Dog rescuer: Amendments ‘an improvement’

Owners still have concerns with language in animal cruelty bill

CONCORD — An amended animal cruelty bill that will be going before the full Senate on March 8 is an improvement over the original version of the proposed legislation, says animal rescuer Diane Richardson of Springfield, but it still leaves breeders and owners concerned about the broad-brush approach to dealing with the problem.

The American Kennel Club and other dog owners also took umbrage at comments by Lindsay Hamrick, the New Hampshire state director of the Humane Society of the United States, who criticized them for offering “no financial assistance or help to the agencies that rescue abused animals.”

“To say that is absolutely false and offensive,” said Angela Ferrari, who raises show dogs in Mont Vernon. “Every breed club in the United States has dedicated rescue coordinators. In addition, New Hampshire residents are very active when it comes to contributing to the needs of the community, including animal welfare.”

Through their dog license fees, owners pay more than $300,000 for the state’s low-cost spay and neuter program, $75,000 toward the state Veterinary Diagnostic Lab, and between $600,000 and $975,000 for local animal control, Ferrari said.

They also contribute to dog and cat health research, supply pet oxygen masks to fire departments, fund scholarships for veterinary students, visit nursing homes, support breed rescue operations, train service dogs, support parks and recreation departments, support Army dogs in Iraq and Afghanistan, teach obedience classes, and hold heart, rabies, and microchip clinics, she said.

“Now compare this to HSUS’s 2016 990,” she said, referring to the annual report required of nonprofit organizations. “Their only grant to New Hampshire was $500 for a scholarship for the New England Animal Control/Humane Academy. Their total income for 2016 was $133,322,929.”

Phil Guidry, director of policy analysis and government relations for the American Kennel Club, said his organization’s concerns are the bond-for-care provisions in Senate Bill 569.

“Our goal is to ensure that New Hampshire statutes do not increase risks that residents not proven guilty of a crime may be erroneously deprived of their property while best ensuring that animals are provided proper care,” he said.

During earlier testimony on the bill, the club stated, “We strongly believe that those convicted of animal cruelty should be held accountable, including paying for the costs of caring for the animals they mistreated. However, for defendants already incurring high costs to defend themselves in a criminal proceeding, the additional cost of daily boarding and care fees as required by SB 569 could prove an impossible burden to meet. In cases where a person is found not guilty or where charges were dropped, a defendant unable to afford the fees would be permanently deprived of their property, with no recourse, regardless of never having been proven to have committed a crime.”

Amendments adopted by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the Senate, which recommended passage on a 4-0 vote, make some provision for those who are unable to pay.

Instead of requiring a bond of $2,000 per animal, as originally proposed, the new language gives a court the authority to set the amount.

“If the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal or animals has been or is being abused or neglected ... or when there is a clear and imminent danger to the animal’s health or life and there is not sufficient time to obtain a court order, then the court shall set a renewable bond or other security in an amount sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of providing the confiscated animal with humane care and adequate and necessary veterinary services for a period of 30 days,” the amendment states. “When determining the reasonable costs of providing humane care, the court shall consider the income of the animal’s owner.”

The bond would be renewed for each 30-day period while the case is under litigation, and if the owner failed to post the bond, the animal would be forfeited. However, “If the owner is unable to pay the bond, the court shall not fine the owner for nonpayment.”

Richardson argues, “The cost bond should never be required before a conviction.” She cited an Indiana case in which a woman had been forced to pay $15,000 in cost-of-care bonds, and the court ended up dismissing the charges against her.

“The money is never returned. No apology is ever given,” she said.

Definitions

The amendment increased to seven the number of breeding females that determines whether the property is considered a commercial kennel. The original number was five. A breeding female is defined as an unspayed female dog, 12 months or older, “kept or maintained for the purpose of breeding and selling the dog’s offspring.”

Some question how the state would determine the purpose, and fear it could lead to false complaints. If it were applied to those breeding dogs for hunting, show, training, sledding, competition, field trials, or exhibition, the owners would be subject to stringent kennel laws that include such stipulations as separating them from cats and having walls and floors that are impervious to moisture and may be readily sanitized.

Richardson suggested a less subjective and more accurate definition would be to say, “over 12 months of age and actively being used for breeding at least once every two years.”

Ferrari said the bill fails to address hoarding, “one of the primary causes of animal cruelty and neglect in New Hampshire.”

“How many hoarders are going to apply for a license? None!” she said.

Richardson said the amendments have left a loophole for animal shelters and rescue groups, which are not subject to the requirements for health certificates that are imposed on commercial kennels.

“These two groups are the very ones importing dogs from disease- and parasite-ridden areas and shelters and whose animals often arrive in New Hampshire with bogus transportation health certificates. I did rescue 10-plus years, and I saw hundreds of such instances.”

Referring to the Christina Fay case that helped prompt the new legislation, Richardson said, “The most recent Great Dane breeder in Wolfeboro is not an illustration of New Hampshire lacking good commercial breeder regulation, but instead is an example of a person who should have been commercial breeder-licensed, not just by New Hampshire but by the USDA as well, but who failed to obtain such a license.

“I understand the Great Dane case has many up in arms to prevent this from happening again, but remember, New Hampshire has excellent laws already on the books. What is needed is the money and manpower to enforce the laws we already have. Catch people like that early, before such cases get out of control.”