Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Ordinance Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Benton County to amend Ordinance 37 to target behavior, not breed
Summary
Speakers at the Benton County Board of Supervisors meeting asked the board to revise Chapter 37 to allow earlier custody and disposition of dogs that attack or repeatedly trespass, proposing verification standards and owner financial responsibility; supervisors asked staff to research other counties' ordinances and the necessary procedural steps.
Kelly DeLong and family members urged the Benton County Board of Supervisors to revise Ordinance 37 to focus on animal behavior and mandatory custody after a serious attack, rather than penalizing dogs by breed.
DeLong told the board, "Ordinance 37 stands as one of the most outdated and just animal laws in the state of Iowa. It punishes dogs based on breed rather than behavior, promoting fear instead of fairness." She proposed that an animal that kills without provocation while off its owner’s property "shall be immediately taken into custody by animal control or law enforcement for evaluation."
Why it matters: Speakers said the current ordinance delays decisive action and leaves neighbors, children and other animals at risk. Leslie Narriette, who identified herself as DeLong’s sister, said Benton County’s standard requiring two attacks within 12 months prevents timely intervention. "This ordinance requires a second attack before actionable steps can be taken," she said, adding that when she reported an attack to Linn County animal control, "within hours, the dogs were removed." The speakers asked the board to consider language that would permit removal or secure confinement after a verified fatal attack or repeated trespass incidents.
Most important facts: DeLong asked that custody and disposition follow a verified fatal attack and proposed verification by credible witness, photographs or video, or veterinary confirmation. She suggested either humane euthanasia (if a veterinarian confirms the animal poses a threat) or strict quarantine/transfer to a secure facility, with owners responsible for seizure, housing, evaluation and disposition costs. DeLong also asked that persistent off‑property trespass documented in video should be a punishable offense.
Board response and process: Board members cautioned about procedural limits and the county’s role as an appellate body for certain animal control orders. A supervisor referenced a procedural citation noted in the meeting (recorded as "3313026") and reminded speakers that ordinance changes require multiple public hearings and public notice. A supervisor asked DeLong to email a copy of Lynn County’s ordinance; DeLong said she would send a PDF. The board did not take immediate action on the proposal at this meeting.
Other details: DeLong recommended mirroring Lynn County’s approach, which she said removes dogs after a single fatal attack regardless of breed. Speakers emphasized consistency in enforcement and clearer definitions and penalties for repeat offenses. No bill number or formal ordinance text was introduced during the public comment; the board directed staff to research comparable ordinances and the notice and hearing requirements necessary to advance any amendment to Chapter 37.
Next steps: Supervisors requested staff and counsel review model ordinances and the county’s procedural obligations; DeLong agreed to provide Lynn County’s ordinance by email for the board’s consideration.
