HB1766
House · 2026 sessionBipartisanVeto — override pendingLivestock cruelty seizure procedures
AI-generatedAs amended, this bill establishes separate confiscation procedures for livestock in animal cruelty cases, requiring veterinary involvement in probable cause determinations, a form informing owners of examination rights, court priority scheduling, and limits on altering confiscated livestock.
relative to cruelty to livestock. Official record
Division of testimonyComputed by this site
623 submissionsAll 347 written submissions were individually written — no organized campaign detected.
Status
Vetoed by the governor — the override vote has not been held yet · June 24, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✓Senate
- Governor
- Law
Argument analysis · complete record
AI-generatedall 347 hand-written submissions read in fullWritten testimony on HB1766 is heavily weighted toward opposition, with roughly a dozen submissions in support. Opponents — including horse owners, veterinarians, humane society staff and volunteers, an animal control officer, and a law enforcement officer — argue the bill would slow seizures by routing probable cause through the State Veterinarian, remove licensed humane societies from investigations, restrict their fundraising, mandate cruelty charges in all seizure cases, and delete the court's list of post-conviction penalties. Supporters, including farmers and Farm Bureau-aligned commenters, argue the bill restores due process for livestock owners, ensures veterinary expertise in agricultural matters, and curbs what they describe as self-interested involvement by private nonprofits. Many opposition submissions repeat a shared template of four to six numbered objections, while others recount personal experiences of neglect cases.
- Excluding humane societies removes vital investigative expertiseOppose104 of 347 · 30%
Opponents say barring duly licensed humane societies from investigations, custody determinations, and seizure discussions eliminates a resource with skills that police departments and towns generally lack.
“Prohibiting duly licensed humane societies in this way will eliminate a vital resource in the investigation of animal cruelty.”
— Colleen Catallo, Hopkinton · #591898 — read full submission →
“This bill seeks to remove the ability to use our expertise in assisting Town Police Departments and State Police in investigating and saving animals at risk. This expertise is a specialty and one that most PD's simply don't have.”
— Sheila Ryan, Lee · #600042 — read full submission →
- Routing probable cause to State Veterinarian causes fatal delaysOppose54 of 347 · 16%
Opponents argue shifting authority to establish probable cause from any licensed veterinarian to the State Veterinarian adds a layer of management to a time-critical process, prolonging animal suffering and overloading a single office.
“HB 1766 switches the responsibility for establishing probable cause to confiscate livestock (equines are livestock) from a licensed veterinarian to SPECIFICALLY our State Veterinarian (or their designee). This is already a process that is under the constant pressure of time”
— Kristin Wagner, Derry · #589598 — read full submission →
“This will create an untenable work load for the state employees and much worse than that it would create an environment where it would be difficult if not impossible to get animals checked in a timely manner. Why would the state want to cause such suffering?”
— Rachel Wagner, Gilmanton · #593643 — read full submission →
- New Hampshire's animal protections are already among the weakestOppose52 of 347 · 15%
Opponents argue the state's existing cruelty laws are inadequate compared to neighboring states and should be strengthened rather than diluted.
“NH animal protection laws are already weaker than other New England states and don't offer what could be considered humane minima for adequate care of pets and livestock. To further weaken these already inadequate minima is unconscionable.”
— Ellen Douglas, Fremont · #602415 — read full submission →
“The NH laws on animal protection are abysmal at best. This bill will weaken it further and therefore I urge a NO vote.”
— peggy Villar, Orford · #603341 — read full submission →
- Animals should not have to near death before interventionOppose47 of 347 · 14%
Many opponents argue the intervention threshold is already too high and the bill worsens it; confiscation should be possible for pain or denial of basic needs rather than only imminent danger of death.
“No animal should be required to suffer to the point of imminent death before authorities are permitted to intervene. Current standards in many jurisdictions set the threshold for action far too high, allowing prolonged and preventable suffering under the guise of insufficient evidence.”
— Grace Shaw-Kennedy, Belmont · #600076 — read full submission →
“Words such as "extreme suffering" only serves continue said suffering. I have personally seen horses and goats that were starved and severely neglected, deprived of any basic care.”
— Dorine Remillard, Auburn · #600879 — read full submission →
- Deleting the court's penalty list enables repeat offendersOppose38 of 347 · 11%
Opponents argue that removing the list of post-conviction options — such as bans on possessing animals or working with animals — dilutes judicial authority and allows future abuse.
“HB 1766 has eliminated the list of penalties offerred to the court which could be imposed upon convicted offenders including: restrictions from possessing animals, engaging in employment in the care of animals and other prohibitions necessary to protect animals from these same people in the future.”
