Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on HB 616 draws farmers, rescuers and agencies to debate when and how animals can be seized
Summary
The House committee spent several hours hearing testimony on HB 616, which would change when and how animals may be taken into custody during suspected cruelty or neglect investigations; witnesses included the bill sponsor, the agriculture commissioner, farmers affected by seizures, and staff from the New Hampshire SPCA.
The House Environment & Agriculture Committee conducted a lengthy hearing on HB 616, a bill that would revise procedures for confiscation and temporary protective custody of animals suspected of abuse or neglect.
Sponsor Representative Judy Aaron said the bill arose after an April incident in Lee in which she said animals were seized and later euthanized while the property owner was not charged. Aaron proposed statutory language amending RSA 644:8 to require clearer processes: written notice to charged persons about their right to petition the court for an independent veterinary examination, restrictions on altering confiscated animals before conviction (including spaying/neutering or euthanasia), limits on who may take custody (law enforcement or animal-control officers), and protections when lactating animals are seized so mothers and offspring are not separated without demonstrated capacity to care for them.
Commissioner Sean Jasper, Department of Agriculture, Markets & Food, testified in general support of due-process protections but described drafting and operational concerns. He said the state veterinarian’s office is small and warned against language that would create an unworkable requirement that the state veterinarian or a designee always be on hand, particularly for exigent circumstances (for example, animals in immediate danger or when law enforcement must act outside normal office hours). The commissioner suggested standardizing petition rights across confiscation and protective-custody circumstances.
Several people with direct experience in animal rescue, enforcement and farming testified about the Lee incident and broader practice.
Donna Lee Woods, owner of Hickory Nut Farm in Lee, described the agency seizure of more than 50 goats at her farm, said some animals were euthanized and said agents took lactating females and separated them from kids. She said seizure operations were traumatic, involved police physical handling that frightened and injured animals, and left owners uncertain about outcomes.
Representatives of the New Hampshire SPCA, including Executive Director Lisa Denison, humane agents Michelle Murch and Tana McCarthy, and other rescue professionals opposed several provisions of HB 616. The SPCA representatives said their organization routinely investigates reported cruelty with veterinarians experienced in livestock, that many cases involve neglect tied to illness, financial distress or mental-health problems rather than malicious intent, and that removing humane agents or restricting their ability to place animals into protective custody would increase animal suffering. They also warned that limiting nonprofit organizations’ ability to raise funds or to care for animals surrendered during investigations would undermine the state’s capacity to house and treat seized animals and would transfer operational burdens to already strained local governments.
Rob Johnson of the Farm Bureau said farm constituencies sought clarity and standardization: he supported provisions that clarify roles (law enforcement or municipal animal-control officer as the public actor in seizures), wanted the state veterinarian’s designee language retained for operational flexibility, and urged protections for property owners who depend on livestock for income. Several farmers and community members urged clearer notice procedures, safeguards for lactating animals and explicit limits on who may solicit donations tied to confiscations. Farmers and advocates also discussed the need for education and training for police and local animal-control officers so that on-site determinations rely on appropriate veterinary expertise.
Veterinarians and cruelty investigators who testified reiterated that large-animal veterinary expertise exists in the state and that licensed veterinarians are trained in all species. Several testified that statutory indemnity language encouraging veterinarians and volunteer experts to assist in investigations is important to protect professionals from civil or criminal liability when they act in good faith during investigations.
Committee members asked dozens of questions about when protective custody can be used rather than a warrant-based seizure, how to protect mothers and offspring, whether the state’s cost-of-care fund applies when animals are seized (the committee earlier voted to ITL a separate bill on cost-of-care but discussed folding language into other work), and whether statutory language in HB 616 should be narrowed to avoid unintended consequences.
Public testimony ran widely, with supporters of the bill — including the farm owner who described the Lee seizure — saying statutory clarity and stronger due process are needed, and SPCA, humane agents and some veterinarians saying the bill, as drafted, would reduce the state’s ability to act quickly to prevent animal suffering. Committee members said they would work on amendments and expect additional drafting at future work sessions.
