Restricts confiscation of animals to cases where a person is charged with cruelty or the animal needs protective custody, and requires a state veterinarian to help set probable cause for taking livestock in cruelty cases.
(New Title) relative to the confiscation of animals from persons suspected of or charged with abuse of animals and establishing a committee to study the animal cruelty statutes.
HB616 would generally prohibit confiscating animals from a suspected abuser until they are formally charged with cruelty, and creates a committee to study animal cruelty statutes. A small number of supporters, including agricultural groups, describe it as protecting animal owners' due-process rights and preventing improperly-handled seizures, while the large majority of opponents, including shelter and veterinary professionals, argue that delaying removal until charges are filed will let animals continue to suffer or die during lengthy investigations and court proceedings, and object to provisions curbing humane officers' authority.
Supporters, including an agricultural trade group, argue the bill clarifies the law, protects animal owners' rights, and prevents confiscated animals from dying or being euthanized due to improper care while in the state's custody.
“This bill upholds animal owner rights and helps to keep animals safe if they are taken. It does no good to confiscate animals that then die or are euthanized due to improper care, particularly lactating animals and their offspring.”
— Nancy Holmes, New Boston · #498344 — read full submission →
“We need to make sure due process is clear, impartial, and followed; along with confiscated animals being cared for properly.”
— Joyce Brady, Columbia · #488454 — read full submission →
Most opponents argue that requiring formal charges before an animal can be taken into protective custody would leave animals in abusive or neglectful conditions during a process that can take weeks or months, when timely intervention can be the difference between life and death.
“This bill would create dangerous delays in removing animals from abusive or neglectful situations, potentially condemning them to prolonged suffering—or even death—while authorities wait for formal charges to be filed.”
— Laura Gerard, GILMANTON IW · #497480 — read full submission →
“If Bennie had not been confiscated until his owner had been charged, Bennie would have died.”
— Caroline Wilkinson, Brentwood · #495577 — read full submission →
“with all the typical delays and appeals in our legal system, with certainty will subject those pets/farm animals to continued pain and most likely death while they remain in the possession of the abusive owner.”
— Robert Pokress, Salem · #496965 — read full submission →
A number of submitters, some using near-identical wording, state they have unspecified concerns about unintended consequences of the bill and believe more time is needed to study the issues before it advances.
“There are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues.”
— Naomi Stevens, New Boston · #495510 — read full submission →
“I oppose this bill because I believe it would have significant unintended consequences for animals in NH. I believe more time is needed to study the issues.”
— Jocelyn Henry, Salisbury · #498409 — read full submission →
“I have concerns about how the bill is written, that is will not accomplish the objectives it was conceived for and it will create barriers and delays to animal neglect investigations”
— Heather Faria, Concord · #495623 — read full submission →
Opponents argue the bill restricts the role of trained humane society officers and shelter staff in investigations and seizures, removes exceptions that let them act, and bars complainants from being present during investigations, which they say will hamper effective enforcement.
“This bill, as presented, is deeply concerning. I agree with the Federation that the way the bill has been presented will have unintended outcomes and it requires further conversation and review.”
— Charles Stanton, Laconia · #498712 — read full submission →
“Humane agents are the first line of defense against animal cruelty and neglect. If humane agents are removed from investigations, animals that are suffering in dangerous and life-threatening situations will be impacted.”
— E Ann Poole, Hillsborough · #489937 — read full submission →
“I also object to the proposed provision adding that the complainant may not be present during the investigation.”
— Virginia Jeffryes, Franconia · #497454 — read full submission →
Several opponents draw an analogy to child protective custody, arguing that just as children are removed from abusive homes without waiting for a conviction, animals suspected of being abused should not remain with a suspected abuser during legal proceedings.
“If someone is abusing their children, those children are taken away from them and rightfully so. Why would animals be any different?”
— Kelly Turner, Dover · #497708 — read full submission →
“Would you let someone who is suspected of child abuse/neglect maintain custody of the children in their care?”
— Megan Twombly, Penacook · #497025 — read full submission →
A small number of submitters raise objections to declawing of cats as a cruel practice, arguing it should not be allowed, in the context of the bill's animal cruelty provisions.
“Declaring is brutal and inhumane and should not be allowed at all. I am disgusted this is still encouraged. How would you like your fingers up to the knuckles chopped off? Because that's what happens to cats.”
— Elana Hawkensen, Somersworth · #497342 — read full submission →
“Declawing cats is cruel, inhumane, and selfish. How would you like someone pulling your fingernails out? It’s a form of torture.”
— Amy Bunnell, Greenland · #496788 — read full submission →
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
This bill, if passed, would prevent animals from receiving potentially life-saving care before it is too late. As a veterinary professional for almost two decades, including positions at the MSPCA and Tufts Veterinary Hospital, I have seen these cases first hand. I have also seen animals for whom the law came too late.
