Committee Summary for House Environment and Agriculture (02/19/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB505 00:09:16.519 - 8:33:07 AM	General Working Session	allowing the sale of freeze dried foods produced in homestead food operations.	Schamberg, Thomas(D)[CT]2025
HB277 00:36:30.440 - 9:00:21 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the use of the term "foal" and "colt."	Bixby, Peter(D)[F]2025
HB779 00:51:44.119 - 9:15:35 AM	Public Hearing	allowing the sale of rabbit meat in intrastate commerce.	Verville, Kevin(R)[B-]2025
HB396 01:37:47.880 - 10:01:38 AM	General Working Session	(New Title) relative to the processing of beef cows, swine, sheep, and goats at facilities not certified by the United States Department of Agriculture.	Comtois, Barbara(R)[B+]2025
HB642 02:15:53.760 - 10:39:44 AM	General Working Session	allowing the sale of dehydrated meat without a homestead food license.	Aron, Judy(R)[A-]2025
HB251 03:51:10.040 - 12:15:01 PM	Public Hearing	allowing the ownership of certain squirrels and raccoons.	Spillane, James(R)[A]2025
HB263 05:03:02.080 - 1:26:53 PM	Public Hearing	relative to applications to the cost of care fund for livestock care.	Comtois, Barbara(R)[B+]2025
HB152 05:24:17.320 - 1:48:08 PM	Public Hearing	prohibiting the sale and use of adhesive-based rodent traps.	Haskins, Linda(D)[F]2025

HB505: Representative Coma Information Only00:09:16.519 - 8:33:07 AM; Representative Coma suggested tweaking the bill to specify that only processed foods should be freeze-dried, emphasizing the importance of using a freeze dryer over other methods like dehydrators or ovens. They highlighted the control over moisture content as crucial and proposed amendments to include processed food and berries, excluding high-water content fruits like watermelon. Additionally, they advocated for the use of commercial equipment to ensure safety and standardization.
HB505: Representative Barber Information Only00:12:45.360 - 8:36:36 AM; Representative Barber proposed using 'fruit and dairy products' instead of a broader term on line 11 of the bill, to exclude meat. They discussed the possibility of defining allowable foods by their water content to be more inclusive but questioned its relevance given the capabilities of freeze-drying equipment.
HB505: Representative Bixby Information Only00:14:18.040 - 8:38:09 AM; Representative Bixby expressed concerns about the bill's current phrasing that freeze-dried food should not be considered potentially hazardous. They argued that the process of freeze-drying does not inherently remove all hazards and suggested that exemptions should be specific to certain foods rather than a blanket statement. They also clarified the difference between oxygen absorbers and desiccants, emphasizing the role of oxygen in food degradation.
HB505: Representative K Information Only00:18:12.720 - 8:42:03 AM; Representative K agreed with concerns about the potentially hazardous food statement and proposed starting with whole fruits and ice cream for freeze-drying, suggesting a cautious approach to expanding the market for farmers. They considered including vegetables but were hesitant to limit options, preferring to start with a defined list and monitor the outcomes.
HB505: Representative Haskins Information Only00:19:43.640 - 8:43:34 AM; Representative Haskins found the hearing challenging due to balancing public health concerns with supporting income-generating activities. They sought clarification on the use of oxygen absorbers in packaging, particularly in relation to fruits like apples and pears, and expressed uncertainty about where to set the carveout for allowable freeze-dried foods.
HB505: Representative King Information Only00:22:48.440 - 8:46:39 AM; Representative King viewed freeze-dried food as a new category needing specific regulation. They opposed integrating freeze-dried foods into existing Homestead food licenses, suggesting instead a new section or subdivision in the statute to address freeze-dried foods comprehensively. They proposed a study committee to work on this issue during the off-season and suggested referring the matter to the food safety subcommittee for further discussion.
HB505: Representative King Information Only00:25:34.640 - 8:49:25 AM; Representative King clarified his earlier statements regarding the processing of apples. He mentioned that his initial thought was that whole fruits could be received and then cut up, rather than receiving already sliced apples for freeze-drying, due to the degradation that occurs once an apple is sliced.
HB505: Representative Bixby Information Only00:26:05.559 - 8:49:56 AM; Representative Bixby agreed with Representative King on the need for a separate section in the bill for freeze-drying. He discussed how the current statute could be muddled by the addition of a single line and expressed the need for clarity and thoroughness in defining what processes are allowed under homestead food requirements. He suggested sending the issue to the food safety subcommittee for further discussion and potential development into a separate section.
HB505: Representative Shamberg Information Only00:26:52.039 - 8:50:43 AM; Representative Shamberg discussed his experience with a previous bill related to dehydrated foods, mentioning how a section on freeze-drying was removed from his bill due to overlap with another bill. He expressed support for creating a separate section for freeze-drying to ensure clarity and appropriateness for constituents who wish to expand their homestead offerings.