— Gordon Fellows, Derry · #589601 — read full submission →
“Also, the billl will allow people who violate the law in regards to animimal cruelty to work with animals again. THIS IS ABSURD! Sex offenders are not allowed to be around children...How is this different?”
— Celeste Consoli, EXETER · #602000 — read full submission →
- Animals have no voice and depend on human protectionOppose37 of 347 · 11%
Many opponents make a general moral argument that society has an ethical duty to intervene for creatures who cannot speak or protect themselves.
“Legislation advocating for the humane treatment of all animals is paramount, given that these laws literally give a voice to those who cannot speak. It is our duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.”
— Greta McNeil, Nottingham · #600758 — read full submission →
“It is our responsibility as rational and ethical citizens of society to protect those which can not protect or speak for themselves.”
— Laura Robertson, Gilmanton · #589223 — read full submission →
- Law should specify objective minimum standards of careOppose24 of 347 · 7%
Opponents call for enforceable, measurable requirements — species-appropriate feed, clean drinkable water at all times, shelter, room to move, and prompt veterinary care — arguing current law falls short and the bill dilutes it further.
“any humane law should provide for basic needs and veterinary care; feed suited to the species in quality, amount and availability; clean water available at all times that you or I would drink; prompt medical and veterinary care to prevent disease, pain and suffering; shelter and freedom to move and exercise”
— Deanna Kravetz, Deerfield · #600907 — read full submission →
“These standards are objective and measurable - not subjective. An animal either has food and clean water or it does not. It either has a clean environment with adequate space to move or it does not.”
— Mercedes Magistro, Gilford · #599733 — read full submission →
- Mandating cruelty charges in all seizures criminalizes vulnerable ownersOppose22 of 347 · 6%
Opponents say requiring charges in every seizure case would force prosecution of owners suffering from dementia, illness, or financial hardship, removing discretion and discouraging early, compassionate intervention.
“Not every person who has an animal seized should be charged with animal cruelty and requiring this is incredibly harmful for people dealing with things like dementia, financial insecurity, etc.”
— Melissa Mower, Dover · #599838 — read full submission →
“Charges anyone determined to have abused animals in their care with a crime, including persons suffering from dementia or other severely debilitating chronic illnesses and experiencing severe financial hardships. Labelling such unfortunates as criminals appears to be a blatant example of "blaming the victim"”
— Mary Fox, Portsmouth · #601499 — read full submission →
- Nondisclosure and fundraising limits would silence and defund nonprofitsOppose20 of 347 · 6%
Opponents object that requiring nondisclosure agreements and barring solicitation based on case specifics or likenesses would prevent nonprofits from raising the funds needed to cover cost of care.
“these non-profits can shelter our communities’ confiscated animals BUT their hands will be tied on how they are able to rally the public to help by soliciting donations for cost of care.”
— Kristin Wagner, Derry · #589598 — read full submission →
“To suggest a high profile cruelty case doesn’t warrant fundraising is absurd. It is the very life blood to ensure there is a facility able to provide the care the State demands.”
— Claudia Abdinoor, Gilford · #599504 — read full submission →
- Police, large-animal vets and ACOs are already too scarceOppose19 of 347 · 5%
Opponents argue that limiting involvement to law enforcement, the State Veterinarian, and animal control officers is unworkable given shortages of ACOs, overwhelmed veterinarians, and police untrained in cruelty investigation.
“(1) Police are stretched thin and many would prefer to avoid these cases as they are not necessarily trained in animal cruelty investigation and prosecution. (2) Veterinarians are overwhelmed and large animal vets are few and far between in New Hampshire. (3) There is a shortage of Animal Control Officers throughout our state. Concord doesn’t even have one!”
— Jennnifer Peabody, Gilmanton · #596120 — read full submission →
“Law Enforcement does not have the training or the experience to investigate cruelty to animals. Officers depend on humane agents for investigating cruelty toward animals with search warrants, arrest warrants and testimony in court.”
— Tona McCarthy, Stratham · #602792 — read full submission →
- Livestock deserve the same protection as companion animalsOppose14 of 347 · 4%
Opponents argue that because livestock are not household pets does not make them less sentient or less deserving of protection, and that species that serve humans warrant particular care.
“Just because these livestock are not considered pets in the way that animals who live under our roof do, does not mean that they are not innocent, living creatures, who should not be protected from the cruelty of humans.”
— Lauren Coty, Salem · #600842 — read full submission →
“Especially livestock, we rely on them for their sacrifices, we need to be able to protect them from maltreatment.”
— Amy Parisi, Fremont · #601824 — read full submission →
- NHSPCA caseload data shows towns depend on humane societiesOppose11 of 347 · 3%
Opponents cite figures on the NHSPCA's 2025 activity — assisting 85 towns and police departments, over 800 complaints, and 5,600 animals including 326 equines — as evidence of indispensable capacity.
