Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dog Control Muzzling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends narrow muzzling amendment letting municipalities require muzzles for dogs deemed vicious
Summary
During a work session on HB 250, lawmakers agreed to narrow a muzzling proposal so municipalities can adopt bylaws authorizing muzzles for dogs already defined as a menace, nuisance or vicious under RSA 466:31, while leaving broader leash and restraint authority intact.
Committee members reviewed a bill on municipal muzzling authority and agreed to an amendment that narrows state language so local governing bodies retain the ability to require muzzles in limited circumstances tied to existing definitions of nuisance, menace or vicious dogs.
The draft under consideration originally used broad terms about licensing, muzzling and restraining. Committee members discussed how New Hampshire's existing statute (RSA 466:31) already defines when a dog is a nuisance, menace, or vicious — for example when it is at large, chases bicycles or vehicles, or attacks people or animals — and that municipalities already have enforcement tools (fines, custody, court orders) under the statute. Lawyers and stakeholders flagged risks of overly broad municipal authority that could unintentionally muzzle hunting or herding dogs or be used to target specific owners.
To address those concerns the committee agreed to an amendment making the local ordinance authority explicitly tied to dogs meeting the statutory standards in RSA 466:31. The revised approach allows municipalities to adopt bylaws as they ‘‘deem reasonable’’ for muzzling (and other management measures) of dogs determined to be a menace, nuisance or vicious under the cited statute. Members said that framing preserves municipal discretion while reducing the risk of unintended breadth. The committee kept existing penalties in place and decided not to rework statewide leash or licensing rules at this time.
Lawmakers also discussed model ordinance guidance from municipal‑law and breed‑discrimination sources and testimony from animal‑welfare and veterinary stakeholders. Some members signaled a future, broader review of the chapter governing vicious and nuisance dogs, but they agreed the muzzling amendment should remain narrowly focused to address the specific community concern that prompted the bill.
The committee will file the muzzling amendment for consideration at the next executive session; members said they will not pursue a separate study committee this week but left open a fuller review of the chapter in the future.