HB505: Representative Bixby Information Only00:28:25.039 - 8:52:16 AM; Representative Bixby continued to support the idea of a separate section for freeze-drying, highlighting the need to specify process requirements and regulations. He mentioned the potential for individuals with commercial-grade freeze dryers at home to process produce under food safety guidelines, suggesting that such details be clearly laid out in the proposed section.
HB505: Representative Bixby Information Only00:30:48.840 - 8:54:39 AM; Representative Bixby proposed sending the issue to the food safety subcommittee for discussion and possible drafting of a separate section. He mentioned the committee's composition and his willingness to work on the language, suggesting a study committee if the task proves too complex.
HB505: Representative King Information Only00:31:35.159 - 8:55:26 AM; Representative King referenced his bill HB 642 as a guideline for how to structure the proposed section on freeze-drying. He noted the need to discuss other bills later and the possibility of continuing the work session later that day or at the next meeting.
HB277: Representative Bixby from Strafford 13 Support00:36:30.440 - 9:00:21 AM; Representative Bixby introduced HB 277, aimed at correcting an error in the current animal cruelty statutes. He explained that the existing law inadvertently allows for the mistreatment of fillies by only referring to 'colts'. The bill proposes changing the term 'colt' to 'foal' to include both male and female young horses under the protection of the law. He emphasized the straightforward nature of the bill and his hope for its passage without contention.
HB277: Representative King Information Only00:38:28.800 - 9:02:19 AM; Representative King sought clarification on terms used in the bill, specifically asking for the definitions of 'dam', 'foal', and 'colt'. Representative Bixby provided the definitions, confirming that a 'dam' is a mother horse, a 'foal' is a baby horse regardless of gender, and a 'colt' is specifically a male baby horse. This exchange helped clarify the terminology for the committee.
HB277: Rob Johnson from the New Hampshire Farm Bureau Support00:39:43.440 - 9:03:34 AM; Rob Johnson, representing the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, supported HB 277. He explained that the bill was part of a broader effort to clarify and improve the animal cruelty statutes. He highlighted that the current law's exclusion of fillies from protection was an oversight that the bill aims to correct. Johnson appreciated the efforts of the bill's sponsors in addressing this issue.
HB277: Representative King Information Only00:41:03.079 - 9:04:54 AM; Representative King seeks clarification on RSA 644, the state's animal cruelty statute, particularly how it relates to sections f and g mentioned in the bill. He expresses difficulty understanding the implications of the bill without a clear understanding of the RSA and requests a simple explanation. He is concerned about the language that involves having an equin foal less than 90 days old in possession, questioning the definition of possession in this context and how it relates to cruelty. He plans to review the RSA on his own to better understand the nuances.
HB277: Representative Haskins Information Only00:45:42.280 - 9:09:33 AM; Representative Haskins clarifies that the bill's implication is about the separation of a foal from its mother, which could be considered cruel if the foal is less than 90 days old. He understands that exceptions exist, such as if the dam has died, but stresses the importance of the foal being with its mother until a certain age.
HB779: Representative Peter Bixby from Strafford 13 Support00:51:44.119 - 9:15:35 AM; Representative Bixby introduces HB 779, which was submitted by Representative Veral. The bill seeks to allow the sale of rabbit meat in interstate commerce. Currently, state law permits the sale of up to 1000 rabbits to restaurants if the seller has completed a training course. The bill proposes extending this to allow uninspected rabbit meat to be sold at farm stands or farmers' markets.
HB779: Commissioner Sean Jasper, Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food Information Only00:53:15.760 - 9:17:06 AM; Commissioner Jasper expresses concerns about the language in HB 779. He mentions that most of the bill's content falls under the jurisdiction of HHS, but he is concerned about inconsistencies in the proposed changes to RSA 143. He points out that rabbits are already covered under different sections with different definitions and labeling requirements. He suggests that using RSA 472a, which does not refer to rabbits, could lead to unintended consequences, such as limiting the sale of rabbit meat to certain months. He recommends creating a new section of law specifically for rabbits rather than amending existing ones and emphasizes the need for a training course for safe handling.
HB779: Michelle Roberge, Bureau Chief for Public Health Protection, Department of Health and Human Services Information Only01:01:06.000 - 9:24:57 AM; Michelle Roberge, along with Erica Davis, shares concerns about HB 779 that align with those of Commissioner Jasper. Currently, rabbit meat sales to restaurants require an educational course and registration with the Department of Agriculture. The bill proposes expanding sales to farm stands and farmers' markets but lacks the same educational and registration requirements. They recommend adding these requirements to the bill to avoid confusion and ensure safety standards are maintained.
