Cory Staats

Honorable Chair and Members of the House Environment and Agriculture Committee, My name is Cory Allen Staats, and I live in Antrim, where I raise livestock. I rely every day on my livestock guardian dog (LGD) to protect my flock from predators like coyotes, foxes, and bobcats. LGDs are important members of the family, but they aren’t pets. They're working animals bred over generations to live with the livestock, patrol autonomously (especially at night), and bark to deter threats before attacks happen. My dog has been raised from puppyhood living full-time with the sheep. Separating him would leave the flock vulnerable and cause him severe anxiety. He'd likely become a nuisance indoors if forced inside. I implore the Committee to withdraw HB 1133 immediately. As written, it's wholly unjust and provides zero real benefit to LGD owners, townships, or the state. It would burden small-scale farmers and homesteaders with unnecessary administrative headaches, enforcement costs, and likely expensive litigation. There's no "carrot" here, just stricter rules. Why bother designating your dog as an LGD under this bill when you could skip it and stay under the current, far less restrictive RSA 466:31? That law already exempts working/guardian/herding dogs from nuisance barking claims and at-large rules when they're doing their job. The bill's main "advantage" seems to be keeping the dog "at large" on your property, but that's already protected. This feels like a targeted punishment for owners on smaller parcels (under 10 acres), while bigger farms keep the old ruleset. People without working dogs often don't get it: these breeds (Great Pyrenees, Anatolian Shepherds, etc.) aren't suited to be house pets. Their genetics make them nocturnal, independent, and bonded to the flock, not humans. Forcing them indoors at night isn't just impractical. It's cruel to the dog and dangerous for livestock. LGDs bark. That's how they work. This bill turns that fact into a finable offense (up to $1,000), potential restrictions, or even a 12-month ban on at-large privileges. If owners can't comply, the likely result is abandoning or rehoming dogs and leaving small operations without protection. Is the state offering grants for predator-proof fencing, camera systems, or other alternatives? No. So effectively, this prohibits raising livestock on modest properties unless you can afford massive enclosures or enough land to dodge the new rules. I have 24/7 cameras and often catch predators on or near my property. But cameras don't cover everything. Blind spots, distant edges, or quick nighttime events make proof impossible in many cases. The bill reverses the burden of proof: instead of enforcers proving a real nuisance, owners must prove innocence (predator presence, no distress, etc.). What about malicious neighbors? I've documented many such events where a particular neighbor walked my property line, shining high-powered flashlights at my animals to provoke barking, hoping to annoy others and trigger complaints. Delivery drivers, trespassers, or uninvited guests can do the same. The bill offers zero safeguards against frivolous or bad-faith complaints, opening the door to abuse. I'm especially troubled by proposed RSA 466:30-c, III(c), which calls barking excessive if it "interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring properties." This standard is highly subjective and has no business in a penalty statute with fines up to $1,000, dog restrictions, or bans. "Reasonable use and enjoyment" comes from civil nuisance cases, where courts balance factors case-by-case. But here it's an enforcement trigger with no objective rules: no decibel levels, no frequency minimums, no accounting for rural realities (barking mixes with wildlife, roosters, farm machinery, or other normal sounds). One neighbor might accept occasional alerts as country life; another might claim disruption from a single barking event. That turns disputes into violations based on personal feelings, not facts. Courts scrutinize overly vague laws that hand too much discretion to enforcers, and this one risks arbitrary outcomes and due process problems. Please kill this bill. Thank you for hearing from those actually using LGDs. I'm available for questions or more details from my experience. Sincerely, Cory Allen Staats