HB251

Didn’t the sponsor of this bill shoot at squirrels with buck shot for fun? I don’t want it to be legal to maim squirrels so you can own them. That is cruel and abusive.

I have personal experience with saving and rehabilitating wildlife. Before moving from California to New Hampshire, I used to volunteer at Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley. The "Three R's" of my work were "Rescue, Rehab and Release" where the objective is returning them to the wild where they belong. I know for a fact that exotic animals should never be kept as pets. There are too many risks and dangers involved. That said, there are provisions for animal rescues who bond with a family. But this kind of arrangement must meet certain requirements which are in place to protect ALL concerned. We need to keep the current permit requirement, and House Bill 251 is irresponsible and would jeopardize safety of human and wild animal interactions. Don't forget the tragic consequences which recently occurred of disregarding regulations, with Fred the Racoon and PNut the Squirrel being the innocent victims. According to P’Nut’s Guardian, an attempt was made to release the squirrel, but P’Nut returned, indicating he had become too dependent to survive independently. When this occurs, the appropriate next step is to apply for a PERMIT to provide long-term care. P’Nut’s Guardian stated that he was in the process of securing such a necessary permit when the animals were seized by state agents in an inexcusable raid on his New York home, as if this lawful citizen were a terrorist! Removing the permit requirement — as HB 251 proposes — is definitely not advisable, as it could lead to the inappropriate and potentially harmful captivity of wildlife. Proper regulations ensure that individuals caring for wild animals have the necessary expertise and resources to meet the animals’ needs without causing any harm. That's why a NO Vote on HB 251 is essential. Thank you.

Wild animals should be wild and not taken as pets. If a wild animal is injured it should be brought to a reputable wild life rehab facility.

Proper regulations ensure that individuals caring for wild animals have the necessary expertise and resources to meet the animals’ needs without causing harm. These are wild animals and should remain wild. They should not be pets!

I oppose this bill. I believe in leaving wildlife alone unless they are injured and need to be rehabilitated and then returned to the wild. Thank you.

Wild animals need to be left in the wild. Occasionally Life presents us with a rescue situation, when no other option is available. OK. That said, keeping wildlife as pets - and encouraging this behavior by not requiring a permit - is a bad idea. Most people have NO IDEA how to properly care for a wild animal, not to mention the possibility that a mother could be removed from the wild when she has offspring that need her. I oppose this bill!

Wild animals should be wild, not kept as pets. Injured or sick wild animals can often be helped by licensed rehabilatators , then released back into their wild natural environment. By their very nature, they can be unpredictable as “pets”….and this can lead to to serious problems and maybe their ultimate demise. I do not support this bill.

Wild animals were not put on this planet to be held captive by human beings. Only selfish, irresponsible humans have a desire to dominate a wild animal, hold it captive, and display it like a trophy.

Wildlife should not be kept as pets and only people who can demonstrate they have the knowledge and facilities to keep wild animals long-term in a safe, healthy, proper environment should be allowed to keep the rare wildlife who are permanently injured or too habituated to humans to survive without human intervention. The goal with injured and orphaned wildlife should always be to try to release them into the wild. I have seen firsthand the negative outcomes that occur when people who are not qualified to keep wild animals attempt to keep them long-term. This is because I am a veterinarian and I have worked at qualified facilities and have seen the non- dog and cat species that people bring in to re-home after they finally give up after attempting to care for them for many weeks, These animals are malnourished, debilitated, deformed, maladjusted, mentally damaged animals, some of which can be saved, and others who must be euthanized. That is why permitting is necessary. People have to demonstrate they have the knowledge base and the physical facilities to take care of such animals long-term. Most people do not meet these qualifications and they need to be weeded out so wild animals do not have to endure long-term suffering. The need to have a permit to keep a wild animal should remain in place.

