Environmental groups, biologists oppose endangered species bill in the Senate

Whether they are spotted on private property or public land, wild animals and data about them cannot be “owned,” conservationists said at a Tuesday hearing.

“I think I have the right … to both enjoy wildlife as a public resource, and have it continue to exist on my property and my neighbor’s property,” Drew Stevens, a wildlife rehabilitator based in Nottingham, told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Stevens was commenting on House Bill 1603, a proposal from Rep. Sayra DeVito that seeks to add new requirements for how state agencies assess the presence of endangered and threatened species on private property. The bill proposes that wildlife data must be collected with documented landowner permission to be usable, something that conservationists said could negate previous records or complicate future data collection. 

State agencies use a database on the distribution of threatened and endangered species in New Hampshire to review applications for development and make recommendations, officials said in January. That database includes biologist-verified reports from both agency staff and the public.

It does not track landowner permission, but department spokesperson Nicola Whitley said in a Tuesday email that staff ask permission from landowners before conducting such work. Ashley Porter, a wildlife biologist who said she had previously conducted endangered species surveys with Fish and Game, said her team had turned around and left the property in instances where a landowner refused them access. The original bill sought to require the department to attain an administrative warrant to access private property in the case of a landowner’s refusal.

The Fish and Game Department might access private property for various reasons, including studying and tracking animals, conducting an environmental review, or for “law enforcement reasons,” she said, adding, “the feasibility of getting permission in advance varies depending on what we are doing.”

DeVito, a Rockingham Republican, said in January her constituents were concerned dubious reports of the presence of protected species had stalled projects, deterred would-be developers, and resulted in new land use restrictions on private property.

HB 1603, she said Tuesday, is intended to address that specific concern. 

DeVito’s original proposal called for “current” evidence in the form of time- and location-stamped photographs of a species, along with written consent from the landowner, to establish a record of a species’ presence. 

The amendment that was recommended, 192-152, by the full House on Feb. 19 is less specific. It would instead direct the Department of Fish and Game to adopt new rules in two areas: adding requirements to how reports of threatened and endangered species are verified by the department, and requiring landowner permission for the gathering of that data. 

Proponents said the bill would allow landowners to retain control of their land, manage wildlife without state intervention, and improve the quality of records. But several who spoke on Tuesday identified themselves as conservationists or biologists and said the bill’s new language could result in harm to wildlife, diminishing the amount of data available to help scientists protect the environment and keep New Hampshire in compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act.

More from this section

Coldest Marches in New Hampshire since 1895

Movies and TV shows casting in Portsmouth

Hottest Marches in New Hampshire since 1895

“The bill is a little insidious with its wording,” said Stevens, adding that the broad mandate to the Department of Fish and Game in the amendment could ultimately result in rules preventing biologists and citizen scientists from being able to contribute legitimate wildlife sightings to state records. 

Wildlife inhabiting private land are not the property of a landowner, Stevens said. Therefore, he said, observations of such wildlife should also be considered public property; restricting them to cases where a landowner has given explicit permission for their collection, he said, would limit the amount of information available to scientists.

More than two-thirds of New Hampshire’s land area is privately owned, according to the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

“I think there’s a misunderstanding that people are roaming around private property with clip boards, looking for, you know, threatened and endangered species,” Stevens said. “But, I mean, these are incidental reports,” he said. For example, Stevens added, an individual might spot a rare turtle on the side of the road that then wanders off onto private property.

Dallas Huggins, also a wildlife rehabilitator, said it was “already almost impossible” to get citizens to report animal sightings; with added requirements, she said, the flow of observations could diminish.

Melissa Nemeth, legal and legislative liaison for the Department of Fish and Game, said she believed the bill as written would result in some administrative work and some cost to the department. This is different than what is suggested in the bill’s fiscal note, which initially stated the cost of adopting the measure would be $1 million but was revised after the House amendment and now states that the policy would not have a cost. 

The Fish and Game Commission voted, 9-1, in favor of the bill, DeVito said. She added that the New Hampshire culture of allowing public use of private land, such as for hunting, fishing, and hiking, hinged on mutual trust between landowners and the state.

“Conservation practices are important, we all understand that, and recognize that so are landowner rights, so we have to strike that balance,” said Sen. Howard Pearl, a Loudon Republican.

However, wildlife biologist Rick Van de Poll said he believed the bill was not balanced but another incremental change that would reduce protections for New Hampshire’s wildlife.

“One of the biggest concerns I’ve had doing this work for as long as I have is watching the gradual erosion of the rights of the wildlife versus the rights of the landowners,” he said.

More speakers were lined up to provide comments when the chair of the committee, Sen. Kevin Avard, announced the hearing would recess until the following week.