“• 85 towns/police departments, across the state, have sought our assistance in investigating these cases. • Responded to over 800 complaints received in 2025. • Cases involved 5,600 animals, 326 of which were equines.”
— CATHY SCUTO, EXETER · #600050 — read full submission →
“When dealing with 5,600 animals in a single year (like 2025), adding more administrative layers is not the answer; we should be protecting the professional partnerships that already work to stop cruelty and neglect across New Hampshire.”
— Karen Couchon, Nottingham · #601201 — read full submission →
- Committee should reject and draft stronger legislationOppose11 of 347 · 3%
Opponents ask legislators to vote the bill down and return with tougher provisions that make rescue easier for law enforcement and humane societies.
“Please oppose this Bill and go back to work on making a Bill that is so much tougher and gives law enforcement and humane societies, etc. the means to rescue these animals much easier.”
— Susan Wood, Plymouth · #599238 — read full submission →
“I was an animal control officer and when I was , I found there were woefully too few laws protecting livestock and equine. I would like to see this bill strengthened before supporting it.”
— deborah glidden, Alexandria · #602477 — read full submission →
- No demonstrated problem justifies the changeOppose10 of 347 · 3%
Opponents characterize the bill as unnecessary, saying the existing process works and the SPCA has performed this function well for years.
“This bill is not necessary as the SPCA has been doing this work remarkably well for years.”
— Robin Lurie-Meyerkopf, Portsmouth · #602127 — read full submission →
“This bill precludes the current. entirely satisfactory process to properly evaluate each situation objectively.”
— Adam Schoolsky, Hollis · #600311 — read full submission →
- Police departments rely on humane agents and would be crippledOppose9 of 347 · 3%
A law enforcement officer and an animal control officer testify that departments without their own ACOs depend on humane agents for advice, seizures, and surrenders.
“Law enforcement in this state has had a long-standing relationship with our local humane agents and would be crippled without their assistance. This law ties the hands of local police departments who cannot afford to have an animal control officer on staff”
— Heather Cote, Lee · #604247 — read full submission →
“As an animal control officer this bill would be very detrimental to neglect and abuse cases I deal with. I often rely on cruelty investigators for advise and seizure/surrender of farm animals.”
— Maura Wentworth, Hampstead · #603713 — read full submission →
- Restricting nonprofits shifts care costs onto the state and taxpayersOppose8 of 347 · 2%
Opponents warn that private nonprofits cannot be compelled to provide services, and that hobbling their fundraising would eventually force the state to build and staff its own holding facilities at public expense.
“the time will come when a State facility will need to be built to house the many abused and neglected animals and the tax payer will need to cover the costs of staff, building, vet care, meds, food, and building expenses. This would be an unintended consequence of this bill.”
— Jennnifer Peabody, Gilmanton · #596120 — read full submission →
“A private non profit is not mandated by law to provide services unless they are contracted to do so with the State.”
— Claudia Abdinoor, Gilford · #599504 — read full submission →
- General statements of support for stronger livestock protectionSupport8 of 347 · 2%
Several supporters express backing for the bill on the general ground that it protects livestock, owners, or aligns with humane standards, without elaborating on mechanisms.
“This bill is needed to protect livestock and their owners”
— Claudia McNulty, Hillsborough · #598133 — read full submission →
“Preventing cruelty to livestock safeguards animals, supports ethical farming, and aligns with humane community standards”
— Hannah Meiselman, Manchester · #599633 — read full submission →
- Existing law fails when there is nominal feed or water presentOppose7 of 347 · 2%
Opponents describe cases where authorities declined to act because some hay or water was technically present, even with visibly emaciated animals.
“I cannot tell you how many times starving horses locked in stalls have been reported, but because “ there’s hay on the property” nothing can be done.”
— Lisa Robinson, Gilmanton · #589639 — read full submission →
“Adequate hay and water??? What the heck does that mean when you can see every bone in their body and just because there is a sprig of hay or frozen water in front of them, the authorities can't do anything.”
— Susan Wood, Plymouth · #599238 — read full submission →
- Bill restores due process before livestock is seizedSupport7 of 347 · 2%
Supporters argue the bill prevents animals — legally property — from being taken without charges, adjudication, or proper procedure, and clarifies authority.
“The proposed changes to the RSAs are an overall improvement as it will prevent law enforcement (or NGOs working on behalf of them) from taking people's livestock without actual due process - an adjudication or ruling from a judge, or actual charges being file for abuse/neglect of livestock.”
— Brandon Stevens, Northfield · #603405 — read full submission →
“HB1766 clarifies authority and strengthens due process when animals are removed from a person’s possession with emergency interventions still fully allowed, ensuring animals in imminent danger can be protected immediately.”