HB396: Representative Ktoa Information Only01:37:47.880 - 10:01:38 AM; Representative Ktoa discusses HB 396, which aims to exempt meat products slaughtered and prepared in-state from certain inspections. She highlights that federal law currently prohibits such exemptions and notes ongoing efforts to change this at the federal level. She references a custom meat shop owner who sells cuts of meat from animals slaughtered at a USDA facility, indicating a possible exemption. She also points out discrepancies in information provided by the Department of Health and Human Services about who can sell cuts of meat and suggests that these exemptions should be clearly laid out in law or on the department's website.
HB396: Representative Bixby Information Only01:40:13.159 - 10:04:04 AM; Representative Bixby confirms the existence of USDA exemptions that allow certain meat processing activities in state-inspected facilities. He acknowledges the custom meat shop owner's situation and agrees with Representative Ktoa's suggestion that the Department of Health and Human Services should update their website to reflect all possible USDA exemptions, ensuring clarity and accessibility of information.
HB396: Representative Penza Information Only01:41:44.719 - 10:05:35 AM; Representative Penza expressed agreement with previous testimony, noting the repetition of certain points about a facility being state-inspected rather than USDA-inspected. They suggested that the committee should retain the bill rather than vote it as Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL), emphasizing the need to keep options open for meat producers due to potential federal changes. They also stressed the importance of complete documentation from the Department of Health and Human Services regarding exemptions available to farmers.
HB396: Representative Ktoa Support01:43:43.360 - 10:07:34 AM; Representative Ktoa advocated for retaining the bill and suggested an HCR (House Concurrent Resolution) to send a strong message to Congress, involving the Senate for added impact. They discussed the impracticality of roving inspectors in the Northeast and the need to find solutions for small farms to sell their products directly to consumers, drawing a comparison with the sale of non-amenable species like roadkill.
HB396: Representative Poent Support01:45:15.000 - 10:09:06 AM; Representative Poent agreed with retaining the bill and highlighted the importance of disseminating information about state-inspected facilities to all farmers. They suggested working with the Farm Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure this information reaches the farmers. They also supported sending a message to the federal delegation and proposed collaboration on an HCR.
HB396: Representative Scully Information Only01:50:46.560 - 10:14:37 AM; Representative Scully announced their intention to vote in favor of retaining the bill. They raised a question about the potential for an intermediate licensing program at the federal level to provide oversight for small local meat processing facilities, addressing concerns about inspection and oversight.
HB396: Representative K Information Only01:51:48.239 - 10:15:39 AM; Representative K explained the existing state inspection process and the difference between USDA-inspected and USDA-approved facilities. They highlighted the cleanliness and quality of custom meat shops and discussed the stress on animals during transport to slaughter. They also mentioned the procedure for on-farm slaughter of non-amenable species like bison, elk, and red deer under veterinary supervision.
HB396: Representative Bixby Information Only01:54:12.800 - 10:18:03 AM; Representative Bixby provided details about the on-farm slaughter procedure for non-amenable species, mentioning the species involved and the regulations concerning enclosures and disease prevention. They confirmed that such slaughter allows for direct-to-consumer sales but were unsure about the specifics of interstate sales.
HB396: Representative Penza Information Only01:58:57.320 - 10:22:48 AM; Representative Penza asked about the possibility of adding an addendum to existing documents to clarify the process for obtaining the same type of license as Miss Brady, who operates a state-licensed facility processing USDA-slaughtered meat. They discussed the need for clear information to help other producers follow this model.
HB396: New Food Protection Official Information Only01:58:10.480 - 10:22:01 AM; The new official from Food Protection explained that Miss Brady's facility is licensed by the state to process USDA-slaughtered meat further for direct consumer sales. They clarified that the facility does not handle the slaughter or meat inspection, which remains under USDA jurisdiction. They offered to review and update documents to ensure clarity on licensing requirements.
HB396: Representative Comtalk Information Only02:04:22.679 - 10:28:13 AM; Representative Comtalk sought clarification on the disconnect between USDA slaughter and state-licensed retail processing. They questioned how a facility can process USDA-slaughter meat without being a USDA-approved facility, leading to a discussion about retail exemptions and the need for USDA-inspected meat in retail operations.
HB396: Representative Bixby Information Only02:09:03.719 - 10:32:54 AM; Representative Bixby provided an explanation of the Retail Restaurant Central Kitchen exemption, which allows retail operations to process USDA-inspected meat for sale. They clarified that this exemption applies to meat bearing a USDA or state inspection mark, and shared this information with the committee for further review.
HB396: Representative Compt Information Only02:10:53.159 - 10:34:44 AM; Representative Compt suggested considering a USDA slaughterhouse solely for slaughtering animals, not processing them into meat. They believe this could serve as a middle ground solution to alleviate bottlenecks at USDA facilities, which are primarily due to hanging space and freezer capacity rather than the slaughter process itself. They proposed that if animals could be slaughtered on site and taken back immediately in personal coolers, it would not require additional hanging space, potentially solving the current bottleneck issues.
