Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Seaweed Collection topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee hears opponents of repeal to nighttime seaweed collection; ITL on consent

House Fish and Game and Marine Resources Committee · January 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representative Barton proposed repealing a decades‑old ban on collecting seaweed at night. Fish and Game and conservation groups opposed the change, citing enforcement and ecosystem concerns. The committee voted ITL and placed HB 1094 on consent.

Representative Joseph Barton introduced HB 1094, which would remove the statutory prohibition on collecting seaweed between sunset and sunrise along New Hampshires roughly 16 miles of coastline. Barton framed the statute as an anachronism that no longer fits modern practice.

Capt. (later OHRV coordinator) Eastman and Dan Bergeron of New Hampshire Fish and Game explained the laws origins in the 1970s and said nighttime restrictions aid enforcement and protect intertidal habitat that supports lobsters, crabs and other species. "...seaweed really is important ... it holds together everything that's down there crawling around," one Fish and Game witness warned.

Carol Foss of New Hampshire Audubon told the committee that domestic ferrets and other introduced animals can carry diseases and prey on native wildlife, a concern raised in testimony about a separate bill that also appeared before the committee. Bergeron told legislators the commission voted to oppose HB 1094.

After questions and public testimony, the committee moved HB 1094 into executive session and voted ITL; the clerk recorded the roll call and the bill was placed on consent with a majority report due by the end of the day.

What happens next: The ITL recommendation puts the bill into the committees majority report process; sponsor and commission testimony indicates disagreement about conservation risk and enforcement practicality.