Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mariposa supervisors adopt ‘vicious dog’ ordinance after heated public debate over pet permits
Summary
The Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance creating a new chapter on vicious dogs and updating animal-control rules, but the measure’s multiple-pet permit drew sustained opposition from residents and civil-rights advocates. The vote was 3–2.
The Mariposa County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 2 adopted an ordinance adding a chapter on vicious dogs and amending county code on animal control and barking-dog nuisance, but members and public speakers clashed over a new multiple-pet permit provision. The ordinance passed after a 3–2 vote.
Supporters said the ordinance gives animal-control officers additional tools short of criminal prosecution to address dangerous or chronically neglected animals. Assistant County Counsel Kevin Briggs told the board the draft mirrors provisions other counties use: "I just wanna note that this, proposed ordinance at the second reading is similar in scope and language to other ordinances and other jurisdictions," he said.
Opponents focused on the multiple-pet permit. Colleen Rhodes, speaking at the podium, called the permit a threat to residents' Fourth Amendment rights and said the ordinance "is not a well written law." Tina Swartzell, an owner of a Coulterville thrift shop and animal rescue, said the permit would deter foster and adoption homes because it could be used to inspect private property: "People who are very concerned about the amount of power that ACO and sheriff's department will have if they apply for that permit," she said.
Sheriff Jeremy (surname on record) told the board the permit is meant as an educational and preventive tool and not a pretext for searches: "We're not going to proactively be pulling into people's driveways looking, counting dogs," he said, adding that the ordinance is intended to add a proportionate administrative tool so egregious cases still can be prosecuted under state statutes.
Public commenters described both practical and personal impacts. Mark Nordine said he keeps ten dogs and that they are "happy and healthy" and used as an early-warning system on his property. Dog groomer Norian Miller urged outreach and education: "There's a lot of things that can be changed. I don't believe that if they're a bad person right now, they're gonna be a bad person tomorrow. I think there's things we can change with these dogs."
After discussion, Supervisor Menatrey moved to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance; Supervisor Toso seconded. The motion passed 3–2. The board and staff discussed amending the multiple-pet permit language and returning with refinements; supervisors noted the ordinance can be revised after adoption and that exemptions for rescues, kennels and agricultural working dogs remain in the text.
The measure formalizes rules to impound animals not included on a multiple-pet permit and sets administrative steps for permitting, renewal and potential revocation. Supporters and county staff emphasized that criminal cruelty cases would continue to be prosecuted under state law, while the new local provisions are intended to address repeated lower-level problems and offer education and a middle-ground enforcement tool.
The board’s action ends a year-plus effort to address recurring animal-control complaints, including a high-profile case in the county’s rural neighborhoods that sparked the initiative. Supervisors and staff said they will accept edits to the permit section and bring revisions back for the board to consider.
