Letter: Don’t weaken definition of ‘pet vendor’ in N.H.

Published: 6/24/2019 12:01:22 AM

New Hampshire has some of the weakest animal protection laws in the country. Groups representing breeders are happy to keep it that way. They are opposing the new “pet vendor” definition in the N.H. budget amendment that requires all pet vending entities that transfer over 25 animals per year be held to the same reasonable standards of animal care.

I attended the first Christina Fay trial (80 Great Danes seized) and saw photographs showing the deplorable conditions in which this “expert” breeder kept these animals, heard eyewitness testimony that was even more graphic, and listened when the defendant took the stand and claimed that she’d done nothing wrong and that the Wolfeboro police and community were “out to get her.” I also heard statements to the effect that the reason she came to New Hampshire was because of our weak regulatory laws for dog breeders.

The recent Bradford case (105 golden retriever dogs and puppies seized) is only another example of why we need stronger regulation of dog breeders. Sen. Jeb Bradley and others have bent over backward to listen to stakeholder concerns for the last few years, but the AKC and its members have opposed any reasonable regulations of their members irrespective of the harm to hundreds of animals and a cost of more than $4 million to N.H. towns and nonprofit animal welfare organizations.

So, here’s my plea to the N.H. Legislature: Please do not weaken the proposed definition of “pet vendor.” It’s easy to enforce and just makes sense.

ELAINE R. WARSHELL

Moultonborough




Concord Monitor Office

1 Monitor Drive
Concord,NH 03301
603-224-5301

 

© 2019 Concord Monitor
Terms & Conditions - Privacy Policy