Charles Stanton: Animal welfare in NH deserves better, and so do its people

"No need for expertise. We are in a hurry."

I went to the Statehouse to testify on House Bill 1766. The bill will diminish the ability to hold people accountable for animal abuse and neglect which we can all agree is problematic. Most, if not all of these legislators, don't have the real world experience to understand why this legislation is deeply flawed.

I was encouraged by many to be there to share relevant, real world context from the animal welfare industry. I was told I would have three minutes to do so. Three minutes is not much time, but I accepted that constraint in good faith.

My goal was simple. To offer lawmakers accurate framing about how animal welfare actually functions in New Hampshire and how this bill would affect animals, municipalities, and taxpayers.

Before I could begin, however, I was blindsided.

The representative introducing the bill stated that my organization had been involved in shaping the bill’s language and had supported the process. That is categorically untrue. In my almost seven years as executive director, my organization has neither been involved nor invited to be involved in these conversations, despite repeated efforts to engage constructively.

What followed was even more troubling.

During the bill’s introduction, lawmakers asked a fundamental question. If an animal is seized and the person is later found not guilty, who pays the cost of care?

The presenter did not know the answer.

Every animal welfare professional in the room did.

The answer is the municipality. Not the shelter. Not the nonprofit. Not the individual who was found innocent. The municipality bears that financial responsibility.

It is troubling to me because it is such a basic and consequential issue and it was either unknown or unaddressed. That was alarming. It revealed that key stakeholders were either absent from the process or were ignored.

I opened my testimony by correcting the record as quickly as I could. That unscripted moment cost me time, but I could not allow a false statement to stand. I would never want anyone to believe that my staff or organization supported legislation that is so poorly constructed and so disconnected from operational reality.

I tried to regain my footing and do what I came to do. I explained that New Hampshire Humane Society partners with 19 municipalities. I explained that we provide services at reduced or no cost because we fundraise aggressively to offset municipal expenses. Our work saves taxpayer dollars while saving animal lives.

I was cut off mid sentence. I really do understand since it is only fair that everyone is allowed the same amount.

Three minutes, it turns out, was not enough to explain the scope of our work, defend the integrity of our organization, or respond to inaccuracies already on the record.

As time expired, I added one final point. If this bill advances as written, we would be forced to terminate some if not all of our services to 19 municipal contracts. Not because we don't want to help, but because we would no longer be able to operate compassionately or sustainably under these constraints. It has become a question of ethics.

The work we do is rooted in care, not punishment. We help animals, and we help people. Many of those people cannot afford help. We raise money so that poverty, illness, or crisis does not determine whether an animal lives or dies.

Animal welfare professionals are exhausted. Even when I disagree with other animal welfare colleagues in the state, which happens often, I am confident we share a common truth. We keep going because we care.

It is profoundly demoralizing to be encouraged to show up, given painfully few minutes to speak, and then to discover that lawmakers were inaccurately told we supported something we had no hand in creating.

When my time ended, no questions followed. Not because there were none to ask, but because the process had not allowed space for understanding which might have resulted in meaningful evolution and understanding.

This cannot continue.

New Hampshire’s animal welfare sector is already heavily regulated. Layering poorly informed policy on top of that reality will not protect animals. It will weaken the systems that serve them.

Animal welfare in New Hampshire deserves better. So do the people of the Granite State. And I plan to demand better however I can.

•••

Charles Stanton is executive director of New Hampshire Humane Society, CEO of the Animal Rights Foundation in the U.S. and UK, and serves as the philanthropy and advocacy advisor for FEBRACA - the Animal Welfare Federation of Brazil.