Witnesses urge House Judiciary to advance HB 578 to make owners pay seized animals' care and toughen cruelty laws

Supporters of a Vermont bill to strengthen animal-cruelty enforcement told the House Judiciary Committee that the state needs clearer authority to recover care costs for animals seized in cruelty cases, quicker court timelines, and tougher penalties when children are involved.

Heather Bent, who identified herself as a founder of Potter's Angels Rescue and a representative of Vermonters Against Cruelty and Abandonment (VACA), told the committee HB 578 is "urgently needed" because seized animals frequently sit in custody while cases move through the courts. "Animal cruelty cases typically take 6 to 18 months to resolve," Bent said, and that delay can cause behavioral decline and added expense for rescues and municipalities.

Bent and other witnesses laid out the bill's practical aims: permit agencies caring for seized animals to request a judge require defendants to post a bond to cover care costs; allow forfeiture of animals if a defendant fails to pay; clarify forfeiture and custody pathways; and give courts authority to order education, treatment or counseling as part of rehabilitation.

Witnesses gave concrete examples of the strains created by the current system. Renee Falconer, a longtime animal-control officer and VACA co-founder, recounted a 2012 Jeffersonville seizure of six draft horses that cost rescuers about $35,000 to house for 15 months; court-ordered restitution was later reduced to $6,000 and took seven years to collect. Former South Burlington Police Chief Trevor Whipple said a 2011 two-dog case produced a roughly $1,900 bill that the city has not been reimbursed for, and that a 2023 seizure of six dogs cost the city about $11,000 during a five-month custody period.

Those examples underscored a common theme in testimony: financial burdens are falling on volunteer rescues, municipal shelters and animal-control officers in the absence of reliable cost-recovery tools. "If someone is abusing, neglecting their animals," Whipple said, "they should be expected to pay for their care or relinquishment." Anne Chynoweth of Humane World for Animals added that restitution alone has proven inadequate: "Restitution is not a solution," she said, because defendants frequently do not pay or pay only a portion after long delays.

Witnesses also pressed for statutory refinements. Several supported elevating conduct that involves children ' including recording or distributing visual material of abuse in a minor's presence ' into aggravated-cruelty language that would carry a higher penalty. Speakers proposed tightening forfeiture conditions (for example by barring convicted owners from cohabitating with future owners) and suggested clearer hearing timelines so animals do not languish in shelters while courts await return of service or other procedural steps.

On rehabilitation and prevention, the panel acknowledged a gap in evidence-based treatment programs in Vermont. Committee members and witnesses said that while counseling and treatment provisions in HB 578 are desirable, the state lacks consistent, funded programs to which courts could reliably refer defendants.

Several witnesses urged the committee to pair enforcement tools with operational protections for agencies that step in to care for seized animals, including explicit due-process safeguards and liability protections currently available in some statutes. Humane World for Animals emphasized that bond-and-forfeiture approaches in other states speed placement and reduce long-term shelter costs when accompanied by notice and the opportunity to challenge costs and seizure legality.

The committee did not take votes; members asked witnesses to submit written testimony for the record and signaled they would continue vetting the bill. The hearing closed with the acting chair thanking witnesses and saying the committee would reconvene to continue work on HB 578.