I would like to share some perspective on HB1766. I am mostly in support of the bill, but I hope these points can be considered. Decisions about removing animals should be made not only by people who understand the biology of the animals but also the realities of animal agriculture. Farming involves many practices that may look concerning to someone not familiar with livestock management. Farmers often rely on their own knowledge and care to nurse animals back to health, and contagious illnesses can affect many animals at once, meaning there may be times when a large number of animals on one property appear sick. Some common livestock practices can also be misunderstood by well meaning individuals. For example, the deep litter method involves layering clean bedding on top of older, soiled bedding during winter months. The ammonia from the older bedding actually provides warmth. Someone unfamiliar with this practice might see animals living on bedding piled high, or during the spring might see the barn in various stages of mess as the bedding is removed. This is an intentional and effective farming technique but can appear neglectful and quite smelly. Without understanding these practices, normal animal management can easily be misinterpreted or used against an individual. This bill may introduce a need for dedicated positions through the State Vet’s office for individuals who are well-versed in livestock management and can provide guidance in these situations. Having professionals who understand both animal care and agricultural realities would help ensure that removal decisions are fair, balanced, and informed by real knowledge of how farms operate. HB1766 is an opportunity to strengthen due process while protecting animal welfare, making sure that removals are thoughtful, informed, and considerate of the realities of New Hampshire's agriculture communities.
HB1766
House · 2026 sessionBipartisanVeto — override pendingLivestock cruelty seizure procedures
AIAs amended, this bill establishes separate confiscation procedures for livestock in animal cruelty cases, requiring veterinary involvement in probable cause determinations, a form informing owners of examination rights, court priority scheduling, and limits on altering confiscated livestock.
relative to cruelty to livestock.
Status
Vetoed by the governor — the override vote has not been held yet · June 24, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✓Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
623 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 347 of 347 written submissionsHB1766 would change how suspected cruelty to livestock and equines is investigated, including shifting probable-cause authority for confiscation from licensed veterinarians to the State Veterinarian, restricting the role of licensed humane societies in investigations, and requiring criminal charges for anyone whose animals are seized. The large majority of submitters oppose the bill, arguing it would create dangerous delays, sideline experienced organizations like the NHSPCA, unfairly criminalize vulnerable owners, and weaken already inadequate animal welfare protections. A smaller group of submitters support the bill, framing it as a needed due-process protection for livestock owners against seizures by outside organizations without proper legal oversight.
- Bill provides due process before livestock can be seizedSupport9 of 347 reviewed
Supporters argue the bill protects livestock owners from having property seized without adjudication or formal charges, and reduces the ability of outside organizations to pressure or determine outcomes in cruelty cases without proper legal oversight.
- Ensures veterinary and farming expertise guides seizure decisionsSupport2 of 347 reviewed
Some supporters argue that decisions to remove animals should involve people who understand both animal biology and the realities of livestock farming, since normal agricultural practices can be misread as neglect by those unfamiliar with them.
- General support for protecting livestock from crueltySupport9 of 347 reviewed
Several supporters express general approval of the bill as a way to protect animals from cruelty and treat both owners and animals fairly, without detailing specific provisions.
- Excludes humane societies from investigations, losing expertiseOppose95 of 347 reviewed
Submitters argue the bill would bar licensed humane societies such as the NHSPCA from participating in confiscation and investigations, removing skilled resources that many towns and police departments rely on and do not otherwise have.
- Shifting authority to the State Veterinarian causes dangerous delaysOppose70 of 347 reviewed
Submitters contend that moving probable-cause determinations to the State Veterinarian (or designee), including allowing video-only examinations, would create a bureaucratic bottleneck that delays time-sensitive interventions and cannot be properly conducted remotely.
- Weakens already inadequate animal cruelty protectionsOppose130 of 347 reviewed
Many submitters argue New Hampshire's current animal welfare laws are already too weak, and that the bill moves protections backward rather than strengthening them, increasing the risk of prolonged animal suffering.
- Mandatory charges unfairly criminalize vulnerable ownersOppose45 of 347 reviewed
Submitters object that the bill would require anyone whose animals are seized to be charged with animal cruelty regardless of intent, which they argue would criminalize people dealing with dementia, financial hardship, or other compromised circumstances and discourage early cooperation.
- Confiscation threshold should be lower, not tied to near-deathOppose17 of 347 reviewed
A number of submitters argue animals should be removable from harm as soon as they show suffering or lack of basic needs, rather than only once they are in danger of dying, and view the bill as failing to lower that threshold.
- Removes penalties that deter repeat offendersOppose12 of 347 reviewed
Submitters note the bill eliminates the list of penalties courts could impose on convicted offenders, such as bans on future animal ownership, which they argue weakens deterrence and could allow repeat abuse.
- Restricts humane societies' ability to fund care for seized animalsOppose7 of 347 reviewed
Some submitters argue the bill would limit humane societies' ability to solicit donations or otherwise sustain themselves financially while caring for seized animals, threatening their capacity to continue this work without state funding to replace it.
- Bill repeats a previously rejected proposal (HB616)Oppose5 of 347 reviewed
Several submitters note the bill is a modified version of HB616 from the prior session, which was already strongly opposed by humane organizations and others, and argue it should not be reconsidered.
