Rich County commissioners on Tuesday adopted changes to the county’s dog ordinance that make it easier for law enforcement to treat roaming or nuisance animals as violations and establish tiered penalties for repeat offenses. The ordinance amendment keeps impoundment and forfeiture as available remedies for dangerous animals and adds clearer fine levels for escalating violations.

The county attorney, Ben Willoughby, told the commission the proposed changes were intended to make enforcement less reliant on impoundment where that is impractical and to give the sheriff a graduated toolset. “We have had a dog ordinance in place since August 2022,” Willoughby said. “The changes are to make it less reliant on impounding … and to make it more flexible, to impose a fine structure for first, second and third offenses.”

Why this matters: residents across unincorporated Rich County told commissioners that barking and roaming dogs are an ongoing quality‑of‑life problem in several neighborhoods. Commissioners said the amendment gives deputies clear options to address repeat problems without immediate criminal prosecution, while retaining a legal path for the most dangerous animals.

Key points adopted
- The ordinance removes the word “repeatedly” from the definition of an animal “at large,” so an unrestrained animal off its keeper’s property may be treated as a public nuisance even on a first documented occurrence. Willoughby explained this change was intended to allow deputies to address dogs freely roaming in public.
- The amendment defines excessive barking as sound that “unreasonably disturbs the peace and enjoyment of neighbors” or that “keeps neighbors awake or can be heard inside a neighbor’s home.” At the hearing Willoughby acknowledged the term is fact‑dependent and said deputies would evaluate duration and disturbance in context.
- A three‑step penalty schedule was added: an infraction for a first violation with a $100 fine; a class C misdemeanor (proposed $250 fine) for a second violation within 12 months of a prior conviction or documented warning; and a class B misdemeanor (proposed $690 fine) for a third violation within 12 months of any combination of two or more convictions or documented warnings.
- Impoundment rules: the ordinance keeps a statutory process for impounding public‑nuisance or vicious animals. An owner reclaiming an impounded animal must pay $25 plus $25 for each subsequent day the animal remains in custody. Animals not reclaimed within three working days may be adopted or euthanized; adoption is preferred where appropriate.
- Vicious animals: if deputies have probable cause that an animal is vicious, the animal may be impounded while the county attorney evaluates civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings under state law. Willoughby cited the Utah Forfeiture and Disposition of Seized Property Act as the legal framework governing forfeiture procedures.

Public reaction and enforcement discussion
Residents raised examples of chronic barking and roaming animals. Audrey Jess of Woodrow told the commission she feared daily fines could accumulate if her dogs bark at passersby on a dirt road: “I would get a $100 fine every single day, all summer long,” she said, asking how enforcement would work in practice. Commissioners and Willoughby responded that deputies would typically issue warnings and that the ordinance provides a graduated enforcement path for persistent or dangerous keepers.

Commissioner Lee, speaking during the hearing, said the goal was to give the sheriff a measured tool to address chronic problems without unnecessarily escalating a single incident into a criminal matter.

What the ordinance does not change
Willoughby emphasized the amendment applies only to unincorporated Rich County; cities must adopt their own ordinances to apply in municipal boundaries. The commission did not add a fixed minute threshold for barking, leaving enforcement discretion with deputies and the courts.

Action taken
Commissioners voted to adopt the amendment as presented at the public hearing. The county will publish the adopted ordinance on the county website and post notice at usual public locations.

Next steps
The sheriff’s office and county attorney will implement the amended enforcement procedures. The county will post the new ordinance and notify residents. The county attorney noted forfeiture proceedings involve additional legal steps and that impoundment for biting incidents remains subject to state rabies‑check protocols and the separate forfeiture process.