced income by $0.25; members suggested that could be addressed with a separate amendment or placed on this bill as a vehicle later.
The committee did not take a final vote on the bill. Senators agreed to hold HB250 for additional language work and amendments; Senator McConkie volunteered to take the bill for further drafting and follow-up with staff.
Why it matters: The proposal would give local elected bodies explicit authority under state law to enact muzzle requirements for dogs that meet a behavior-based statutory threshold. Supporters said the change preserves municipalities’ ability to protect the public while avoiding breed-based rules; opponents cautioned against overbroad language that could capture working dogs or otherwise lawful activity.
What’s next: The committee held the bill for further amendment and indicated staff and sponsors will draft narrower statutory cross-references to RSA 466:31 and consider addressing the unrelated license-fee drafting issue in a later amendment or vehicle.
