Lawmakers weigh H.578 changes to animal‑seizure timelines as shelters warn of collapse

The Judiciary committee on H.578 heard testimony Tuesday on how the bill would handle animal seizure, posting and civil forfeiture, with shelter officials and judges urging clearer timelines and practical procedures to keep seized animals safe and to prevent shelters from going bankrupt.

Lisa Millett of the Division of Animal Welfare told the committee the bill now lacks a fixed deadline for owners to post security and reclaim animals. "There needs to be a time frame in there for the person to pay in," Millett said, arguing courts usually set a concise period — "something like a 5 day period or something very or 3 day period" — so owners do not indefinitely delay resolution. Millett also urged that payments be routed through court cashiering systems rather than the Department of Public Safety, which she said "is not set up to take a $20 payment or a $100 payment from random citizen" and lacks the administrative capacity to process many small transactions.

Erica Holm, co‑executive director of Central Vermont Humane Society and chair of the Animal Cruelty Investigation Advisory Board, said shelters are already overwhelmed and that prolonged forfeiture timelines can push nonprofits into insolvency. "We are in a crisis in the state," Holm said, describing long holds, staff shortages and examples of large seizures that private shelters cannot absorb. She urged the committee to restore a civil 'cost of care' action or otherwise ensure an expedited forfeiture process so animals do not languish in kennels: "3 months is too long, the way it works now."

Chief Superior Judge Tom Zoney told lawmakers the draft contains multiple timing and procedure conflicts with existing practice and the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure. He flagged inconsistencies in how days are counted for service and response periods and warned that legislative choices about notice could prompt legal challenges that extend cases. "If you do proceed with the notice issue, you very well may have someone challenge it," Zoney said. He also cautioned that adding a separate cost‑of‑care hearing would create another proceeding that competes for limited court time: "If there's only x amount of hours, something's not gonna be heard."

Committee members and witnesses discussed a range of operational details: who can accept security payments, whether the director of animal welfare should be authorized to make follow‑up inspections alongside humane officers, and how a hardship waiver should be handled within the bill’s 30‑day hearing window. Kim McManus of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs supported shortening timelines and suggested tightening draft language, including changing a proposed refusal‑to‑comply standard to "knowingly refuses."

Witnesses gave several concrete examples to illustrate risks in the current system: a Vermont shelter that folded after holding multiple seized dogs with more than $50,000 in bills, and a historical Eden case involving 90 dogs. Testimony emphasized that surrender is preferable to seizure when possible but that seizures involving dozens of animals routinely exceed private shelter capacity.

The committee did not take final votes on statutory changes. Members said they will issue a revised draft next week to address counting of days, the interaction between hardship waivers and forfeiture deadlines, and whether to reinstate a cost‑of‑care action. The next version will also clarify payment routing and who may perform inspections. The committee plans further review before the bill moves through remaining committees.