House committee's amendments do mortal damage to Senate's animal cruelty bill

To The Daily Sun,

SB-569 is not the proverbial dead horse, in spite of the coup de grace dealt by the members of the House Environment and Agriculture Committee.

It started last winter with a flurry of emails, phone calls and then a long visit with a concerned individual regarding how a number of dogs were being cared for in one of the towns not far from the New Hampshire Humane Society in Laconia. These situations are common place and happen with all too frequent regularity. N.H. Humane Society is but one animal welfare agency working hard to care for the lost, abused, abandoned and unwanted. We are one of a dozen such organizations that as a group provide animal welfare services for the 221 towns and 13 cities within the borders of the Granite State, almost border to border coverage.

As is often the case for societal woes in our state, where government lacks funding, charities step in to fill the gap in spite of the fact no funding at federal or state is received, and these charities survive on the largesse of their donors large and small. New Hampshire has over 8,000 registered 501(3)c’s, 12 of them are brick-and-mortar animal welfare agencies. These shelters are doing the work tacitly accepted as our mission and are key players in the world of animal rescue when called upon by local municipalities and law enforcement professionals. We do the work because we care. We do the work because, frankly, there is no other option for the animals that need help, and in some cases, reflects the desperation of the people who own/ed them. We do the work because we speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. We do it because our programs and services are a vital and integral part of the fabric of life in the Granite State.

Then the 84 Great Dane case surfaced in the public consciousness, quickly becoming news nationally and internationally. This case has proven to be the tipping point in how New Hampshire viewed cruelty and neglect. Reasonable, law-abiding citizens reacted with horror and disgust when news stories reported what was happening behind the doors of the Wolfeboro mansion. The case galvanized those that knew changes could happen and ushered in what is now Senate Bill 569 putting aside party politicking- focusing instead on language that would give more protection to animals in our state.

This bill — as originally written —  was sponsored by Sen. Jeb Bradley (R- Wolfeboro) and enjoyed wide, bipartisan support, winning approval in the Senate (19-4). Further endorsement by the Senate Finance Committee (4-2) helped give this important legislation traction especially when support of the intent came from Governor Sununu himself, town selectboards, the N.H. Federation of Humane Organizations, N.H. Association of Chiefs of Police, N.H. Municipal Association, ACLU, to name some of the major groups involved.

It is truly astounding to see what damage has been brought to bear after the legislative treatment spearheaded by the leadership of Chairman O’Connor and the esteemed members of the House Environment and Agriculture Committee, who have attached a slew of misguided, ill-conceived amendments to what was a well-designed bill. Hearings in Concord were tantamount to lip service for the process of public hearings when, actually, this committee had already made up its mind and could not wait to take their legislative scalpel to this bill.

I find it perplexing and distasteful that the idea that good work has been accomplished by this body of representatives when in point of fact they seek, alarmingly, to criminally penalize those that are actually mentally ill with an animal hoarding clause but at the same time do not support cost of care for animals removed from such situations. The unconstitutionality of such a clause surely is enough to scupper the amendment.

WE really must look to the initial language and support that original bill, asking House of Representatives, who speak for our constituencies, to vote down the amendments so added recently by House Ag and Enviro committee.

I ask, how many more years do we wish to “kick the can” in study mode? The amended bill calls for placing cost of care, mandatory inspections of commercial kennels and funding for the Department of Agriculture into a study commission. The nonsensical idea floated that raising dog licensing fees by 25 cents would somehow offset the burdensome cost of care in New Hampshire, borne by taxpayers and private nonprofit agencies, is a wrong-headed solution. The amendments cleared a wide path for all manner of exemptions for individuals to avoid obtaining a commercial kennel license; the compromise was already made to seven unspayed dogs over 24 months used for the purpose of breeding and transferring their offspring.

This amendment creates at least 12 subcategories of those who could avoid this oversight while at the same time removes the exemption for animal shelters who are certainly not in the business of breeding animals! How about the amended language that no inspection need occur prior to a facility initially being licensed. Makes me ponder why then, would the Department of Agriculture walk away from a $200,000 appropriation to help the department complete such work?

Nineteen to 4, 4-2, means nothing to the House Environment and Agriculture Committee, who on Tuesday passed a vastly different bill, chock full of amendments, that now comes before the full House of Representatives perhaps as early as Wednesday, May 2.

I for one will be calling my elected House of Representative officials asking them to vote DOWN the amendments stitched onto what’s left of SB-569. I ask you to do the same.

Marylee Gorham, Executive Director, N.H. Humane Society- Laconia

President, N.H. Federation of Humane Organizations