HB1092

I respectfully urge the Committee to oppose HB 1092. RSA 466:31 currently classifies a dog as a nuisance, menace, or vicious if it “bites, attacks, or preys on game animals, domestic animals, fowl or human beings.” The statute is behavior-based, not location-based. HB 1092 would insert a new limitation so that this provision applies only when the attack occurs “not on the owner’s property.” This is a sweeping exemption. Under the proposed language, a dog that bites or attacks a person on private property would no longer qualify under subsection (g), regardless of the severity of the incident. The bill does not distinguish between trespassers and lawful entrants. Delivery drivers, utility workers, first responders, contractors, invited guests, and children could all be injured on the owner’s property without triggering this provision. The statute would no longer assess dangerousness based on conduct. Instead, it would hinge on geography. Property ownership should not operate as a blanket shield against accountability for violent animal behavior. A dog that bites on private property can pose the same risk to the public as one that bites on a public way. If the intent is to protect legitimate working or guard dogs, the bill should be narrowly tailored and clearly defined. As drafted, HB 1092 creates a broad immunity that undermines the existing public safety framework in RSA 466:31. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to find HB 1092 Inexpedient to Legislate.

Getting to be that dogs are getting more rights then humans.