— Olivia Murray, Northwood · #605299 — read full submission →
- Livestock decisions require farm-animal veterinary expertiseSupport7 of 347 · 2%
Supporters argue that people without animal agriculture experience should not determine whether livestock are neglected, and that the State Veterinarian should have full authority in livestock matters.
“that a person with no experience in animal agriculture can come onto a person's property and take personal property, in this case animals, with out the oversight of a veterinarian who specializes in farm animals was and is wrong”
— Chuck Souther, Concord · #598910 — read full submission →
“Passing this bill will help strengthen this bill and create a clearer process with the State Vet having the full authority when dealing with livestock.”
— Joyce Brady, Columbia · #591445 — read full submission →
- Video participation by the State Veterinarian is inadequateOppose6 of 347 · 2%
Opponents object that allowing the State Veterinarian or designee to accompany investigators by video cannot substitute for hands-on examination, and could be attacked by defense counsel in court.
“this bill would allow the State Veterinarian (or their designee) to accompany the investigating officer via video! How does one take temperatures, feel digital pulses, or examine mouths via video? This reflects an impractical approach to animal cruelty investigations.”
— Gordon Fellows, Derry · #589601 — read full submission →
“In addition, we believe a good defense attorney could punch holes through a video examination in a cruelty case and that is concerning.”
— Jennnifer Peabody, Gilmanton · #596120 — read full submission →
- Recent severe neglect cases show why current process is neededOppose6 of 347 · 2%
Opponents cite specific recent rescues — including Standardbred stallions confined in stalls for years — as demonstrating the work humane organizations perform that the bill would restrict.
“Four stallions were found confined in stalls for up to *FIVE YEARS*, standing in over five feet of compacted, frozen manure. The horses had *no access to sunlight or exercise*, and suffered from extreme neglect, with some described as having a body condition score of only two out of ten.”
— E A Poole, Hillsborough · #600724 — read full submission →
“Look into the Friesians Of Majesty case if you truly believe equine and livestock laws should be more “lax” . Look at Gerry Scott and Hercules..”
— Mykayla Hickey, Pittsfield · #602968 — read full submission →
- Bill reflects personal agendas rather than public needOppose6 of 347 · 2%
Opponents suggest the bill was driven by particular grievances or by hostility toward popular independent nonprofits rather than by broad public interest.
“I believe the majority of this bill is a reflection of some personal agendas and is not at all applicable to the greater population of our state.”
— Ronald Peabody, G · #596387 — read full submission →
“Is it the fact that they are a hugely popular independent non-profit that is the real problem for these people?”
— Holly Cornwell, Newfields · #604360 — read full submission →
- Bill creates an unfunded state mandate and expands bureaucracyOppose5 of 347 · 1%
An animal control officer and others argue the bill inserts a state-level approval step into local matters without providing resources, contrary to a limited-government approach.
“State-mandated involvement in routine local matters can become an unfunded mandate—adding workload without resources. This is not consistent with a limited-government approach.”
— Michelle Grimes, Keene · #603597 — read full submission →
“The bill also does not indicate any additional training or funding for law enforcement or the State Veterinarian to carry out the additional work humane organizations provide.”
— Charlotte Trout, Bristol · #602135 — read full submission →
- Animal abuse is linked to violence against peopleOppose5 of 347 · 1%
Opponents argue that because animal abuse is associated with harm to people, offender records should be maintained and accessible, and enforcement should not be weakened.
“Animal abuse has been documented to be performed by those who commit acts of harm against people and society. Thus, it is essential that the records of such people be maintained and public information about the actions of such people be accessible to law enforcement”
— Laura Robertson, Gilmanton · #589223 — read full submission →
“If lawmakers are not concerned about the animals themselves, they should consider the impact that witnessing the abuse of animals has on the humans - including children - who inevitably see the abuse and its effects.”
— Carol MacKinnon, Marlborough · #603041 — read full submission →
- 'Live Free or Die' is not a license to neglect animalsOppose5 of 347 · 1%
Opponents argue that owning animals carries responsibility rather than unlimited rights, and that state motto or property-rights framing should not excuse neglect.
- This is a repackaged version of previously defeated HB616Oppose4 of 347 · 1%
Opponents note the bill closely resembles HB616, which humane organizations, police, and veterinarians opposed and which was defeated, and argue nothing has changed to justify reintroduction.
“This bill was introduced last year as HB616 which humane organizations across the state vehemently opposed. HB1766 is designed to change existing animal cruelty law and make it harder to protect the welfare of equines and other livestock. This bill has already been defeated for many important reasons.”
