Sherwood council amends animal-services ordinance; mandatory microchipping replaced with encouragement

Councilmember Brooks Townsend presented a set of amendments to Ordinance 02/1940 governing the Department of Humane Animal Services at the Sherwood City Council meeting on Feb. 24, 2025, and the council voted to strike mandatory language on microchipping and replace it with an encouragement. The motion to amend carried by roll call vote and the ordinance was read as amended, returning to first reading for further revisions.

Townsend said she had reviewed prior council comments and worked with the city’s animal-control staff to revise the draft, including changes from "halter" to "harness," clarifications on how repeated bites are counted before a dog can be deemed vicious, and a reduction in the stated minimum liability-insurance amount. "I went back and listened specifically to each of the council members' comments, concerns, and questions," Townsend said, describing the edits as responses to those concerns.

The change most discussed and the one the council formally amended at the meeting was the microchipping requirement. After extended debate and public comment, the council voted unanimously to amend the proposed ordinance language so microchipping would be "encouraged" rather than mandatory. Councilmember Townsend moved the amendment substituting the wording; another member seconded. Roll-call votes recorded Thomas Wade, Brooks Townsend, Brooks Williams, Treat, Broderick and McCullough as voting aye; the amendment passed.

Council members and speakers raised enforcement and data concerns: some council members said existing breed-specific provisions in the code had not generated citations since the 2018 ordinance yet pit bulls are present in the city. Townsend said she verified with the animal-control officer and with two insurance companies that a $100,000 minimum liability figure is the insurance-industry norm and that higher umbrella coverage is available. She also said the department now has new software to track intakes and relinquishments and to help detect fraudulent relocations of animals between jurisdictions.

A recurring suggestion from members of the public and one councilmember was defining a "pit bull" or bully-breed mix by percentage (for example, 51% or greater) and exploring DNA testing at registration; councilmembers noted testing cost and reliability would require further research and would impose an administrative burden. Public commenter Buddy Fisher, who identified himself as a Sherwood resident, criticized a mandatory microchipping requirement: "Somebody's gotta bring some common sense to this floor," he said, adding he opposed government-mandated microchipping.

Legal staff advised removing ordinance language that would expand prosecutable offenses beyond what is enumerated in state statute; council members agreed those provisions should not exceed municipal authority. Councilmember Townsend and staff also added language to help the department track fraudulent relinquishment and to request regular reporting so the council can evaluate enforcement and outcomes.

What the council did: it moved to amend the ordinance text to change the microchipping requirement from mandatory to "encouraged," the motion passed on roll call, and the ordinance was read as amended and returned to first reading for continued work. Councilmembers repeatedly said they intend to continue refining the draft and will return with more information on enforcement mechanics, insurance standards and any testing protocols before final adoption.

Looking ahead: the ordinance remains under active revision. Councilmembers asked staff to provide additional data and analysis on enforcement capacity, the cost and reliability of breed-identification testing, and the practical effects of various insurance thresholds before the council considers final passage.