Animal Control Ordinance Amended, Approved After Citizen Concerns

By Allyson Dix, Managing Editor/Barren County Progress

Barren County codified updates to the county’s animal control ordinance with a second (and final) reading on Tuesday morning in a 4-3 vote. Before the vote, magistrates approved language changes as presented by County Attorney Mike Richardson in a 5-2 vote.

The move comes after nearly a month of its first introduction in the fiscal court, along with additional discussion in a committee meeting and a special-called court meeting. The amendments were made to an original ordinance dating back to 1996.

Richardson said changes were made due to concerns from citizens that were brought to the attention of the administration, focusing on enforcement procedures, livestock concerns, nuisance complaints, and fine structures.

Changes in Fines

One key change adds the phrase “upon conviction thereof” to clarify when fines apply in cases involving animals and livestock running at large, as well as animal nuisance complaints.

The amended ordinance also specifies that for a first offense, a violator has the option to pay a prepayable fine to the Glasgow Police Department in lieu of a court appearance.

Richardson said this discretion is stripped from the animal control officer and shifted to the discretion of the person who commits a violation.

Running at Large

Language regarding animals attacking people was removed from the “running at large” section and placed under the already established section of harboring a vicious animal. The county attorney said the language was rewritten for clarity but is not intended to conflict with state law.

With regard to livestock running at large, prompted in part by the number of calls handled by the sheriff’s department involving livestock on public roadways, Richardson said these situations do not put an owner in violation if a person is unaware of fence damage that allowed livestock to escape.

Animal Nuisance

In the section on nuisance, nighttime excessive barking has been in place since 1996, Richardson said. Due to the county’s increased population, more densely populated neighborhoods are now established.

The scope of excessive barking or other untimely noises has been narrowed to include a residential area of three or more homes that can be observed from the front entrance of a violator’s property.

The language on the impoundment of animals still exists, with excessive barking being one of the conditions of impoundment between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., as well as aggressive behavior and damaging of property.

Animals vs. Livestock

Richardson clarified the difference between livestock and animals at the request of Magistrate Brad Groce.

“The definition section at the beginning says animals, [which] will include dogs, but specifically excludes livestock,” Richardson said, noting that much of the ordinance is for animals, with livestock being noted where applicable.

“In general practice, if you’re here worried about this today, you’re probably not the person this is going to be affecting,” the county attorney said. He said individuals who repetitively refuse to take care of an issue are the ones who will face potential action through the ordinance.

The first reading passed in a 5-2 vote in January with Magistrates Tim Durham and Derek Pedigo dissenting; however, on Tuesday morning, Magistrate Marty Kinslow changed his original ‘yes’ vote, siding with Durham and Pedigo.

Durham said on Tuesday his vote represented his district and not himself, commending the “great job” those involved in updating the ordinance.

He also asked whether, with the new changes, citizens would have another 30-day review period.

Richardson responded, “I’m following the direction of the fiscal court, and all these changes that have been incorporated are all the issues that were brought to my attention.”

In addition to officials bringing concerns from constituents privately, three citizens were permitted to speak on the proposed amendments to the ordinance.

In the Administration and Budget Committee on the eve of Tuesday’s meeting, Barry Landrum suggested the county slow down approval of the ordinance for six months for further review. Another speaker, Ken Wininger, said he was both “for and against” the ordinance. He cautioned that if the language was unclear at the final passage, “it might bite us all later on down the road.” In January, Ernie Wagoner shared concerns as well in the full court meeting.

Barren County Judge/Executive Jamie Bewley Byrd said if citizens have any concerns or concerns of overreach by animal control, individuals are invited to bring those concerns to the animal control board or the fiscal court for review.

Magistrate Jeff Botts, Tim Coomer, Ronnie Stinson, and Brad Groce maintained their favor of the changes in both the first and second readings of the ordinance amendments.