Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Cruelty Torture Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long hearing on SB 290 splits stakeholders over adding a statutory definition of "torture" in animal-cruelty law
Summary
Senate Bill 290 would add a statutory definition of "torture" to New Hampshire's animal‑cruelty law; supporters said a definition would help law enforcement and prosecutors, while farm and breeding groups warned the proposed language could criminalize routine agricultural and veterinary practices.
Senator David Waters introduced SB 290, a proposal to add a statutory definition of "torture" to RSA 644:8, the state's animal‑cruelty statute. Waters said the governor's commission on prevention of animal cruelty drafted the language after law‑enforcement members told the commission they lacked a workable definition when statutes use the word "torture." He told the committee the proposed definition reads in part: "torture means negligent or purposeful act or omission that causes intense or prolonged pain or suffering, causes serious physical injury, or causes the death of an animal due to such negligent or purposeful act or omission." Waters said the language mirrors definitions adopted in other states.
Waters told the committee the commission recommended the definition to give law enforcement and prosecutors clearer guidance. He pointed to statutory cross‑references that currently use the verb "torture" without defining it and said that can complicate charging and enforcement.
Several witnesses testified on both sides. Kurt Ehrenberg, state director of the Humane Society of the United States, said the commission and the governor support establishing a definition and argued that from an animal’s perspective, the distinction between negligent and purposeful harm is secondary to the suffering imposed. "If you look at it from the animal's perspective, if you're being tortured, it really doesn't matter if the person did it negligently or purposefully," he said.
Opponents included Senator Howard Pearl (testifying in his role as a longtime agriculture policymaker), the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, the American Kennel Club and dog‑owner groups. They warned the bill could criminalize common agricultural and animal‑husbandry practices and could expose veterinarians and breeders to criminal prosecution. Stacy Ober of the American Kennel Club told the committee the bill's language "is a novel and expansive description" that differs from how New Hampshire law currently distinguishes culpability and said routine veterinarian care or lawful agricultural practices could be at risk. The Farm Bureau highlighted castration, dehorning and other routine livestock procedures as activities that, if evaluated under terms such as "intensive" or "prolonged" pain, could be misread.
Other witnesses, including breeders and animal-rights advocates, pressed the committee for narrow drafting: several suggested listing specific acts (some urged explicitly listing drowning) or adding explicit exemptions for accepted agricultural and veterinary practices. Joan O’Brien, speaking in support, urged explicitly listing drowning as torture, citing past cases where defendants argued drowning was a form of euthanasia.
The testimony revealed disagreement about whether the statutory term "torture" should include negligent conduct. Waters and supporters said the drafting intentionally used "negligent or purposeful" to capture prolonged or serious harm whether intended or not; opponents called that inclusion too broad.
No final committee vote on the bill was taken during the hearing. The committee heard extensive testimony and flagged the need to refine statutory language and consider explicit exemptions for lawful husbandry, veterinary practice and agricultural operations.