Wildlife should not be kept as pets. Only domesticated animals should be pets. There are times when wildlife are injured or orphaned and when knowledgeable humans can intervene to help a wild animal recover, with the goal being the animal should be released back to the wild. Occasionally animals are injured too badly or are habituated to people too much and they cannot be released. In those cases only people who are knowledgable enough to know what they need for longterm care should be allowed to keep them. I have seen first hand hundreds of times the negative outcomes that occur when people who are not qualified to keep wild animals attempt to keep them long-term. This is because I am a veterinarian and I have worked and volunteered as a wildlife rehabilitator off and on over the past 30 years and have seen the malnourished, debilitated, deformed, maladjusted, mentally damaged animals that result when someone who may be well intentioned, but is not educated, tries to take care of a wild animal. That is why permitting is necessary. People have to demonstrate they have the knowledge base and the physical facilities to take care of such animals long-term. Most people do not meet these qualifications and they need to be weeded out so wild animals do not have to endure long-term suffering. The need to have a permit to keep a wild animal should remain in place.

Dear Members of the Committee, I oppose House Bill 251, which would remove the permit requirement for caring for injured or orphaned wildlife. While the bill aims to prevent incidents like the seizure of P’Nut and Fred, it could lead to serious problems. Wildlife rehabilitation requires special knowledge and skills. Without permits, untrained individuals may take in wild animals, risking improper care and harm. The case of P’Nut shows the need for trained professionals to manage wildlife dependency and ensure their well-being. Keeping the permit requirement is vital for protecting our wildlife and ensuring they receive the proper care they need. Thank you for considering the impact of this bill. Sincerely, Jason Youzwak

Wildlife should remain wild.

This is dangerous and cruel - wild animals harbor diseases and should not live with humans unless licensed rehabilitators.

Please help keep wildlife wild and guarantee the natural rights of these animals. They cannot consent and should have their rights protected.

Please oppose this bill so that wild animals stay where they belong; in the wild; not kept as pets.

Please oppose this bill so that wild animals stay where they belong; in the wild; not kept as pets.

Please leave wildlife undisturbed in its natural habitat. If needed, injured or orphaned animals occasionally require assistance to survive. But the ultimate goal should always be to rehabilitate and release the animal into the wild.

I served in my town's Conservation Commission for many years. I think this will open a pandora box of people taking squirrels and raccoons from the wild, and hard for NH Fish and Game to keep track whether they were deemed by a wildlife rehabilitator to be unable to survive in the wild or not.

Wild animals should remain in their natural habitats, the wild!

I oppose this bill.

Wild animals need to remain wild. They should not be “adopted” by humans as pets or companions. They will inevitably suffer from the incompetence of people who do not have the knowledge or skills to care for them properly. If you love animals, go t a shelter and adopt an animal there. The animals there are domesticated and are just waiting for a loving home. If you love animals, and if you like to hunt, stop hunting and killing wild animals. Leave them alone. Protect them by giving donations to established wildlife organizations.

These are wild animals that are not meant to be pets. Even animals that cannot be released back into the wild are not meant to be pets. They should be left to the professionals who understand the care they need. On top of that there are no vaccines for these animals. They have the potential to catch and spread rabies. It is unfair to make pets out of wild animals.

If these animals are not kept properly they will get out, or even get dumped by the owner, and then they won't have the skills to survive in the wild or are not equipped to. In that case they should stay as ambassador animals to wildlife rehabbers.

I am a member of the public and a New Hampshire wildlife rehabilitator licensed with NH Fish and Game. I work at Elaine Conners Wildcare in Madison and oppose this bill. Wild animals are not companion animals and should not be in the hands of the general public. Wild animals are not suitable pets, and their instincts drive them to live their lives in nature. There is no recognized and safe vaccine against rabies, especially in raccoons, which can be a vector of rabies. Any wild animal is apt to be unpredictable, especially when held in captivity and more so when they reach the age of sexual maturity. As wildlife professionals, rehabilitators work hard to keep wildlife out of the hands of the public and to educate the general population against holding wildlife as any kind of captive "pet". I strongly oppose this bill.

Wildlife do not belong housed in homes as pets. Wildlife needing support should be cared by wildlife rehabbers.