HB396: Representative Penza Information Only02:12:01.880 - 10:35:52 AM; Representative Penza responded to Representative Bixby's earlier comments and Representative Compt's suggestions by humorously proposing a mobile slaughterhouse business model. They suggested a 'rolling slaughterhouse' where animals could be killed and chilled on the go. They acknowledged the legality of such a model in New Hampshire but noted that the high cost per animal when serving small farms could make it impractical and unaffordable.
HB396: Representative Bixby Information Only02:13:33.360 - 10:37:24 AM; Representative Bixby discussed the challenges and feasibility of mobile slaughter facilities in New Hampshire. They explained that while such facilities are legal, the cost per animal slaughtered becomes prohibitively expensive when serving small farms with only a few animals. They emphasized that the main impediment is not legal but rather a business challenge, as it needs to be economically viable to sell meat at a reasonable price.
HB642: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:15:53.760 - 10:39:44 AM; The unnamed speaker discussed HB 642, which deals with dehydrated meat or jerky. They mentioned an intention to amend the bill to correct a drafting error and to include a section limiting the amount of dehydrated meat that can be produced and sold on a weekly or daily basis. They noted that the bill applies to meat producers with a USDA-inspected license.
HB642: Representative Bixby Information Only02:17:24.638 - 10:41:15 AM; Representative Bixby provided details about the constituent who inspired the bill. This person has a USDA-inspected license for raising livestock and wants to sell dehydrated meat to the public. Currently, they can only do this for friends and family due to licensing restrictions. Representative Bixby questioned whether the current statute is the best place for this regulation and suggested it might be better suited for a subcommittee review, especially considering potential changes from the FDA that could be easier to implement via rules rather than statutes.
HB642: Representative Penza Information Only02:21:35.760 - 10:45:26 AM; Representative Penza questioned whether the current USDA certification of the constituent's facility could allow an exemption for processing dehydrated meat. They expressed concern about the practicality and cost of requiring a full commercial kitchen setup, suggesting that the process could be too complex and expensive for small producers to manage effectively.
HB642: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:23:54.680 - 10:47:45 AM; The unnamed speaker addressed the concerns about the current homestead exemption, which allows for unlicensed processing of potentially hazardous foods. They highlighted the department's worry about the increased risk to public health when these exemptions are extended to such foods. They suggested that a licensed pathway exists for the constituent to process meat in a commercial facility, but this would require significant investment in kitchen facilities.
HB642: Representative Wheeler Information Only02:27:03.279 - 10:50:54 AM; Representative Wheeler noted the financial challenges faced by businesses that might consider renting commercial kitchen space. They pointed out that such businesses often operate on thin profit margins and lack the capital needed for additional investments like renting kitchen space, which was a key concern raised by the constituent.
HB642: Representative Bixby Information Only02:27:53.560 - 10:51:44 AM; Representative Bixby proposed the idea of a scaled-down commercial kitchen designed specifically for dehydrating and freeze-drying operations. They wondered if the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) could recommend a minimal kitchen setup that would lower the overhead costs compared to a full-scale commercial kitchen, making it more feasible for small producers.
HB642: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:29:29.160 - 10:53:20 AM; The unnamed speaker discussed the department's concerns with homestead operations processing potentially hazardous foods without licensing, which increases the risk to public health. They emphasized that the complexity of processes like dehydrating and freeze-drying requires scientific review by food experts, which the department does not provide. They suggested that having a standardized process in statute might not be applicable across all food products.
HB642: Representative Guber Information Only02:31:01.680 - 10:54:52 AM; Representative Guber discussed the need for a scaling approach to commercial kitchens to support homestead operations that process potentially hazardous foods. They suggested that having options for semi-commercial kitchens could balance safety with the cost, promoting more homesteading while managing risk.
HB642: Representative Penza Information Only02:34:44.080 - 10:58:35 AM; Representative Penza supported the idea of having different stages or levels of licensing for commercial kitchens. They argued that this would provide more options for people and potentially increase revenue for the agency, allowing smaller operations to enter the market without the burden of full commercial kitchen requirements.
HB642: Representative Bixby Information Only02:36:15.600 - 11:00:06 AM; Representative Bixby suggested referencing existing USDA or FDA processes in the statute as a way to ensure food safety without detailing every process. They also supported the idea of a study committee to explore different licensing approaches, noting that other states like Virginia have gradations in their food licensing that could serve as a model.
HB642: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:39:23.040 - 11:03:14 AM; The unnamed speaker from the department welcomed the idea of a study committee to explore different facility and licensing options. They noted that such a committee could bring in process authorities to discuss their role and explore opportunities for different levels of facilities and licensing.
HB642: Representative King Information Only02:40:55.040 - 11:04:46 AM; Representative King inquired about the legality of bartering dehydrated meat, specifically if it's permissible to trade it for other goods like eggs at a farm stand. They were told that a legal interpretation would be needed, but that serving such food to the public falls under the RSA.
