Proposal would set livestock seizure rules and pet vendor reporting

Licensed pet vendors would report their foster homes to the state agriculture department. A foster home would be a private New Hampshire residence associated with and inspected by a licensed pet vendor, where the vendor's animals receive temporary care. A foster facility could provide temporary care for medical or behavior rehabilitation. The department would use reports to check licensing, animal counts, and applicable limits on how many pets a vendor may keep. The department would keep the foster home listings confidential. Vendors would report at least annually and update the information as needed.

Officers could seize livestock in cruelty cases under specific rules, with veterinary input and emergency limits. These rules would cover livestock in animal cruelty cases, including emergency cases when the owner or caretaker is absent. A person generally must be charged with cruelty before livestock can be seized, but officers could act without a charge if the animals face imminent danger. For livestock covered by the cited state definition, the investigator would work with the state veterinarian or a qualified designee or veterinarian to decide whether there is probable cause for seizure. In an emergency when the owner or caretaker is absent, the state veterinarian or designee would set the probable cause criteria. Officers could take livestock into temporary custody when the owner or caretaker is absent, there is clear and immediate danger, and there is not enough time to get a court order. Lactating animals could not be separated from unweaned young unless a licensed veterinarian approves. Livestock taken without a warrant and before a charge is filed would have to be returned within 10 days.

Courts would handle custody requests and decide what happens to seized livestock after a conviction. These rules would apply to livestock seized in cruelty cases and people who can prove ownership. A person with proof of sole or joint ownership could ask for temporary custody if they are not a defendant or party of interest in the criminal case. The court would give such a person priority if it finds that custody best serves the livestock's health, safety, and wellbeing. After a conviction, the court would decide how to dispose of the livestock, while giving priority to restoring or transferring other owners' interests when it finds that is best for the animals. A custodian could not permanently alter the livestock unless a treating veterinarian says the procedure is needed to save its life or the owner agrees in writing. The convicted person would owe specified care and veterinary costs. A custody request could be made while the criminal case is pending; the court would decide final disposition after a conviction.