Larimer County moves to ban roadside sale of puppies and kittens; staff to seek April 21 reading

Larimer County commissioners on Monday asked staff to prepare an ordinance that would prohibit roadside sales of animals, primarily puppies and kittens, and scheduled the measure for a reading at the county’s April 21 land use hearing.

Leslie Ellis, director of Community Planning, Infrastructure and Resources, summarized the proposal as an addition (labeled Article 8) to the county animal ordinance that would “read roadside sale of animals prohibited,” and said the change would not interfere with properly licensed shelters or rescue organizations.

The proposal stems from what county staff and NoCo Humane said is a recent rise in people selling animals in parking lots and other public places, often with animals coming from out of state and without clear licensing or oversight. Judy Calhoun, chief executive officer of NoCo Humane, told commissioners that under the proposed local rule “our officers would actually be able to directly cite, and have those people leave the property, so they'd be able to ticket them.”

Brett Harris, director of animal protection and control, said adding the local prohibition would let animal control handle both welfare checks and enforcement while on scene rather than waiting for a police officer or sheriff’s deputy to respond. “We can handle both sides of the equation while we're on scene with the people that are on scene,” he said, adding that officers on site could also assess body condition and, when welfare is poor, impound animals and issue citations for welfare violations separate from any roadside-sales citation.

Staff and NoCo Humane said the state regulatory framework—specifically enforcement tied to the Colorado Department of Agriculture and the Pet Animal Care Facilities Act (PACFA)—is primarily reactive and often moves slowly. Ellis told commissioners the county has drawn language used recently by Colorado Springs and noted that Fort Collins and, most recently, Greeley have adopted similar local bans. She also said the state legislature was considering a bill (to be heard later in the week) that, if passed, likely would limit enforcement authority to police and sheriff’s deputies; that, staff said, is one reason a local ordinance remains useful because it can authorize animal control officers to enforce the rule locally.

Amy White, the county’s code compliance supervisor, told the board she had confirmed with county attorneys that at the April 21 land use hearing staff need only read the new article being added (Ellis said it is three paragraphs) rather than re-read the entire animal ordinance; White estimated the presentation would take “maybe at the outside 5 or 10 minutes at the most.”

Commissioners asked how members of the public would report roadside sales; staff said complaints already come through the county’s animal welfare complaint line and that passing a local ordinance and increased public awareness (including a pending state bill) would likely increase reporting. Commissioners present—including Chair Kristen Stevens—expressed support for moving the proposal forward; there was no formal recorded vote during the work session.

The county indicated the next formal step is the April 21 land use hearing, where staff will present the proposed Article 8 for council consideration.