Keene attack prompts bill to let municipalities require muzzles for dogs; committee seeks limits and due process

Representative Jody Newell, sponsor of HB250, told the committee the bill would "enable local governing bodies to regulate muzzling requirements for dogs licensed in that municipality." He said Keene city leaders had proposed muzzling demonstrably aggressive dogs after a constituent reported a serious attack on a leashed dog downtown.

Deborah LeBlanc, the Keene resident whose dog was mauled, described the attack in detail and urged the committee to allow municipalities to require muzzles for dogs with bite histories. "I had to rush her in for emergency surgery. I got bit trying to get the dog off of my dog. It took 3 people to pry the dog's jaw off of her leg," LeBlanc said. She told the committee police informed her the attacking dog already had an aggressive history and the community could have prevented her dog's injuries if the municipality could have ordered the owner to muzzle the animal.

Testimony and questioning focused on two practical questions: how to target an ordinance so it applies only to dogs that pose a demonstrable danger (for example dogs with documented bite histories), and how to avoid unintended consequences for legitimate working dogs — hunting and herding dogs — which may be impractical to muzzle. Daniel Dockum, who owns hunting and herding dogs, warned that some working dogs require the ability to bark or bite to perform their jobs and that broad municipal muzzling requirements could disrupt legitimate rural uses.

Municipal officials and Keene City Councilor Bobby Williams told the committee the city had considered a targeted muzzling ordinance but was told by a municipal attorney that current state law left a gray area that prevented muzzling rules except in a rabies outbreak. Williams said the city had increased fines for vicious dogs but that fines alone were not an effective deterrent to repeated attacks.

Several witnesses and legislators proposed guardrails such as limiting a muzzling requirement to dogs in public places, tying muzzling to a documented bite or viciousness determination, and building a local process with due process protections and periodic review. Kyle Baker, representing the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, told the committee he favored specificity (for example, requiring muzzles only for dogs with a history of biting other dogs) and suggested making muzzling an available remedy in court orders under RSA 466:31 rather than as a broad municipal blanket rule.

Committee members discussed where authority should sit, with Representative Bixby explaining HB250's intent to give municipalities explicit authority under New Hampshire's Dillon Rule framework. Several lawmakers suggested leaving determinations to municipal ordinance drafters so that densely populated towns could take different approaches from rural towns and to include due process and exemptions for working dogs. There was no formal vote on the bill at the hearing.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing after extensive testimony and questions and signaled the bill would be discussed further in committee work sessions and subcommittee, with attention to tailoring any municipal authority so it protects public safety while avoiding undue burdens on working dogs and property owners.