Updated March 12, 2020.
Multiple animal-related bills will be reviewed by the New Hampshire House of Representatives this month, erupting concern and contempt from a wide range of the state’s citizenry including hunters, farmers, and domestic pet owners.
Lawmakers have filed dozens of bills this session focused on wildlife or domesticated animals, ranging from measures to ban the docking of dog tails, to eviscerating the N.H. Fish & Game Department’s hunting policy Commission. With news of a new “animal welfare” caucus descending upon the NH statehouse, we expected an avalanche of animal-related bills to swell up the legislature.
Ironically enough, while one legislative bill seeks to loosen criteria for damage imposed to property due to wildlife, another seeks to ban regulated trapping of wildlife in the state - a scientifically recognized form of wildlife control and conflict mitigation.
Its interesting to note that the top three legislative bills we list below are not specific to just New Hampshire - and have been repetitive trends for the animal rights industry in states across the country with similar language in recent years.
He who pays the piper…
Update 3/12/20: The House Committee voted 14-6 to ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) this piece of legislation last week. Today, the NH House voted 183-126 to table the bill, where it is expected to die on the table.
House Bill 1571 (HB 1571): relative to the duties of the fish and game Commission, seeks to strip and add a plethora of new criteria to the requirements for a seat on the N.H. Fish & Game Department’s rule-making Commission. This is not the first attempt by local (and national) animal rights activists to take control of hunting/trapping rules in the state. We reported on Senate Bill 48, an attempt a few years ago to again change the requirements for the Commission. Supporters of SB48 contended that the Department was underfunded, and allowing those opposed to hunting and trapping to make decisions on hunting and trapping would assist with long-term funding for the Department. Out of SB48, a committee was formed, which discussed the parameters of the commission and funding mechanisms, and found that Search & Rescue operations were a large burden on the Department’s funds and resources. Displeased with that outcome, the same players are back this year with a more “direct” bill to undermine wildlife management protocols in the Granite State.
As was pointed out in an editorial column posted here a few months back:
It appears people who’ve been critical of the Department are drastically overstating and misconstruing what, exactly, the NHFG Commission is charged with managing. In fact, many citizens would be surprised with how little the Commission actually has the power of authority over.
According to statute, the NH Fish & Game Commission’s duties include setting policy on the conservation & management of wildlife populations and habitats, and the collection of necessary scientific information pertaining to such. A pretty broad statement - but not so fast; it appears the Commission’s actual authority has been eroded over the years in superseding statutes.
The NH Fish & Game Commission has no exclusive oversight over non-game/endangered species - a separate division within the NHFG Department. The Commission also has no exclusive authority over officers or the law enforcement division of the Department. There also appears to be very little as to their authority on state fisheries. The commission has no control over bird-watching, no control over recreational activities such as kayaking, trail hiking, paddle-boarding, mountain-biking, having a picnic, or any other non-hunting activities the “non-hunting public” wishes to take part in.
So the $16.96 Million dollar question (which also happens to be the amount NH sportsmen contributed in 2018) remains - what does hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, bicycle trail riding, or camping have to do with a hunting policy commission? Nothing. Which is why concerned conservationists and wildlife management supporters are encouraged to contact their House representatives and encourage them to oppose HB1571. The bill has been currently scheduled to be heard in public session on February 4th in Concord. Those concerned with the constant erosion of tried and true wildlife management protocols are encouraged to attend and voice opposition. This page will be updated with changes to dates, times, and locations as they become available. The bill will be heard by the House Fish, Game, and Marine Resources committee (which can be found here, with contact information listed). Concerned citizens are encouraged to contact the committee members and implore them to oppose HB1571.
Regulated Trapping also under siege
Update 3/12/20: The House Committee overseeing the bill voted 15-5 to kill the bill (Inexpedient to Legislate) after a strong showing of opposition by the public, licensed sportsmen, and the NH Fish & Game Department. The entire NH House voted today 263-45 to ITL the bill - with no debate. While some contend that the “majority” of citizens do not support trapping, the overwhelming bi-partisan votes speak for themselves in the House.
