Vermont committee wrestles with who pays when animals are seized under H578

MONTPELIER — Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee pressed through detailed drafting questions Thursday as they considered H578, a bill that would speed up seizures of animals in cruelty investigations and require owners to post security to cover minimal food and necessary veterinary care.

Lisa Millett, director of Vermont’s Agency of Animal Welfare, told the committee the measure addresses a hard policy tradeoff: ensuring animals receive care while avoiding imposing impossible costs on owners. "The animal cruelty law itself sets up an obligation to pay for food for your animal and to pay for necessary vet care," Millett said, arguing cost-of-care provisions are meant to place that obligation on owners where possible.

Millett urged lawmakers to distinguish between food and therapeutic veterinary care when authorizing judicial waivers. "If somebody's dog, for example, has a broken leg, they are obligated to get vet care ... and so it might be that you want to parse through how much of it is waivable," she said. She warned that allowing courts to broadly waive required care would shift costs to veterinarians, humane societies or municipalities and could leave the state or nonprofits paying for acute treatment.

The committee discussed the bill's timetable: under the current draft, a minimal security payment for food and necessary medical care must be paid within 14 days to obtain a forfeiture hearing; the hearing would be scheduled within about 30 days. Millett pointed lawmakers to Minnesota's experience — a 1995 iteration of that state's statute prompted a due-process challenge that led to statutory revision — and said most states with cost-of-care statutes require payment and have limited waiver options.

Members and Millett identified several drafting priorities: clarify what counts as "necessary" or "therapeutic" care versus diagnostic procedures used for investigation; allow humane officers to seize animals "as part of an investigation into a violation of this title" when probable cause or search-warrant circumstances exist rather than requiring a legal finding of being "fully treated" at the moment of seizure; and decide whether animals seized simultaneously should all be subject to forfeiture when evidence pertains only to some of them.

Millett also raised budgetary concerns: "There's the animal welfare fund ... [it] will be in the negative come this summer unless other funding mechanisms for its current obligations are identified," she warned, urging the committee to consider administrative caps or low front-end security amounts (one draft referenced a $250 cap) so owners are not presented with unrealistic, immediate bills.

Committee members asked about safeguards for low-income owners. Millett said prevention and resource programs (free or low-cost veterinary care, food pantries) are vital but framed ownership as a responsibility with baseline costs: "There are baseline expenses that go along with having an animal," she said, noting lawmakers must choose the minimum acceptable standard.

The committee did not take a final vote on H578 Thursday and identified drafting items for follow-up. Millett said she would return with suggested language and that the committee would hear additional witnesses on related sections at a later meeting.