Almost ten years ago, the Humane Society of the United States took in 84 sickly and neglected Great Danes that had been seized from a 13,000-square-foot mansion in Wolfeboro.
In the ensuing animal cruelty case, testimony against their owner, Christina Fay, revealed the squalid conditions in which the dogs were kept: feces on the walls, “no open windows, no water,” according to witness Marilyn Kelly.
Fay would eventually pay back the organization, now known as Humane World for Animals, for the $2 million it expended to care for the dogs as living evidence, a cost that would otherwise have fallen to the municipality. Now, the organization, which served as a stopgap in the Wolfeboro case, is arguing that, as written, a current bill would prevent it from doing the same for other animals.
The role of humane organizations in cases where animals are seized from abusive owners proved to be the most polarizing aspect of HB1766, proposed by Rep. Barbara Comtois as an “avenue that protects both the animal and the person who owns the animal.” The new legislation would create several changes to the state’s cruelty to livestock statutes
Some measures to that end garnered the support of animal cruelty attorney Patricia Morris: An animal could be spayed, neutered or receive another treatment if a veterinarian deems it necessary to save their life or, as the bill proposes, if the owner has given their written permission. And when authorities take an animal into protective custody, the bill stipulates that the law enforcement officer seizing the animal should leave a written notice for the owner.
“It is so emotional and chaotic. I think the defendant needs or the accused needs to be told what rights they do have in writing,” Morris told the House Environment and Agriculture Committee at a public hearing Tuesday.
But Morris, who has sat on the governor’s Commission for the Humane Treatment of Animals since 2009, saw sufficient flaws in the bill to oppose it as currently written. The commission itself, which doesn’t represent Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s personal opinion, unanimously opposes it, and as of Thursday, 575 people have submitted written testimony online voicing their opposition. Only 48 individuals have expressed online support.
To determine if there’s probable cause to seize an animal whose life is in imminent danger, the bill proposes that an investigating officer should be accompanied by the state veterinarian or their designee — either in-person or by video.
“For livestock, you can’t get a digital pulse. You can’t get a temperature. You can’t feel ribs. You can’t feel the heat. If I was an accused and there someone’s on a video saying, ‘Seize my animals,’ that’s just no,” Morris said.
She also addressed another of the bill’s limitations: A provision determining that a person charged with animal cruelty would not have their name released to the public until their case was adjudicated by a judge, she said, is “unconstitutional.”
“You can read the Concord Patch any day, and if you are accused and arrested of a crime, you’re in there driving the wrong way on [Interstate] 93 with reckless driving. Why are we protecting someone who is being accused of animal cruelty but not someone who’s accused of raping a child? It is a crime,” Morris said. “[The bill] will be shot down in a court of law very quickly for that.”
The most staunch opposition to the bill came from representatives of the state’s humane organizations, which felt the bill diminished their role in the care of victimized animals.
The bill does not explicitly include humane societies in the process of investigating animal welfare violations. Rob Johnson, policy director of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation, one of the stakeholder organizations consulted during the drafting of the bill, said it’s important for a public official to be responsible for seizing animals, not a nonprofit or private entity.
Even so, given the housing services humane organizations provide, unburdening local police departments from the care of large livestock and companion animals, Johnson said he would “certainly be open” to language changes that preserve humane organizations’ supportive role.
For Charles Stanton, executive director of the New Hampshire Humane Society and CEO of the Animal Rights Foundation, the absence of this language would be a deal-breaker.
Stanton said the Humane Society partners with 19 police departments across the state to provide low-cost veterinary care, free pet food and supplies and, most germane to the bill, housing for stray animals and animals who’ve been seized and placed in protective custody.
“All of this is on behalf of police departments and in service of the courts,” he told the committee.
Not only does HB1766 threaten the public-private model, he said, but “we’re prepared to drop the contracts from our 19 municipalities if this moves forward.”
Lawmakers will consider changes to the bill at a work session next week.