House drops “cost of care” provision from Senate animal cruelty bill

The New Hampshire House recently made changes to a Senate animal cruelty bill, leading to debate over who should pay for the “costs of care” for confiscated animals.

The original bill arose from the case of a Wolfeboro woman charged and ultimately convicted of animal cruelty for her treatment of more than 80 Great Danes in her home.

Both the House and Senate agree on language in the bill that seeks to strengthen state law on kennels, requiring state licensing and oversight.

However, the original Senate bill also required that a "cost of care" bond be posted by someone charged with animal neglect or cruelty. That bond would cover the costs of caring for any animals that are confiscated in such cases. If a bond wasn’t posted, the confiscated animal could be put up for adoption.

The House amended the Senate bill to remove the bond requirement, putting it to a study committee.

Wolfeboro Police Chief Dean Rondeau called the amended bill “slipshod legislation” because it puts the cost of caring for animals in an abuse case on taxpayers. Currently, defendants in animal cruelty cases are only billed for kenneling and medical costs for their animals if they’re found guilty. During trial towns, vets, and humane societies are left picking up the tab, which can often amount to thousands of dollars.

The chair of the committee that amended the bill said a bond requirement removes a person’s right to due process. Defendants who couldn’t afford to put up the bond could lose their pets, even if they were ultimately found innocent of any crime.

Click here to visit our issue page and learn more.

Should NH require defendants in animal cruelty cases to pay kenneling and medical expenses for confiscated pets while trial or case resolution is pending? Share your opinion in the comments below.