Louisa County amends animal code to tighten ‘dogs at large’ rules, adds warning step

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 18 adopted changes to Chapter 14 of the county code aimed at clarifying enforcement of dogs running at large and expanding impoundment authority for animals other than dogs or cats.

The change makes it unlawful for a dog owner to place a dog in the custody of a person “not physically capable of maintaining effective control” and establishes graduated criminal penalties for repeat violations. The board also amended the draft during the meeting to allow an officer to issue a written warning for a first violation where a warning is more suitable.

County staff presenting the amendment said the draft revises section 14‑28 to define a dog running at large and to make enforcement consistent across magistrates and animal control. The ordinance sets a class 4 misdemeanor for a first offense (a citation-level offense with a $250 fine), a class 2 misdemeanor for a second violation within one year of a prior conviction, and a class 1 misdemeanor for a third or subsequent violation within two years of a second or later conviction. A separate proposed change to section 14.3 clarifies that any animal other than a dog, cat or wild animal found running at large may be impounded and disposed of under the same terms used for companion animals.

During the public hearing, Jackson District resident Amy Weyer described repeated incidents on her properties — including a fall requiring medical attention and repeated property damage — and urged the county to make impoundment for habitually roaming animals mandatory rather than discretionary. Board members debated whether the code should say “may” or “shall” regarding impoundment, noting practical constraints such as shelter capacity and the cost of rounding up large animals. Several supervisors said the ordinance aims to balance enforcement against the realities of remote incidents and large animals that require different handling.

Board members also discussed the role of photographic and video evidence and whether an officer must personally observe an incident before enforcement. Staff said photos or video submitted by residents can be part of an investigation and that in some cases a magistrate can issue a warrant based on citizen-supplied evidence.

After discussion, a supervisor moved to amend the draft so that, “where a warning notice is more suitable given the circumstances, a notice of warning may be issued for the first violation.” The amendment was seconded and the board voted to adopt the ordinance with that change; the motion passed unanimously.

The board noted that state law already exempts hunting and working farm dogs from running-at-large enforcement if they are under the owner’s immediate control during hunting or farming activity, language preserved in the revised ordinance. Staff also told the board they will continue to monitor shelter capacity and related operational issues.

The ordinance takes effect according to the code’s standard adoption process; staff did not specify an effective date during the meeting.