HB251: Representative Jim Spain Support03:51:10.040 - 12:15:01 PM; Representative Jim Spain introduced HB 251, which aims to allow ownership of pet squirrels and raccoons under specific conditions. He highlighted the need for the bill after an incident in New York where such animals were confiscated and euthanized. The bill is crafted to allow for adopted animals from rehabilitation facilities or those brought into the state as pets, with strict prohibitions against breeding, selling, or capturing wild animals. He discussed the challenges faced by rehabilitation facilities that must either keep rehabilitated animals as pets or euthanize them if they cannot be released into the wild. The bill also includes provisions for vaccinations and owner permission for euthanasia, aiming to prevent similar incidents in New Hampshire.
HB251: Scully Information Only04:07:18.040 - 12:31:09 PM; Scully asked about the distinction between red and gray squirrels in the context of the bill, noting that red squirrels do not adapt well to being kept as pets due to their wild nature. This was in response to a question about whether New Hampshire is within the habitat of the red squirrel, to which the answer was affirmative.
HB251: Bixby Information Only04:08:04.279 - 12:31:55 PM; Bixby inquired about the importation of animals from other states, specifically whether a certificate of veterinary inspection is required for squirrels as per the RSA. It was clarified that the bill implies that animals must have up-to-date vaccines upon importation, which would be checked before the animal could be kept as a pet. Bixby also asked about the need for a quarantine period for animals coming from out-of-state, suggesting it could be added if the committee saw fit, especially if the animal does not have a current health certificate.
HB251: Wheeler Information Only04:10:08.000 - 12:33:59 PM; Wheeler discussed concerns about the ecological impact of importing gray squirrels, referencing their invasive nature in Europe and the potential effects on New Hampshire's squirrel populations. The discussion included the natural population cycles of squirrels influenced by food availability and territorial behavior, suggesting that pet squirrels would not significantly impact wild populations due to their dependency on human care.
HB251: Scully Information Only04:15:03.239 - 12:38:54 PM; Scully asked if there is an established vaccine schedule for raccoons and squirrels in New Hampshire, to which it was clarified that there are currently no vaccines required because these animals are not allowed as pets. Scully suggested that the bill should include rules for vaccine schedules if these animals are to be legalized as pets.
HB251: Kurt Arenberg, Humane Society of the United States Oppose04:17:21.720 - 12:41:12 PM; Kurt Arenberg from the Humane Society of the United States opposed the bill, citing public health and safety risks due to the unpredictable nature of wild animals and their potential to carry diseases like rabies. He argued that keeping wild animals as pets is cruel to the animals, as they have needs that cannot be met in captivity, and could lead to improper handling of wildlife, thus affecting their welfare and the ecosystem.
HB251: King Information Only04:21:56.560 - 12:45:47 PM; King asked Arenberg if there was evidence of increased zoonotic diseases or attacks in states that have legalized these animals as pets. Arenberg stated he did not have data on that.
HB251: Scully Information Only04:22:29.560 - 12:46:20 PM; Scully questioned whether it would be better to euthanize animals that cannot survive in the wild or allow them a chance at life with someone. This was in reference to the bill's language allowing for adoption if determined unsuitable for wild release.
HB251: Bixby Information Only04:23:16.000 - 12:47:07 PM; Bixby discussed the bill's provision allowing raccoons and gray squirrels to be kept as pets if a wildlife rehabilitation facility determines they cannot survive in the wild. Bixby asked if such a facility would be an appropriate authority to make this determination, to which Arenberg responded that he was not qualified to answer but suggested that Fish and Game might have someone who could.
HB251: Dan Bergeron, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Oppose04:24:01.560 - 12:47:52 PM; Dan Bergeron from the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department opposed the bill, highlighting concerns about public health and the welfare of wildlife. He explained that current regulations require euthanization of animals deemed unfit for release by wildlife rehabilitators and noted the lack of approved vaccines for these wild animals. Bergeron also expressed concerns about the bill's language preventing the confiscation or euthanization of animals without owner permission, especially in cases of bites and potential rabies exposure.
HB251: Dan Bergeron, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Information Only04:24:01.560 - 12:47:52 PM; Dan Bergeron clarified the definition of a wild animal as referenced in the department's rules, emphasizing that wildlife pertains to native, wild animals. He discussed the complexity of distinguishing between domesticated and wild animals, particularly with species like raccoons that may be bred in captivity. Bergeron addressed concerns about the bill, which seems to focus on animals taken directly from the wild in New Hampshire. He further explained that animals rehabilitated but not releasable back into the wild due to severe injuries typically require specialized care, making them unsuitable as pets. He highlighted the lack of clear documentation processes for transferring rehabilitated animals to private care, suggesting potential issues in tracking and oversight. Bergeron recommended against the bill's current proposal to allow these animals as pets due to concerns over public safety, animal welfare, and the potential for illegal activities.
