Rich County Commissioners voted to adopt revisions to the county's dog ordinance on a motion following a public hearing, changing how the county handles animals that create public nuisances and adding a stepped fine structure for repeat offenses.

The change replaces the previous single-class misdemeanor approach and establishes an infraction for a first violation with a $100 fine, a class C misdemeanor for a second violation within 12 months with a $250 fine, and a class B misdemeanor for a third or subsequent violation within 12 months capped at the statutory fine schedule (the ordinance lists $690 as the standard class B fine under state schedule). The amendment also narrows provisions around impoundment and clarifies definitions of “at large,” “public nuisance,” “vicious animal” and “wild animal.”

County Attorney Ben Willoughby said the amendments aim to make enforcement more practical while preserving legal tools for dangerous animals. “The proposal today is to make a few changes to that. The changes are to make it less reliant on impounding, which has proved impractical … and to make it more flexible, to impose a fine structure for first, second, and third offenses,” Willoughby said during the hearing. He emphasized that impoundment and forfeiture remain available for animals that pose a physical threat and that the county attorney must be notified when an animal is impounded as potentially vicious so forfeiture procedures under Utah law can be pursued.

The ordinance removes the word “repeatedly” from the definition of an animal being “at large,” so an unrestrained animal off its keeper’s property can be addressed without a showing of repetition. The new language also specifies that barking, whining or howling becomes excessive when it “unreasonably disturbs the peace and enjoyment of neighbors or keeps neighbors awake or can be heard inside a neighbor’s home.” Willoughby acknowledged that “excessive” is fact-specific and enforcement retains discretion: the sheriff’s office issues warnings and may cite thereafter.

Residents who spoke at the public hearing described long-running problems with barking and with limited local capacity to resolve disputes. Audrey Jess of Woodrow asked how the ordinance would affect a situation where dogs bark at passersby on a dirt road, noting the possibility of repeated daily violations; Willoughby explained the process contemplates warnings and escalating enforcement. Matthew Dressen asked whether dogs playing with each other could prompt enforcement; Willoughby replied enforcement would target chronic problems after warnings.

Multiple speakers raised concerns about practical impoundment capacity. A resident noted the sheriff’s office has “no place to impound.” Willoughby said the ordinance preserves the legal authority to impound vicious animals and that the practical ability to house them is an operational matter for law enforcement; the ordinance language includes a $25 daily impound fee and a three-business-day reclamation period after which unclaimed animals become county property and may be placed for adoption or euthanized with adoption strongly preferred.

The commission voted to adopt the ordinance as proposed with the amendments presented at the hearing. The county attorney said the ordinance will be posted on county bulletin boards and the county website; commissioners also discussed broader outreach via social media for public awareness.

The ordinance applies to unincorporated Rich County; Willoughby noted municipalities would need to adopt their own versions if they want the same rules inside city limits.

Documents: the ordinance references the August 2022 Rich County ordinance and state forfeiture law (Utah forfeiture procedures for seized property).