— Marta Hurgin, Portsmouth · #599791 — read full submission →
“This is a modified version of HB616 which was greatly contested by police, animal agencies and veterinarians. Listen to the subject matter experts over ego and pride and do what is right for the protection of animals.”
— Brianne Wood, Newmarket · #602615 — read full submission →
- Bill should instead add fines and an offender registryOppose4 of 347 · 1%
Some opponents argue the legislation should include specific fines and a registry of animal cruelty offenders rather than reducing penalties.
“Specific fines and a registry of offenders needs to be enacted.”
— Jean M Martin, Gilmanton · #589545 — read full submission →
“People who participate in this abuse and neglect, regardless of intent, should be tracked, prosecuted, and not allowed to abuse more animals in the future.”
— Amy Doyle, Hillsborough · #600284 — read full submission →
- Owners need help before situations become cruelty casesOppose3 of 347 · <1%
Opponents argue that owners in denial or too ashamed to ask for help need a basic standard of care and an assistance pathway that precedes criminalization.
“Too often all the neighbors and community see animals in distress and the owner is in denial or too ashamed to ask for help. We need basic standard of care and a way to help these people before it becomes an animal abuse case.”
— Page Johnson, Windham · #602639 — read full submission →
“Please show some compassion and allow those of us involved in rescue to do all we can to foster the human/animal bond and offer help when needed.”
— Ann Firestone, South Acworth · #602288 — read full submission →
- Courts need flexibility to match penalties to circumstancesOppose3 of 347 · <1%
Opponents argue removing the enumerated penalties limits judges' ability to tailor consequences to each unique case.
“Additionally removing a list of punishments limit the states ability to fit the punishment to the crime. We should be evaluating on a case by case basis and assigning punishment accordingly or finding resources to help resolve the problem.”
— Sharon Goldsmith, Amherst · #602841 — read full submission →
“Passing this bill would also limit the authority of the courts to view cases by case situations and impose penalties as seen fit by a local judge for each unique violation.”
— Todd Muscat, Walled Lake · #604130 — read full submission →
- Declining animal husbandry knowledge increases neglect riskOppose3 of 347 · <1%
A retired veterinarian argues that as fewer people receive agricultural education, more owners lack the aptitude or knowledge to care for livestock, making stronger protections necessary.
- Publicity restrictions protect owners and jury impartialitySupport3 of 347 · <1%
Supporters argue limits on publicizing cases before adjudication prevent defamation of owners and keep the jury pool uncontaminated.
“It also puts controls on defamation of owners before a court case is decided thus helping to keep a jury pool uncontaminated and impartial prior to a trial.”
— Nancy Holmes, New Boston · #598875 — read full submission →
“The publicized animal cruelty cases not yet tried also encourages social unrest and outrage in NH communities. Please help to curb this negative influence in our state.”
— Andrea Hantz, Epping · #602267 — read full submission →
- Legislators will be held electorally accountableOppose3 of 347 · <1%
Some opponents state they will track how legislators vote and campaign against supporters of the bill.
“I strongly oppose this bill and will keep close track of whoever supports it to work against their reelection in the future.”
— William Slammon, PhD, Sullivan · #600450 — read full submission →
“If you think we're not watching, if you think you can't get voted out, if you think people don't care or aren't getting involved, I suggest you think again. The people stand with the animals. Do not fail us.”
— Nikola Whittlesey, Merrimack · #601532 — read full submission →
- Bill is poorly written and redundantOppose2 of 347 · <1%
Some opponents object to the bill's drafting quality, describing it as redundant bureaucracy that fails to achieve protective aims while conceding some provisions (like limits on publicity) have merit.
- Livestock protection should parallel child welfare lawOppose2 of 347 · <1%
One opponent draws an analogy to child abuse reporting, asking why known animal abuse cases should be treated differently.
- Conditions can be legal yet morally unacceptable under current lawOppose2 of 347 · <1%
One opponent recounts a State Veterinarian inspection finding care legally sufficient but morally inadequate, illustrating that the existing standard is already too low.
- Economic hardship will increase neglect, so protections must not weakenOppose2 of 347 · <1%
Opponents argue that as household finances tighten, abuse and neglect will rise, making this an especially bad time to narrow enforcement authority.
“As individual finances are more strained we will only see more abuse and neglect of animals. I strongly oppose this bill.”
— Dawn Marier, Loudon · #589512 — read full submission →
“To further narrow the scope of power of individuals and agencies to aid in cases of animal welfare, especially in a time of economic uncertainty, is in itself cruelly.”
— Sue Eastman, Bow · #601251 — read full submission →
- Voluntary donations currently ease the state's financial burdenOppose2 of 347 · <1%
One opponent argues that private funding of rescues spares the state expense, and the bill would shift the full cost of rescue onto taxpayers.