HB251: Representative Haskins Information Only04:40:43.840 - 1:04:34 PM; Representative Haskins asked about the decision-making process of rehabilitators when dealing with animals that might not be releasable back into the wild. Bergeron confirmed that rehabilitators, in consultation with veterinarians, make these decisions early on to avoid unnecessary investment of time and resources into animals unlikely to be released.
HB251: Representative Janine Nader Support04:42:22.160 - 1:06:13 PM; Representative Janine Nader expressed support for the bill, citing her past involvement in legalizing Quaker parrots and sharing anecdotes about rehabilitated animals, including a friend's experience with a baby skunk and squirrel. She mentioned her belief that the Department of Fish and Game, despite their opposition, cares deeply about animals, indicating her support for the bill despite the concerns raised.
HB251: Representative King Information Only04:44:51.600 - 1:08:42 PM; Representative King asked Representative Nader about potential amendments to the bill in light of the concerns from the Department of Fish and Game. Nader expressed openness to amendments, emphasizing her love for animals and trust in the department's care for them.
HB251: Christina Snider, Chester, New Hampshire Oppose04:45:45.520 - 1:09:36 PM; Christina Snider, an animal rights activist from Chester, New Hampshire, opposed the bill, citing extensive research on the challenges of owning raccoons and squirrels as pets. She read comments from a raccoon owner and a nuisance control company, highlighting the demanding nature, unpredictability, and potential for property damage and aggression in these animals. Snider also referenced a veterinarian's perspective on squirrels, emphasizing their unsuitable traits as pets. She expressed concerns about the potential for animal dumping or harm if owners could not handle them, and the existing burden on animal shelters. Snider urged opposition to the bill, arguing it was not in the best interest of the animals and raised concerns about rabies vaccination enforcement.
HB251: King, New Hampshire Information Only04:51:23.680 - 1:15:14 PM; Representative King asked for clarification on the distinction between squirrels and raccoons in the context of the bill. He expressed concern about the domestication of squirrels, noting their sharp claws and teeth, and their potential danger to children and other pets. He questioned whether squirrels could be happy as pets, suggesting they might be more adaptable to domestication than raccoons, which need a large range. He mentioned scientific evidence indicating that squirrels have distinct personalities, suggesting their suitability as pets might vary individually.
HB251: Joan O'Brien, Amherst, New Hampshire Oppose04:54:29.000 - 1:18:20 PM; Joan O'Brien expressed opposition to the bill, citing the case of Peanut the squirrel and Fred the raccoon, whose confiscation and death caused public outrage. She argued that wild animals belong in the wild and highlighted the potential for animal welfare issues when wild animals enter the pet trade. She discussed the process of obtaining permits to keep such animals as educational exhibits, using examples from New York and New Hampshire, and mentioned the issue of raccoons in Japan due to popular media influence.
HB263: Peter Bixby, Strafford 13, New Hampshire Information Only05:03:02.080 - 1:26:53 PM; Representative Bixby introduced HB 263 on behalf of Representative Kto, clarifying that he is a co-sponsor but not testifying. He explained that the bill aims to impose further restrictions on how applications to the cost of care fund for livestock care will be assessed.
HB263: Sean Jasper, Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food, New Hampshire Oppose05:04:07.760 - 1:27:58 PM; Commissioner Sean Jasper testified against HB 263 as written, suggesting it should be incorporated into HB 616 to avoid conflict. He highlighted that under current law, there's no requirement for consultation with experts before seizing animals, which could lead to confusion and conflict. He emphasized that it's inappropriate for the Commissioner of Agriculture to decide on the lawfulness of law enforcement actions, and recommended killing the bill and addressing any necessary changes in HB 616.
HB263: Rob Johnson, New Hampshire Farm Bureau Information Only05:16:28.400 - 1:40:19 PM; Rob Johnson, representing the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, discussed the purpose of the cost of care fund, established to help municipalities cover costs of animal care in cruelty cases. He mentioned related statutes requiring veterinary consultation during investigations of livestock cruelty. He suggested that the bill addresses issues similar to a case in Lee, and noted the sponsor's agreement to remove language about 'lawfully' from the bill. Johnson indicated support for incorporating the bill's intent into HB 616 and stressed the need for municipalities to consult experts before applying for funding.
HB152: Linda Haskins, Rockingham 11, Exeter, New Hampshire Support05:24:17.320 - 1:48:08 PM; Representative Linda Haskins introduced HB 152, aimed at prohibiting the sale and use of adhesive-based rodent traps. She argued that these traps, a 19th-century solution, are inhumane and often catch non-target wildlife. Haskins detailed alternative pest control methods, including exclusion, ultrasonic devices, and fertility control. She noted that many organizations and countries have banned such traps, emphasizing the need for more humane, modern approaches to pest control. She referenced the support received for the bill and the cruelty of the traps as reasons for the proposed ban.
