HB593

I don't blieve people should be guardian of their animal, but an owner with all rights bestowed.

I am oppose to this Bill. I own my animals and I don't feel that anyone else should be able to "gain" a say in my animal's well being unless I have broken the already standing bills to protect animals in general. Enough Government intervention!!!

This bill is another attempt by animal rights activists to change the status of animals to give them legal standing. This is contrary to hundreds of years of legal precedent and will create chaos, abuse and undermine the rights of pet owners to care for their pets and animals. New Hampshire should not be the proving ground for the agenda of animal rights extremists.

I strongly oppose this bill as a pet owner and veterinary professional, this bill would cause undo harm on pet owners and patients if this were to become law. I urge you as a constitute, to vote no and oppose this awful legislation.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Judiciary Committee: NH Farm Bureau opposes HB 593-FN, relative to loss of consortium involving pets. We understand this bill as a radical departure from current law that would be leading us down a path of fundamental changes to the legal status regarding the ownership of animals - starting with “pets” - where animals are provided legal standing in court. This undermines animal ownership rights, replacing “ownership” with “guardianship” of animals. This pathway ends where individuals would no longer have control over the care and well-being of animals but instead would essentially be managing them under a third-party governmental regulatory scheme. We urge the Committee find HB593 Inexpedient-to-Legislate and we thank you for your consideration. Robert Johnson, II, Policy Director/Administrator New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation 295 Sheep Davis Road Concord, NH 03301 Office: (603) 224-1934 Cell: (603) 312-6877 robj@nhfarmbureau.org New Hampshire Farm Bureau (NHFB) is a non-profit federation, established in 1916, of New Hampshire’s 10 county Farm Bureau organizations which consist of 2,500 NH farm families and supporting members statewide. NHFB is dedicated to advocating for and educating the public about agriculture. NHFB is a general farm organization where the members establish policy and direction through a member driven policy development process. We are “The Voice of Agriculture” in New Hampshire.

Dear Committee Members, My name is Dr. Lisa Boyer, and I am a licensed veterinarian in New Hampshire. I stand strongly in opposition to this proposed legislation, which seeks to include pets in Loss of Consortium claims. Should this legislation pass, it would fundamentally change the legal standing of pets, setting a dangerous precedent that could undermine pet owners' rights and lead to unintended legal consequences. 1. Pets as Property – A Fundamental Right of Ownership At the core of this issue is the classification of pets as property. This designation is essential for ensuring that pet owners maintain full control over their animals. Owners have the right to make decisions regarding their pets' care, training, and, when necessary, euthanasia. Should Loss of Consortium be applied to pets, it would challenge this legal framework and could limit the rights of owners in decisions related to their pets’ well-being. Such a shift could open the door for government intervention, with lawmakers or courts potentially dictating how we care for, sell, or even breed our pets. This is not only unnecessary but could infringe upon the freedoms we currently enjoy as responsible pet owners. 2. Expanding Legal Standing – Who Has the Right to Sue? One of the most concerning aspects of this legislation is the potential for expanded legal standing. By allowing "interested" parties—such as shelters, animal rights organizations, or other groups—to file claims on behalf of a pet, we risk creating a flood of legal disputes over animals. This could include conflicts over custody, adding confusion and uncertainty for those who legally own and care for pets. 3. Moving Toward “Pet Guardianship” Rather Than Ownership Introducing Loss of Consortium laws for pets moves us closer to a scenario where pets are seen as having legal rights independent of their owners. This could lead to a situation where courts, rather than pet owners, have a say in decisions about their care. Such a change could eventually transform the role of pet owners from one of ownership to mere “management” under state or federal regulations, drastically reducing the rights we currently hold. 4. A Path to Frivolous Lawsuits and Legal Overload Allowing for emotional damages in cases involving pets could overwhelm our legal system. The potential for frivolous lawsuits is significant, as any harm, no matter how accidental, could lead to claims for emotional distress. This opens the door to costly and subjective legal battles that would disproportionately affect businesses, municipalities, and individuals involved in pet care. As a result, we would likely see increases in veterinary bills, pet service costs, and even insurance premiums. 5. Impact on Veterinary and Shelter Decisions If pets are granted legal rights akin to family members, veterinarians and shelters could find themselves facing legal threats for performing routine, yet necessary, actions such as euthanasia or medical treatment. This could lead to delays in providing care, increased emotional distress for pets, and even overcrowding in shelters. The consequences could be devastating for the animals themselves. 6. The Slippery Slope: What Comes Next? If pets are recognized as having legal standing under Loss of Consortium, what is to stop this from extending to other types of animals? Could service animals, farm animals, or even AI-based companions gain similar legal recognition? This could lead to significant restrictions on pet breeding, training, and ownership—further eroding our rights as animal owners. This legislation sets a concerning precedent that could blur the lines between pets and legal persons, diminishing the rights of humans to own and care for their property. It could open the door for widespread regulatory interference in how we manage our animals. Conclusion: Protecting Pet Owners’ Rights While pets are indeed cherished members of our families, recognizing them as legal persons through Loss of Consortium laws would undermine our rights as owners. It would introduce a host of legal challenges, increase liabilities, and restrict how we care for our pets. By keeping pets classified as property, we safeguard our ability to make decisions in their best interests, without interference from outside forces. Thank you for your time and consideration. I urge you to reject this proposal and preserve the rights of pet owners. Sincerely, Dr. Lisa Boyer NH Licensed Veterinarian and Constituent