- Bill responds to documented improper seizuresSupport2 of 347 · <1%
Supporters state the changes arose from cases where animals were taken without proper procedure, and that the bill has been developed over a year with stakeholder input.
“These proposed changes to this bill is a result of niumerous wrong takings of animals that did not go through the proper procedures. NH Farm Bureau has diligently worked with many groups that has interests in this law.”
— Joyce Brady, Columbia · #591445 — read full submission →
“The bill has been worked on for over a year and has the support of state officials. Please right this wrong and support HB 1766”
— Chuck Souther, Concord · #598910 — read full submission →
- Bill requires owner consent before irreversible proceduresSupport2 of 347 · <1%
Supporters cite provisions requiring owners' written consent before irreversible procedures are performed on seized animals and ensuring owners are informed of their rights.
“I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL WHICH ALLOWS DUE PROCESS FOR LIVESTOCK OWNERS, PROTECTION FOR LIVESTOCK BY REQUIRING VETERINARY OVERSIGHT, AND PREVENTS SEIZURES WITHOUT OWNERS BEING CHARGED, AND PREVENTS IRREVERSIBLE PROCEDURES BEING PERFORMED ON THE ANIMALS WITHOUT OWNERS WRITTEN CONSENT.”
— ARA LYNN, NEW IPSWICH · #600119 — read full submission →
“These changes protect animals while ensuring that owners are fully informed of their rights pertaining to the situation.”
— Nancy Holmes, New Boston · #598875 — read full submission →
- Assistance programs exist, so refusing help is a deliberate choiceOppose1 of 347 · <1%
One opponent notes that hay, feed, veterinary funds and emergency boarding assistance are available in New Hampshire, so financial hardship does not justify neglect.
- Care standards should apply equally to rescues and sheltersOppose1 of 347 · <1%
One opponent argues minimum care standards, limits on animal numbers, and space requirements should be applied consistently to private owners, rescues, and shelters to prevent hoarding.
- Nondisclosure agreements could withhold information from adoptersOppose1 of 347 · <1%
One opponent argues that binding NDAs about cruelty cases could prevent future adopters from receiving the animal's history needed to make an informed decision.
- Mandatory charges remove ability to trade charges for quick surrenderOppose1 of 347 · <1%
One opponent argues the bill eliminates animal control's ability to secure a fast surrender in exchange for dropped charges, prolonging suffering.
- Shelters have financial incentives that conflict with impartial investigationSupport1 of 347 · <1%
A supporter argues that licensed shelters, which are also pet vendors, benefit financially from seizures through cost-of-care claims, donations, and rehoming fees, so they should not lead cruelty cases.
- The State, not private groups, should administer cruelty casesSupport1 of 347 · <1%
A supporter argues the bill properly places responsibility for charging decisions and case administration with the State, as in other criminal matters, rather than a private organization.
- Lack of due process makes farming in New Hampshire harderSupport1 of 347 · <1%
Small farmers argue the bill protects their livelihood by supplying oversight and process currently lacking.
“We are small farmers, and the current lack of oversight and due process makes it much harder to farm in New Hampshire than it should be. Respect our livelihood and pass this bill.”
— Joanna Kimball, Plaistow · #602225 — read full submission →
“I support this bill. We need to support our livestock/animal producers.”
— Ann Paris, Concord · #602343 — read full submission →
- Normal livestock practices can be misread as neglectSupport1 of 347 · <1%
A supporter explains that legitimate management techniques such as the deep litter method, or contagious illness affecting many animals at once, can appear neglectful to observers unfamiliar with farming.
- Owners should be able to have their own veterinarian consultSupport1 of 347 · <1%
A supporter argues veterinarians should be involved in seizure cases and that an owner-hired independent veterinarian should also be able to consult.
- Bill gives shelters clear direction on obligationsSupport1 of 347 · <1%
A supporter argues the bill defines the responsibilities of shelters and provides transparency and clear guidance while preserving emergency intervention.
- Bill may require new livestock-knowledgeable positions in State Vet officeSupport1 of 347 · <1%
A supporter suggests the bill would create a need for dedicated staff versed in livestock management to ensure removal decisions are informed by agricultural knowledge.
Percentages are of the 347 individually-written submissions, every one of which was read in full — not a sample. A submission making several arguments is counted under each. 68 registered a position without giving a reason, so they count toward the total but under no argument.
Form-letter detection only groups a template once at least ten people send it, so smaller sets of submissions sharing near-identical wording are counted here as individual testimony. On bills where a handful of writers worked from the same talking points, a count may therefore run slightly ahead of the number of independently-written arguments.