HB152: Linda Haskins, Rockingham 11, Exeter, New Hampshire Support05:24:17.320 - 1:48:08 PM; Linda Haskins concluded her testimony discussing the effectiveness and the inhumane nature of glue traps. She noted that while glue traps are effective, they cause suffering to animals caught in them, suggesting that there are more humane alternatives available. She answered questions regarding the availability of glue traps in stores and online, and clarified that HB 152 does not affect traps used for insect control but focuses solely on rodent traps. She also explained that enforcement of the ban would fall under the trade and commerce act, not the Department of Agriculture. She addressed concerns about online purchases and the differentiation between traps for rodents and insects, stating that the bill targets rodent traps specifically.
HB152: Sue Skasiew, Bridgewater, Vermont, Hampton Beach, New Hampshire Support05:35:31.120 - 1:59:22 PM; Sue Skasiew shared a personal story about the inhumane nature of glue traps. She recounted an incident involving a care recipient who was distressed by a mouse caught in a glue trap. She successfully used a humane live trap as an alternative and emphasized the suffering caused by glue traps. She also mentioned a conversation with the care provider's husband who preferred glue traps because he liked to kill, highlighting the cruelty of the method.
HB152: Samantha Kerns, Goffstown, New Hampshire Support05:38:35.200 - 2:02:26 PM; Samantha Kerns supported HB 152 by sharing her experience with a mouse caught in a glue trap at her workplace. She described the suffering of the mouse and the subsequent humane release. She argued that other methods, like snap traps, would be more humane and immediate. Kerns advocated for New Hampshire to be the first state to ban glue traps for rodents, referencing existing laws about humane treatment of animals. She suggested a policy change to ban glue traps in state facilities as a compromise.
HB152: Commissioner Sean Jasper Oppose05:43:29.798 - 2:07:20 PM; Commissioner Sean Jasper opposed HB 152, arguing that glue traps are an essential tool for pest control, particularly effective against squirrels. He shared personal experiences and situations where other methods failed, and glue traps were successful. Jasper suggested that while he understands the concerns, he believes that glue traps should not be banned entirely, especially indoors. He pointed out a flaw in the bill, noting that it incorrectly places enforcement under the Department of Agriculture's pesticide laws, which he clarified do not cover glue traps. He emphasized the need to amend the bill to remove this section.
HB152: Jean Slepian, Stoddard Support05:48:57.760 - 2:12:48 PM; Jean Slepian from Stoddard expressed support for the bill, emphasizing the cruelty of glue traps. She provided examples of how glue traps lead to prolonged suffering and death of animals, including bunnies, bats, and snakes, without any legal repercussions. She highlighted existing statutes and administrative rules that prohibit such practices but are not applied to glue traps. Slepian mentioned the endangerment and threat to bat species in New Hampshire and stressed the need for accountability and protection against the use of glue traps.
HB152: BJ Wall, Sullivan Support05:54:19.600 - 2:18:10 PM; BJ Wall from Sullivan supported the bill, describing glue traps as unnecessary and extremely cruel. Wall mentioned personal experience with non-lethal methods like catch-and-release traps and argued that even if glue traps only caught mice, they should still be banned due to the suffering they cause. Wall also noted that other countries and a similar U.S. House bill aim to ban these products, urging the committee to do the right thing and support the bill.
HB152: Ty Hawkins, Hudson, New England Pest Management Association, Fox Pest Control Oppose05:56:47.920 - 2:20:38 PM; Ty Hawkins from Hudson opposed the bill, representing the New England Pest Management Association and Fox Pest Control. He argued that glue traps are essential for controlling rodents that carry diseases like Hantavirus and Salmonella, particularly in food facilities. Hawkins explained that glue traps are also used for insect control, crucial for lower-income housing to prevent asthma. He emphasized the importance of proper use according to label instructions to avoid catching non-target animals and the challenges of banning a product that can be easily purchased in neighboring states.
HB152: Representative King Information Only06:00:02.878 - 2:23:53 PM; Representative King asked Hawkins about the possibility of safely removing non-target animals like kittens or birds from glue traps. Hawkins responded that using vegetable oil can release the glue and save the animal, emphasizing the need for education on proper usage to prevent harm.
HB152: Representative Bixby Information Only06:01:34.320 - 2:25:25 PM; Representative Bixby inquired about the design of glue boards and their use in covered containers to exclude non-target animals. Hawkins confirmed that such designs are widely used in the pest control industry and explained that without glue boards, rodents in traps might harm each other, suggesting that glue boards are a humane solution when used correctly.
HB152: Representative Haskins Information Only06:04:02.558 - 2:27:53 PM; Representative Haskins asked about the duration of glue board use in the pest control industry and their role in integrated pest management. Hawkins noted their long-standing use, effectiveness, and economic benefits, as well as their place within integrated pest management strategies. He mentioned that banning glue boards would require rewriting several laws overseen by the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture.
