I for one completely expect a guard dog to do his or her job in protection of person/people or property whether or not the dog is on the owner's property. For example being accosted by a criminal, a rabid animal, or simply a predatory animal (such as a coyote pack) would in my opinion would make a dog a hero not a vicious dog if it should respond to the situation. When I was younger I walked a pack daily and always felt quite safe from people or animals with bad intentions. I think this bill should be more about control than location as a guard dog can do his or her job on or off of your property. You need to take into account personal as well as property protection and presence or absence of an owner. Maybe change this (g) If, whether alone or in a pack with other dogs, it bites, attacks, or preys on game animals, domestic animals, fowl or human beings when not on the owner's property and add "or when off the owner's property under the owner or custodians control."
HB1092
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseLiability exemption for guard dogs
AIExempts guard dogs on their owner's property from the statute governing menacing and vicious dogs.
relative to guard dogs.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 11, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
19 submissionsI respectfully urge the Committee to oppose HB 1092. RSA 466:31 currently classifies a dog as a nuisance, menace, or vicious if it “bites, attacks, or preys on game animals, domestic animals, fowl or human beings.” The statute is behavior-based, not location-based. HB 1092 would insert a new limitation so that this provision applies only when the attack occurs “not on the owner’s property.” This is a sweeping exemption. Under the proposed language, a dog that bites or attacks a person on private property would no longer qualify under subsection (g), regardless of the severity of the incident. The bill does not distinguish between trespassers and lawful entrants. Delivery drivers, utility workers, first responders, contractors, invited guests, and children could all be injured on the owner’s property without triggering this provision. The statute would no longer assess dangerousness based on conduct. Instead, it would hinge on geography. Property ownership should not operate as a blanket shield against accountability for violent animal behavior. A dog that bites on private property can pose the same risk to the public as one that bites on a public way. If the intent is to protect legitimate working or guard dogs, the bill should be narrowly tailored and clearly defined. As drafted, HB 1092 creates a broad immunity that undermines the existing public safety framework in RSA 466:31. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to find HB 1092 Inexpedient to Legislate.
Getting to be that dogs are getting more rights then humans.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.