SB573

I am submitting this testimony regarding SB 573 as a professional working directly with comfort and facility dog programs in real-world settings in New Hampshire. I have been involved in developing and placing over 100 working teams across multiple states and environments. I support the goal of ensuring well-trained, safe dogs in these roles. However, I have concerns that certain provisions of the bill do not align with how these programs function in practice and may unintentionally limit effective programs without improving safety or accountability. The bill ties certification to specific AKC titles (Canine Good Citizen, Community Canine, and Urban CGC). These are title-based evaluations and are not a regulatory or oversight system. Many established working-dog and facility-dog programs use equivalent or more comprehensive behavioral evaluations that would be excluded under this structure. Additionally, the bill assumes a single program model. In practice, comfort and facility dogs are deployed in a variety of roles, including internal department support, school-based programs, and public-facing work. Each of these environments requires different evaluation and training approaches. A single certification pathway does not reflect this reality. My concern is that, as written, the bill may unintentionally restrict access for departments and programs that are currently operating successfully under different, but equally valid, standards. I respectfully encourage consideration of language that allows for equivalent behavioral evaluations and flexibility based on the dog’s role and deployment.

No, sick and tired of people forcing 'pets' onto the public at large. It is out of control. Not everyone loves pets, particularly, dogs. For a variety of reasons, to include allergies.

Position recorded without written comment.