Humane Treatment of Animals
Sheriff Lonnie Hodges asked questions concerning the animal abuse ordinance. Photo | PJ Martin
By PJ Martin
Editor
The Herald-News
The Metcalfe County Fiscal Court held a special-called meeting on Thursday, November 6th, with the following in attendance: Judge/Executive Larry Wilson, Magistrates Ronnie Miller, Daniel Bragg, Harvey Hawkins, and Kevin Crain, County Attorney Sharon Howard, and Treasurer/Fiscal Court Clerk Page Edwards.
Judge Wilson declared a quorum present, and the agenda was adopted after motions by Miller and Bragg.
The minutes from the regular meeting on October 23rd were amended. Judge Wilson stated, “I had someone to call would like for us to make a little change. We had discussed the solar panel and how that Candela would be grandfathered in, and they would like for us to amend it so their name would be grandfathered. I think they’ve got a little leery only to leases they already had for the solar.”
The motion was made to approve the minutes with the amendment to be made. The motion was made by Bragg and seconded by Crain.
The next item was the first reading of an ordinance concerning the humane treatment of animals. “Are y’all happy with it?” as Judge Wilson.
County Attorney Sharon Howard stated, “I have a few suggestions. …section two under cruel, under cruelty. I’m sorry, so just change that as referred to or as referred to in …”
Bragg then added, “My only other question is the word wild? Is that going to cause any problems? I don’t think you’re causing problems on cruelty. I believe that should be a punishment. I don’t know about neglect and abandonment, but I guess because they’re defined as owners and caretakers, now have an owner and caretaker of a wild animal…”
Howard then went through the KRS listed and suggested changing those to KRS 525.130 and KRS 525.135.
Sheriff Lonnie Hodges then asked about the county ordinance versus state law and the fact that in court, the state would take precedence. “Fiscal court can assess a bond to an ordinance, and then they generate money to keep your shelter going. That makes total sense… and that would be my question, because then I understand the point to generate some money.”
“So, once this passes, it would be who sheriff’s office uses the ordinance on the site?”
“That’s a question I’m going to have to dig into,” replied Howard.
A member of the animal shelter board who worked on the draft of the ordinance said, “Can I say something? We were working on this. We had the committee to do this. Our intention was to get the fine money to work for the shelter. That’s the intention.” Adding for proof in court, “the possibility of having the cameras like you guys (police) have got on the animal control guy to have approved as a witness.”
It was then pointed out that in addition to the fines, the cost of veterinary fees and boarding the animals were also listed; however, the ordinance needed to list that the fines are directed to the shelter funds.
“I’ll make a motion that we approve the first reading of this ordinance with the amendments that Sharon is going to write up for us about penalties, and she’s going to get clarification on wild animals. And with those amendments and clarification, I’ll make a motion to pass the first reading of this.” Was made by Bragg, seconded by Miller, and approved.
Judge Wilson said, “While we’re on this subject, I do have a little question. A lady called me twice her neighbor’s hogs, eight of them been in her yard…” adding they had caused a lot of damage.
“People are finally starting to realize, is that you file small claims against them, cost of the chickens (yard), and all this stuff. And so far, everybody that I’ve had to do that has come out successful, and that’s in court, but it’s not very long, so they just have to compensate the other party for the damage. Could be damage to your yard. Hogs are in your yard, be damage to the yard. No animal can come on your property and cause damage,” stated Sheriff Hodges.
The court then voted to enter executive session per KRS 61.810(1)(b) for property acquisition or sale. Approximately 30 minutes later, the court returned to open session and Judge Wilson announced, “No action was taken.”
Next, Treasurer Edwards explained, “The interfund transfer for the amount of $2,000 was our half of the 50/50 grant of $2,000.”
The interfund transfer was approved. The claims were also approved with no discussion.
With no other items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 20th, at 10 a.m.
