Committee reviews H.578 amendments on animal seizures, notice and cost limits; straw poll to concur passes 11–0

The Health Judiciary Committee on May 20 heard from Lisa Mylett, director of animal welfare, on senate judiciary amendments to H.578, the bill refining state procedures for animal cruelty seizures, notice and post-seizure cost recovery. After discussion, the committee took a straw poll and recorded an 11–0 tally in favor of concurring with the senate civil-rule amendment.

Mylett, who identified herself as director of animal welfare, told the committee the senate made a number of clarifying changes that the division and the state veterinarian had requested. She said the bill keeps "humane officer" primarily defined as law enforcement — "the people who are authorized to investigate the crime of animal cruelty" — but that some division staff can be included if they complete criminal-investigation training that is not yet in place. "My background is as a lawyer, not as law enforcement," Mylett said, explaining why naming both humane officers and the director in some provisions preserves the division’s ability to participate in inspections without presuming staff will be criminal investigators.

A significant amendment adds a broader notice regime when animals are seized. Mylett described three paths: personal notice if an owner is present, tacked notice if the owner is absent, and an added "nail and mail" procedure in which humane officers must make reasonable efforts — including personal service or mailing — within a 96-hour window to notify a known owner of the seizure and of their right to request a hearing. "With the 96 hours, it gives some time if the post offices are closed," she said, noting the goal is to ensure owners learn the initial time period and their rights.

The bill specifies security amounts paid after a seizure and caps what may be reimbursed to rescues and shelters from the animal welfare fund at the security amounts deposited. Mylett said the fund receives a $2 surcharge per dog license and currently runs about $30,000 a year short of covering the division’s salary and expenses. Because only security proceeds would be disbursed from the animal welfare fund under the bill, Mylett said the measure should not worsen the annual shortfall. She explained that judges later may calculate a cost-of-care amount and order defendants to pay any difference, but that in practice many such amounts have been reduced or waived.

Committee members pressed on how often owners actually pay restitution and what the security amounts cover. Mylett said the initial security under the session‑law provisions is intended to be small and approximate: she discussed a minimal per‑day food amount for nonlivestock and a higher per‑day figure for livestock, and cited example initial vet‑visit figures of $250 for nonlivestock and $500 for livestock as back‑of‑the‑envelope numbers subject to refinement. She cautioned those were rough estimates intended to avoid setting an unreasonably high statutory bar that would block owners from accessing a hearing. "We don't want the bar to someone exercising their right to a hearing to be so high that they lose their rights simply because they can't put in that amount," Mylett said.

Mylett also described provisions allowing title forfeiture where, after a hearing, a judge determines an amount is due and the person fails to pay within a reasonable time. She said senate judiciary clarified that if there was no probable cause for the initial seizure, an owner would get the animal back without paying additional funds; but if a court finds cruelty and the owner is ordered to pay, title may be forfeited if payment is not made.

To illustrate practical consequences, Mylett recounted a January case in which 13 dogs were seized for inadequate shelter during severe winter weather. Shelters had offered to waive restitution if the owner surrendered the dogs and the owner refused; as of the committee discussion the case had moved to a plea and a restitution request of about $36,000 remained pending. "There have been a couple of cases that have had fairly large amounts," she said, noting that most cases result in little or no payment by owners and that local rescues, shelters and towns often shoulder costs.

After clarifying questions about dog licensing enforcement (Mylett said town clerks and select boards enforce licensing under chapter title 20 and the state receives the $2 surcharge per license), committee members discussed whether modest session‑law figures should be tied to an inflation index later in Ways and Means or Finance. The chair moved to concur with the senate civil‑rule amendment; a member seconded, the committee members present said "aye," and the chair recorded a straw‑poll tally of 11–0 in favor. The committee adjourned until further notice with plans to continue work on H.578 at a later time.

The committee hearing clarified procedural and financial limits in H.578 but left several figures and implementation details to rulemaking or future sessions; Mylett and members said they will refine the amounts and consider indexing in subsequent budget and fee discussions.