HB152: Unknown Speaker Information Only06:05:13.240 - 2:29:04 PM; The speaker discussed the humane use of glue boards, stating that when used correctly, they can be humane. They mentioned that glue boards should be checked regularly to release unintended catches safely. The speaker also addressed the use of exclusion mitigation in complexes to manage cockroach infestations, emphasizing that German cockroaches, common in New Hampshire, are brought in by food and live indoors, not outdoors. They explained that glue boards are used inside in controlled environments.
HB152: Unknown Speaker Information Only06:06:44.240 - 2:30:35 PM; The speaker continued discussing the management of rodents caught in glue boards, stating that rodents are disposed of quickly if found alive, often by drowning, due to the diseases they carry. They emphasized the necessity of this method over the risk of disease transmission to humans.
HB152: Representative Penza Information Only06:07:30.400 - 2:31:21 PM; Representative Penza asked about the commercial availability of the glue boards being discussed, confirming that they can be purchased by anyone online.
HB152: Ashley Monty, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Support06:08:28.040 - 2:32:19 PM; Ashley Monty, speaking on behalf of PETA, supported HB 152, emphasizing the cruelty of glue traps. They detailed the suffering inflicted on animals caught in these traps, including starvation, dehydration, and severe injuries. Monty argued that HB 152 would remove a cruel product from the market, steering towards more compassionate pest control solutions. They also mentioned PETA's resources for humane rodent control and answered questions about other methods of pest control, like drowning and the use of cats.
HB152: Representative Will Darby, Hillsboro District 11 Support06:13:53.680 - 2:37:44 PM; Representative Will Darby, co-sponsor of the bill, expressed concerns about the unintended capture of non-target species by glue traps and the ethical issues surrounding their use. He noted that glue traps lead to prolonged suffering through starvation and dehydration. Darby discussed alternatives like snap traps and emphasized the importance of proper pest control methods that do not involve inhumane suffering, drawing comparisons to regulated trapping practices.
HB152: Rob Johnson, New Hampshire Farm Bureau Oppose06:17:24.680 - 2:41:15 PM; Rob Johnson, representing the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, opposed HB 152 as drafted. He argued that rodent control is crucial on farms, especially in areas where grain is stored or food is produced. Johnson highlighted the effectiveness and low cost of glue traps, emphasizing their use as a non-poison alternative. He noted that glue traps are used indoors or in enclosed areas and expressed the need for options in pest control. In response to questions, he discussed traditional methods like using cats and the use of glue traps in specific agricultural contexts.
HB152: Jon O'Brien, Amherst Support06:24:38.520 - 2:48:29 PM; Jon O'Brien from Amherst supported HB 152, discussing the health risks associated with glue traps, including bites and disease spread from trapped animals. He strongly opposed the use of drowning as a method of pest control, comparing it to torture and noting its rejection in research and veterinary practices. O'Brien advocated for exclusion as the best method for pest control and suggested blunt force trauma as a humane way to end the life of a trapped mouse if necessary.
HB152: Unknown Speaker, Concord Information Only06:27:07.040 - 2:50:58 PM; The speaker shared a personal experience with pest control when they lived in Concord. They mentioned using glue traps in their basement which were ineffective, and then switched to no-kill traps with peanut butter, which worked. They emphasized the importance of sealing the house to prevent pest entry and expressed concerns about the use of poisons due to their impact on other wildlife. They inquired about alternative pest control methods beyond snap traps and glue traps, indicating a general interest in understanding more humane and effective pest control solutions.
HB152: Daniel Brady, Hollis Oppose06:29:24.638 - 2:53:15 PM; Daniel Brady, from Hollis and a member of the New England Pest Management Association and the national Pest Management Association's public policy committee, spoke in opposition to the bill. He highlighted the importance of glue boards in the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, which is legally required in New Hampshire for food-related commercial buildings. He explained that glue boards are essential for identifying pests and monitoring infestations, without which pest control would resort directly to chemical methods. Brady also discussed the challenges of pest exclusion and the inefficacy of mouse contraceptives, emphasizing that multiple tools are necessary for effective pest control and that the removal of glue boards would severely hamper IPM efforts.

Aron, Judy(Chairman)(R)[A-]2025	King, Seth(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Barbour, Liz(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Gruber, James(D)[F]2025	Bixby, Peter(D)[F]2025	Sofikitis, Catherine(D)[D-]2025
Freeman, Lisa(R)[B+]2025	Comtois, Barbara(R)[B+]2025	Scully, Kevin(R)[A-]2025
Howard, Molly(D)[D]2025	Wheeler, Jonah(D)[D-]2025	Haskins, Linda(D)[F]2025
Potenza, Kelley(R)[A]2025	Kenny, Catherine(R)[B]2025	Germana, Nicholas(D)[F]2025
Miner, Laurence(R)[B]2025