I oppose this bill. I’m sorry for what the lady with the goats went through, that really sounds terrible, but if errors were made there it should be addressed with the folks who made the errors. Last year one of my neighbors moved and left her cat behind. She said he got out while she was trying to move and she kept telling me she would come back to get him, she would ask me to call her if I saw him, but she could never come get him, nor would she allow me to bring him to her, after a month she eventually blocked me from calling her when I saw him outside. I called the SPCA in Concord for help because all the neighbors kept asking me what we should do about it, and I couldn’t take him in. My cat would have murdered both of us. What would I have done if I had to worry that if the police didn’t charge her with animal abandonment that I could be charged with theft for helping this cat? If all her excuses were to be believed she wasn’t trying to abandon her cat, she was just a busy, working, single mom with an unreliable car. I don’t know if I would have called if I knew that one of us would be charged with a crime. (If there isn’t some kind of an investigation opened into her conduct wouldn’t I be charged with theft for trapping a cat left behind for a month?) Everything worked out fine for the cat, we were able to trap him and after he had been at the shelter for about a week a neighbor who thought he was a stray long before his owner even moved noticed he was missing and called the shelter looking for him. Now he has a new home. I oppose this bill because people will be afraid to help animals they think need help when doing so means somebody has to get charged with something. Furthermore, won’t this make trap neuter and return (TNR) illegal? I know they only take feral cats to be spayed & neutered, but will they dare if it means someone could charge them with theft and get restitution from them? Please don’t make it illegal to help animals. It sounds like the lady with the goats might not have known the whole picture, but it also sounds like there’s litigation available to people who are abused by misconduct. Please don’t make it illegal to help the animals.
We perform the majority of investigations which occur in the lakes region. Like most animal shelter organizations, we work in tandem with our municipal partners. Our 18 municipal partners rely on us just as we rely on them. Because of that, I would like to think that the house bills related to animal welfare and abuse/neglect what happen with input from the shelters directly. I realize the Federation provides input but many of us could be more helpful if given the opportunity. This bill, as presented, is deeply concerning. I agree with the Federation that the way the bill has been presented will have unintended outcomes and it requires further conversation and review. I realize the governors council as well as other entities have provided input. I would be interested to know how many people involved have been through an entire investigations process AND have municipal animal shelter experience. Even if there is not opportunity for my direct input, there are numerous other shelter leaders who have served in that capacity and could speak to the issues in this bill. Heather Faria, Catt Kopera, Lisa Denison, along with many others. I hope there will be opportunity for this language to be refined so it will be of better service to the community. Thank you for your service!
I have worked in animal rescue for 4 years and have seen the damage and abuse people can cause to animals without ever being charged with animal abuse. Waiting for a charge to remove an animal from an unsafe home will definitely subject them to more cruel treatment. Please look out for these pets and help them live happier, healthier lives.
There are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues
There are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues.
I am a veterinarian involved in animal welfare cases. In some circumstances, we must remove animals prior to charges being filed to preserve their lives and minimize animal suffering. If we have to charge someone criminally, it removes the ability to handle an urgent situation and, also removes our ability to come to an agreement when criminal charges are possible, but not a great solution for the owner. This bill has unintended consequences.
This bill would only stand to negatively affect animals and the community who care about their neglect and treatment, as well as public health. We don’t need any more barriers in place to care for sick and neglected beings.
I oppose this bill because I believe it would inadvertently increase suffering for humans and animals involved in animal cruelty investigations by requiring mandatory charges if animals are seized and decreasing participation of humane agents in cruelty investigations.
I oppose this bill because I believe it would have significant unintended consequences for animals in NH. There are serious concerns about the consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues. Please vote NO
I oppose this bill because I believe it would have significant unintended consequences for animals in NH. I believe more time is needed to study the issues. Please vote NO! Sincerely, Jocelyn Henry Certified Veterinary Technician 30 years boarding and caring for equine/livestock
3/4/2025 Madame Chair and Members of the Environment and Agriculture Committee, My name is Nancy Holmes and I am writing today from New Boston, NH in support of HB616. HB616 contains much needed clarification of our laws on animal cruelty, the seizure of farm animals and their subsequent care. This bill upholds animal owner rights and helps to keep animals safe if they are taken. It does no good to confiscate animals that then die or are euthanized due to improper care, particularly lactating animals and their offspring. Avoiding he said she said disagreements in cruelty cases makes written communications of rights under the law an important improvement over current law and safeguards both sides. Avoiding any appearance of conflict of interest by keeping complainants and those who may become caretakers of seized animals from being present during investigation is another improvement. The Department of Agriculture’s role in this is critical in ensuring that qualified veterinarians are the ones evaluating the animals. A small animal or shelter practice veterinarian might not be as qualified to examine large animals or advise on care as one who regularly includes large animals in their practice. Education is one thing, but daily hands on is another when it comes to animal care. Please support passage of HB616 to ensure owner rights and understanding of the process along with proper animal care of confiscated animals. Sincerely, Nancy Holmes New Boston, NH
I work with the SPCA and am familiar with cruelty cases. The proposed law would make the job of those enforcing much more challenging.
There are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues.
There are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues.
I firmly oppose this bill as I feel it would not make anything better for animals in need of help.
There are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues.
I oppose HB 616 which will allow animal owners opportunities to continue abuse and/or neglect until such time when formal charges are made against animal owners.
I believe that Humane Agents should be involved in any potential seizure of animals and be part of any investigation that involves animals that may be neglected or abused. Humane Agents provide expertise and communication skills that are instrumental to ensure that the animals' well being is taken into consideration before any actions are taken involving their care. Removing Humane Agents from being involved is detrimental to the animals who do not have a voice of their own and rely on Humane Agents to be on their side. While no animals should suffer and most definitely be removed from cruelty or neglect, Humane Agents should be part of any potential seizure of animals to help determine what should happen to them and to ensure they have the best possible chance at a happy and healthy second chance in life.
Why on earth would anyone allow animals to remain in abusive homes?
There are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues
There are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues.
As HB 616 is written, there are serious concerns regarding undermining animal welfare professionals. In the current state of affairs, animals are seized when there is active cruelty or neglect violations. This bill has the potential to allow the unnecessary suffering of animals, which I fear will degrade public trust and expectations. Please reconsider this bill.
This bill could promote suffering for both animals and people.
There are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this bill and more time is needed to study the issues.