- Shifts costs and burdens onto the state and taxpayersOppose5 of 347 reviewed
A few submitters argue that removing humane societies from the process and adding bureaucracy would shift costs currently absorbed by volunteer-funded rescues onto state government and taxpayers.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
I oppose HB1766. This bill makes it harder to protect the welfare of horse, donkeys, mules and other livestock. This bill removes humane organizations like the NHSPCA as an able party and further states that because they are "not an employee of the government" which would no longer be allowed to contribute its assistance in the process of determining temporary protective custody, discussions about seizure and would be forbidden from taking part in or be present during any investigation in a complaint. Just days ago, the NHSPCA and other NGOs stepped up to assist in rescuing nine Standardbred horses from severe neglect. Four stallions were found confined in stalls for up to *FIVE YEARS*, standing in over five feet of compacted, frozen manure. The horses had *no access to sunlight or exercise*, and suffered from extreme neglect, with some described as having a body condition score of only two out of ten. THIS IS WHAT THE NHSPCA DOES. Don't hamstring it from doing necessary and important work! OPPOSE HC1766.
I oppose HB 1766 because it weakens existing animal cruelty protections and makes it more difficult to hold individuals accountable for the neglect and abuse of equines and other livestock. New Hampshire has a responsibility to uphold humane standards of care, and this bill moves us backward by prioritizing convenience over animal welfare. Current laws provide necessary tools for enforcement and protection, and changing them risks increased suffering and reduced oversight. I urge the committee to reject this bill and preserve strong, enforceable animal cruelty laws.
I oppose this bill as we should be in harmony with nature. It is inhumane to utilize our higher cognitive abilities to harness and control animals and/or use these abilities in any way to cause them harm. Any person abusing animals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
I oppose this bill
I am in support of HB1766 as I think there becomes a slippery slope when you remove due process from property/animal seizure. HB1766 clarifies authority and strengthens due process when animals are removed from a person’s possession with emergency interventions still fully allowed, ensuring animals in imminent danger can be protected immediately. This bill adds needed structure and accountability to the animal welfare process, helping protect the legal process that New Hampshire citizens are entitled to.
How about you let the people who know things make these decisions. Cutting the rescues out of the process is unhinged.
I oppose this bill. HB1766 is designed to change existing animal cruelty law and make it harder to protect the welfare of equines and other livestock. The language of this bill removes and dilutes the power of the court thereby enabling future abuses to potentially continue.
I oppose this bill. HB1766 is designed to change existing animal cruelty law and make it harder to protect the welfare of equines and other livestock. The language of this bill removes and dilutes the power of the court thereby enabling future abuses to potentially continue.
I oppose this bill. Stricter animal laws must be present to protect those who do not have a voice. New Hampshire is too lenient with it's current protective laws for animals. I have witnesses in my own neighborhood the lack of compassion and support from authorities to help animals who are needlessly suffering!
Please support the bill.
Knowing Michelle Murch/NHSPCA as a friend and lifelong horse professional as well as former law enforcement officer and manager of the former Dover Mounted Police I cannot state the absolute importance of her guidance and skill in any situations involving horse welfare. The state is extremely lucky to have her.
I oppose this bill as it hampers the organizations that are trying to help animals and assuage their suffering! It will greatly impede the good work done by organizations such as the NH SPCA!
All suffering animals need to be moved to the protection of organizations or individuals who will provide free choice fresh water, appropriate food and shelter. These animals should not be at the point of almost death before rescued. Pass legislation that helps animals. DO NOT dilute already weak laws.
What is the point of this bill and why are the representatives who introduced it trying to prevent one of the oldest humane organizations in the country from doing their jobs successfully? Cutting them out of a process that requires more nuanced handling than criminalizing every case does not make sense. Is it the fact that they are a hugely popular independent non-profit that is the real problem for these people? Because we know who has the actual current problem with popular, independent non profits. Don’t make animals and people suffer more by passing this bill.
I am for protecting livestock. I had a neighbor who let his chickens run all over the neighborhood. He had no clue what he was doing. No chicken coop no pen no nothing. These animals were picked off one by one by predators. I was feeding them because he wasn’t. These animals just because they are livestock need to be protected period.
We need to be the voice of these innocent animals.! The ones that are in need of our help we need to give them the help from educated people like the ASPCA that knows how to handle these delicate situations. Must Be the Voice for these Wonderful Animals!! Please oppose this bill!!
I do not support this bill. We owe it the creatures who rely on us to look out for them.
As a member of the public and a long-time law enforcement officer, I am appalled at the changes being proposed in this bill. Law enforcement in this state has had a long-standing relationship with our local humane agents and would be crippled without their assistance. This law ties the hands of local police departments who cannot afford to have an animal control officer on staff, changes the standard for action greatly, and will impact the animals in the worst way. Please do not allow testimony of a few dictate the changes proposed in this bill. There are two sides to every story, and I encourage you to give credit to the law enforcement agents who will testify regarding their experience with local humane agents.
This bill would seriously impede the ability of animal rescue organizations to support and protect animal welfare. Please oppose this bill.
I oppose this bill for multiple reasons. The penalties for animal cruelty should be increased. The governmental oversight is excessive and shortsighted.
This bill would weaken animal cruelty protections and disrespect the current organizations and licensed humane societies working hard to protect livestock. This would also remove athority of local licensed veterinarians and place further stress on local law enforcement, animal control, and the state veterinarian. Passing this bill would also limit the authority of the courts to view cases by case situations and impose penalties as seen fit by a local judge for each unique violation. Please vote to oppose this bill.
To Whom it May Concern, I oppose this bill due to the fact that it would place more bureaucratic red tape in the way of agencies (NH SPCA, Humane Societies) in situations where timeliness is often of the utmost import. Furthermore, it would impede upon those agencies' abilities to help pet owners in compromised situations such as dementia or financial distress.
Oppose please
In my opinion this will limit the help the animals will receive leading to more abuse going unreported.