Generated by anthropic/claude-opus-5 on Aug 10, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Argument groupings are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
The record · every submission as filed
623 submissions| Expand | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Carol Pittman for Myself Northwood I would like to share some perspective on HB1766. I am mostly in support of the bill, but I hope these points can be considered. Decisions about removing animals should be made not only by people who understand the biology of the animals but also the realities of animal agriculture. Farming involves many practices that may look concerning to someone not familiar with livestock management. Farmers often rely on their own knowledge and care to nurse animals back to health, and contagious illnesses can affect many animals at once, meaning there may be times when a large number of animals on one property appear sick. Some common livestock practices can also be misunderstood by well meaning individuals. For example, the deep litter method involves layering clean bedding on top of older, soiled bedding during winter months. The ammonia from the older bedding actually provides warmth. Someone unfamiliar with this practice might see animals living on bedding piled high, or during the spring might see the barn in various stages of mess as the bedding is removed. This is an intentional and effective farming technique but can appear neglectful and quite smelly. Without understanding these practices, normal animal management can easily be misinterpreted or used against an individual. This bill may introduce a need for dedicated positions through the State Vet’s office for individuals who are well-versed in livestock management and can provide guidance in these situations. Having professionals who understand both animal care and agricultural realities would help ensure that removal decisions are fair, balanced, and informed by real knowledge of how farms operate. HB1766 is an opportunity to strengthen due process while protecting animal welfare, making sure that removals are thoughtful, informed, and considerate of the realities of New Hampshire's agriculture communities. | Northwood | Support | 1,897 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Taylor Foss for Myself Exeter I oppose HB1766. This bill makes it harder to protect the welfare of horse, donkeys, mules and other livestock. This bill removes humane organizations like the NHSPCA as an able party and further states that because they are "not an employee of the government" which would no longer be allowed to contribute its assistance in the process of determining temporary protective custody, discussions about seizure and would be forbidden from taking part in or be present during any investigation in a complaint. Just days ago, the NHSPCA and other NGOs stepped up to assist in rescuing nine Standardbred horses from severe neglect. Four stallions were found confined in stalls for up to *FIVE YEARS*, standing in over five feet of compacted, frozen manure. The horses had *no access to sunlight or exercise*, and suffered from extreme neglect, with some described as having a body condition score of only two out of ten. THIS IS WHAT THE NHSPCA DOES. Don't hamstring it from doing necessary and important work! OPPOSE HC1766. | Exeter | Oppose | 1,020 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Christine Gilmore for Myself Exeter I oppose HB 1766 because it weakens existing animal cruelty protections and makes it more difficult to hold individuals accountable for the neglect and abuse of equines and other livestock. New Hampshire has a responsibility to uphold humane standards of care, and this bill moves us backward by prioritizing convenience over animal welfare. Current laws provide necessary tools for enforcement and protection, and changing them risks increased suffering and reduced oversight. I urge the committee to reject this bill and preserve strong, enforceable animal cruelty laws. | Exeter | Oppose | 572 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Colleen van Onselen for Myself Manchester I oppose this bill as we should be in harmony with nature. It is inhumane to utilize our higher cognitive abilities to harness and control animals and/or use these abilities in any way to cause them harm. Any person abusing animals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. | Manchester | Oppose | — | 284 | Feb 3, 2026 | |
Janet M Consoli for Myself Hampton I oppose this bill | Hampton | Oppose | — | 19 | Feb 3, 2026 | |
Olivia Murray for Myself Northwood I am in support of HB1766 as I think there becomes a slippery slope when you remove due process from property/animal seizure. HB1766 clarifies authority and strengthens due process when animals are removed from a person’s possession with emergency interventions still fully allowed, ensuring animals in imminent danger can be protected immediately. This bill adds needed structure and accountability to the animal welfare process, helping protect the legal process that New Hampshire citizens are entitled to. | Northwood | Support | 511 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Elizabeth Fay for Myself Bow How about you let the people who know things make these decisions. Cutting the rescues out of the process is unhinged. | Bow | Oppose | 119 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
David Levine for Myself Hopkinton I oppose this bill. HB1766 is designed to change existing animal cruelty law and make it harder to protect the welfare of equines and other livestock. The language of this bill removes and dilutes the power of the court thereby enabling future abuses to potentially continue. | Hopkinton | Oppose | 278 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Rozlyn Levine for Myself Hopkinton I oppose this bill. HB1766 is designed to change existing animal cruelty law and make it harder to protect the welfare of equines and other livestock. The language of this bill removes and dilutes the power of the court thereby enabling future abuses to potentially continue. | Hopkinton | Oppose | 278 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Melissa Davis for Myself Pembroke I oppose this bill. Stricter animal laws must be present to protect those who do not have a voice. New Hampshire is too lenient with it's current protective laws for animals. I have witnesses in my own neighborhood the lack of compassion and support from authorities to help animals who are needlessly suffering! | Pembroke | Oppose | 314 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