House Bill 1504 (HB 1504) seeks to establish a committee to “study prohibiting recreational trapping” in the state. The goal is simple, create and define the term “recreational trapping” and then push for future legislation to ban it. Don’t take our word for it; the bill lays this out: “The committee shall define recreational trapping and the feasibility of prohibiting recreational trapping in this state.” Note - there isn’t a single wildlife professional assigned to this “study committee”.
(Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle)
Ironic once more, a bill to seek to ban proven and effective wildlife management protocols comes at a time when another bill, House Bill 1339 (HB 1339) has been introduced to relax requirements for what defines damage to crops or livestock done by wild animals. Proven wildlife control methods (such as trapping) are one of the most effective methods to manage abundant wildlife populations of skunks, raccoons, coyotes, and others.
States like Massachusetts have already caved to activist demands to ban regulated trapping - with those decisions being quickly reversed or altered after disastrous consequences for the ecosystem became apparent. This type of legislation is reactionary, frivolous, and flies in the face of nationally recognized non-biased wildlife conservation protocols. We remain firm, however, that HB1504 does an excellent job of also demonstrating why a biased and reactionary animal rights industry shouldn’t hold sway over wildlife management decision-making (as outlined with HB1571 above). This bill has a current public hearing schedule of February 18th in Concord. This page will be updated with changes to dates, times, and locations as they become available. The bill will be heard by the House Fish, Game, and Marine Resources committee (which can be found here, with contact information listed). Concerned citizens are encouraged to contact the committee members and implore them to oppose HB1504.
Hunting Contest bill - a National trend
Update 3/12/20: This bill received strong opposition from the greater hunting community, who argued similar points to our commentary below. The bill went through a series of language changes with two separate amendments. The bill passed the Senate in a greatly amended version today. It bans wanton waste of wildlife with some exceptions and mandates the NH Fish & Game Executive Director develop rules and definitions around hunting contests involving furbearers. We are not overly conerned with the bill’s current laguage, appriciate the bill’s sponsor being willing to discuss concerns, and look forward to input on future hearings and proceedings surrounding this topic. The bill will now make its way to the House for secondary approval where we will watch for further amendments or changes. You can view the latest status of the bill, and the amendment language, by clicking here.
The ink wasn’t even dry on reports of Massachusetts’ hunting contest ban before NH Senators opted to enact a ban of their own on hunting contests in the state. Senate Bill 588 (SB 588) is a two-part piece of legislation; seeking to eliminate hunting contests (an incredibly broad term) as well as place parameters on the definition of wanton waste. While we have no qualms with exploring wanton waste legislation, the contest aspect of the bill seems to be more virtue signaling and less wildlife ethics advocacy. If wanton waste is the concern and catalyst for such legislation, the wanton waste portion of the bill alone would resolve any concerns with “unethical” hunting contest activities. Alas, in a rather odd turn of events, the bill’s prime sponsor, Senator David Watters (D-Dover), is rumored to be removing the wanton waste portion of the bill, so as to only focus on hunting “contests”.
From our friends at the Sportsmen’s Alliance:
SB 588 is part of a national trend started by animal-rights groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States, to outlaw lawful hunting activities. The Sportsmen’s Alliance has fought similar legislation in a number of other states, and works to stay ahead of these coordinated attacks on common hunting practices across the country.
Current New Hampshire law allows for wildlife contests, such as big buck competitions and sporting dog field trials, to legally take place in the state. Under this broadly written bill, nearly any organized hunting that involves two or more people, where even only a ribbon is awarded, would be a criminal act.
The new language in SB 588 would charge any person or organization involved in a contest that takes or hunts wildlife for prizes or entertainment with a B-level misdemeanor, which carries a fine up to a $1,200. As a result, any hunter who buys dinner for another hunter for the most rabbits, ducks or the biggest deer harvested would be in violation of the law.