Animals should remain personal property. Decisions about them is personal!

Animals are property under NH state law. People can form attachments to anything they care about, including animals: homes for example, or cars. These things are still property. People take care of animals, homes, and cars. Some people care a great deal about plants, which like animals, are living. Because they take care of them, and even though they may feel emotional distress if their property is damaged or lost, such things are still property. Please do not give pets legal rights to loss of consortium. Who is going to decide whether one animal is a pet over another? What is the definition of a pet? People have pet horses, cows, pigs, chickens, fish, plants....In reality, a pet is merely the designation decided upon by the OWNER. Such an arbitrary, subjective designation will gum up the legal networks. Husbands and wives claiming loss of consortium are clearly defined by law. If pets gain rights of consortium and are no longer regarded as property, then towns cannot collect annual property revenues (license fees) and once that is gone, there is no mechanism for ensuring rabies vaccinations, this situation would be potentially far more deadly to the general public.

I oppose #593 .whole idea. Is just not. Good sense.

loss of consortium is a category of legal damages that are exclusively allowed for a spouse. loss of consortium is not even a category of legal damages for a child or children. loss of consortium is loss of society from your spouse ... sex. pets are animals or property. legal damages for loss of consortium should not be extended to property. passing a bill such as this would lead to increased and unnecessary litigation and would also serve to increase insurance premiums due to the addition of another layer of damages to be claimed in the event of accidents. please vote ITL on HB 593. thank you

People need ownership rights over their animals as property because they spend money to purchase the animal (like property), and people take care of the animals (like repairing property), and people need to spend money for food for animals (like maintaining property).

I oppose this bill because it would take away the rights of pet owners.

Keeping pets legally classified as property protects our ability to love, care for, and make decisions for them—without interference from courts, activists, or overreaching laws.

While pets are beloved family members, granting them legal standing through loss of consortium laws erodes our rights as owners and sets a precedent that could lead to severe legal consequences, increased liabilities, and restrictions on how we care for our own animals. Keeping pets legally classified as property protects our ability to love, care for, and make decisions for them—without interference from courts, activists, or overreaching laws. I love my dogs and even though we called them "our kids", dogs are not people. Pet owners and their vets should always be allowed to make decisions for their pets without any interference.

To the members of the House Judiciary Committee, I am writing in opposition to HB 593 on the grounds that it is a fundamental attempt to change the legal status of pets from the long standing tradition of property to a status approaching personhood. There are adequate legal protections in NH Statutes for recovery of economic damages and even punitive damages. These protections are based upon the tangible economic value of the animal and /or the associated expenses related to a purposeful or negligent act. Punitive damages can be awarded coming from the plaintiff/ dog owner, not the pet itself. Non-economic damages can not be assessed for damage to property, as pets are traditionally defined, and I do not see the value in allowing them when other economic recovery is already available. I have been involved with dogs as a breeder, exhibitor, and competitor in NH for over 40 years and am therefore very familiar with not only the protective statutes, but the mindset of both dog owners and those opposed to the ownership of dogs. There is a slippery slope of unintended consequences that could result from the passage of HB593. The most significant consideration should be given to the likely increase in liability for all parties in the animal care chain including owners/c0-owners, groomers, boarding facilities and veterinarians to name a few. Risks of a frivolous lawsuit for loss of consortium claims will increase costs across the board ultimately borne by the average pet owner. NH already has a limited supply of pet care services and the potential loss of even a few due to liability concerns would be a huge disservice to the State. I urge you to consider HB 593 Inexpedient to Legislate. George Cook Jefferson, NH President, Siberian Husky Club of America

While we all feel heavy sadness when we lose a pet, a bill like this isn't cut and dry. If someone is attacked by an animal and has to defend themselves, this opens up to law suits for the death of of said attacking animal. Not only would the person have to go to the hospital, if they survived, but they would also have to go through years of court proceedings, divulging money and pain. Plus, how does this affect animal shelters? Or breeders? Can they be charged for the death of an animal in their care, if pets get labeled as personhood instead of property? This feels like too much government oversite for the "Live Free or Die" state.

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.