DORIANNE BARR for Myself EAST KINGSTON Please support the bill. | EAST KINGSTON | Support | 24 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Stephanie Shaines for Myself Somersworth Knowing Michelle Murch/NHSPCA as a friend and lifelong horse professional as well as former law enforcement officer and manager of the former Dover Mounted Police I cannot state the absolute importance of her guidance and skill in any situations involving horse welfare. The state is extremely lucky to have her. | Somersworth | Oppose | 312 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
jean adams for Myself Raymond I oppose this bill as it hampers the organizations that are trying to help animals and assuage their suffering! It will greatly impede the good work done by organizations such as the NH SPCA! | Raymond | Oppose | 191 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Rachel Greene-Lowell for Myself Brentwood All suffering animals need to be moved to the protection of organizations or individuals who will provide free choice fresh water, appropriate food and shelter. These animals should not be at the point of almost death before rescued. Pass legislation that helps animals. DO NOT dilute already weak laws. | Brentwood | Oppose | 303 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Holly Cornwell for Myself Newfields What is the point of this bill and why are the representatives who introduced it trying to prevent one of the oldest humane organizations in the country from doing their jobs successfully? Cutting them out of a process that requires more nuanced handling than criminalizing every case does not make sense. Is it the fact that they are a hugely popular independent non-profit that is the real problem for these people? Because we know who has the actual current problem with popular, independent non profits. Don’t make animals and people suffer more by passing this bill. | Newfields | Oppose | 576 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Roberta Schelberg for Myself Milford I am for protecting livestock. I had a neighbor who let his chickens run all over the neighborhood. He had no clue what he was doing. No chicken coop no pen no nothing. These animals were picked off one by one by predators. I was feeding them because he wasn’t. These animals just because they are livestock need to be protected period. | Milford | Oppose | 344 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Courtney Kearley-Stock for Myself Deerfield We need to be the voice of these innocent animals.! The ones that are in need of our help we need to give them the help from educated people like the ASPCA that knows how to handle these delicate situations. Must Be the Voice for these Wonderful Animals!! Please oppose this bill!! | Deerfield | Oppose | 281 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Tamara Erquhart for Myself Northfield I do not support this bill. We owe it the creatures who rely on us to look out for them. | Northfield | Oppose | 89 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Heather Cote for Myself Lee As a member of the public and a long-time law enforcement officer, I am appalled at the changes being proposed in this bill. Law enforcement in this state has had a long-standing relationship with our local humane agents and would be crippled without their assistance. This law ties the hands of local police departments who cannot afford to have an animal control officer on staff, changes the standard for action greatly, and will impact the animals in the worst way. Please do not allow testimony of a few dictate the changes proposed in this bill. There are two sides to every story, and I encourage you to give credit to the law enforcement agents who will testify regarding their experience with local humane agents. | Lee | Oppose | 727 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Jenna Tousignant for Myself Somersworth This bill would seriously impede the ability of animal rescue organizations to support and protect animal welfare. Please oppose this bill. | Somersworth | Oppose | 140 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Ann St Peter for Myself Litchfield I oppose this bill for multiple reasons. The penalties for animal cruelty should be increased. The governmental oversight is excessive and shortsighted. | Litchfield | Oppose | 152 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Todd Muscat for Myself Walled Lake This bill would weaken animal cruelty protections and disrespect the current organizations and licensed humane societies working hard to protect livestock. This would also remove athority of local licensed veterinarians and place further stress on local law enforcement, animal control, and the state veterinarian. Passing this bill would also limit the authority of the courts to view cases by case situations and impose penalties as seen fit by a local judge for each unique violation. Please vote to oppose this bill. | Walled Lake, MI | Oppose | 524 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Lindsay Hurley for Myself Dover To Whom it May Concern, I oppose this bill due to the fact that it would place more bureaucratic red tape in the way of agencies (NH SPCA, Humane Societies) in situations where timeliness is often of the utmost import. Furthermore, it would impede upon those agencies' abilities to help pet owners in compromised situations such as dementia or financial distress. | Dover | Oppose | 369 | Feb 3, 2026 | ||
Sharon Roy for Myself Manchester, NH, United States - (MHT) Manchester Oppose please | Manchester, NH, United States - (MHT) Manchester | Oppose | — | 14 | Feb 3, 2026 | |
Heather Pelletier for Myself Farmington In my opinion this will limit the help the animals will receive leading to more abuse going unreported. | Farmington | Oppose | — | 103 | Feb 3, 2026 |