Additionally, SB 588 will also outlaw nearly any competition related to hunting, including hunt tests and field trials for dogs, as prizes are often awarded to the winners of such competitions. Hunters depend on quality dogs, and a ban on these competitions eliminates the system through which superior genetics, bloodlines and abilities are put to the test.
As for our position on the bill, Furbearer Conservation fully encourages those taking part in hunting contests pertaining to furbearers do so at a time of year when the hides of these animals can be ethically used; and we encourage contest participants to partner with trappers and fur handlers to ensure the remains of hunted species are properly utilized. We remain firm that a broad-scale “ban” on hunting contests (which can be as simple as two friends making a verbal wager prior to an outdoor pursuit), is overkill, and a dramatic overreach of the state’s legislature. The bill is expected to be heard by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (which can be found here, with contact info included). A date for public hearing has yet to be announced. Concerned citizens are encouraged to contact the committee members and implore them to oppose the contest portion of SB588.
Hunting contests in the Northeast, especially those targeting coyotes, are (currently) far more in line with traditional management protocols than that of widely disputed contests held in other parts of the country. To our knowledge, hunting contests held in New Hampshire take place in the winter (when the animal’s remains would be ethically utilized) and in line with other local hunting/trapping season times and lengths. Any restriction on current predator management activities, in the eyes of many local residents, is thereby unwarranted - as these activities utilize the resource as opposed to other forms of cull (example would be nuisance/pest control) which don’t regard ethical usage of the resource as part of the equation.
firearm discharge rule
Update 3/12/20: This bill was voted to be killed in Committee 17-1 ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate).
House Bill 1115 (HB 1115), relative to the discharge of a firearm in the compact part of a city or town, goes to far greater lengths than the bill’s description eludes. The bill seeks to broaden the definition of where a firearm discharge is prohibited. Essentially, the bill has the potential to diminish wildlife management (via regulated hunting) in the southern half of the state (the most compact area). Currently, firearms can only be discharged 300 feet away from a dwelling. This bill seeks to change that distance (tripled) to 900 feet, and seeks to include “any park, playground, outdoor public gathering place, or other property designated by the legislative body of the city or town for public recreational use”.
“Public recreational use” is an incredibly broad term; and is likely to include public wildlife management areas currently open to hunting - even those lands purchased with sportsmen’s dollars (via hunting license revenue). This particular bill joins a landslide of firearms-related legislation pounding the statehouse in recent years. The bill will be heard by the House Municipal and County Government committee (which can be found here, with contact information listed). Concerned citizens are encouraged to contact the committee members and implore them to oppose HB1115.
“Honorable” Mentions
Some of the animal-related bills we’re watching include two cruelty-related bills; HB 1560 (relative to criminal penalities for neglagent actions which cause the death of an animal), and HB 1606 (relative to cruelty to a wild animal, fish, or wild bird). While Furbearer Conservation does not support abhorrent cruelty to any animal, those opposed to regulated hunting and trapping activities have tried numerous times to draw parallels between legal methods of take of game, and cruelty to animals. The language associated with these bills, as well as the bill’s intent, and future amendments/changes to the language are important to watch.
There are some positive steps in the legislature this year as well. HB 1117 would criminalize the tampering or removal of radio collars and microchips on dogs. The bill stems from a national trend of those opposed to hound hunting actually removing GPS tracking collars from hunting dogs, or in some cases, removing the collars and stealing the dogs outright to be placed for adoption at local shelters. On the topic of Fish & Game operations, HB 1585 would double the fines imposed for poaching. HB 1596 would provide that search and rescue operations (provided by the NH Fish and Game) be paid out from the general fund; shifting the burden of funding search and rescue from the Department (and majority from the hunting community) to general citizens. Talk of a bill seeking to define a right for citizens to hunt, fish and trap is also making its way through the legislature this year; although no official language has been presented publicly at the original posting date of this article.