Residents press court on wild-horse problem; county judge says statute limits action without veterinary contracts

Roy Coleman and other residents urged the Pike County Fiscal Court on July 1 to address a growing population of free-roaming horses in parts of the county and to pursue humane removal or rescue options.

Coleman told the court the issue extends beyond a single road or district and appealed for a stewardship approach. Quoting Proverbs, Coleman said, “the righteous regardeth the life of his beast,” and urged county officials to find humane solutions rather than seeing horses rounded up for disposal. He said residents across the region are concerned and that they had contacted state senators and other officials about possible remedies.

County Judge Jones responded at length, telling the public that current state law places specific procedural requirements on counties that he described as “virtually impossible to comply” with in practice. Jones said the statute requires the county judge to contract with a veterinarian to examine animals — for brands, tattoos or microchips — and to provide documentation to the state, but that local veterinarians have declined to sign such contracts because of safety and cost concerns. “The statute says that the county judge shall contract with a veterinarian,” Jones said. “We have no pool of money to pay for that,” and he added he was unwilling to sign an order authorizing others to remove horses unless the necessary financial and veterinary arrangements were secured.

Jones said the county has no facility to corral and care for large numbers of horses and that past attempts at rescues were limited by capacity. He noted a state bill that would have clarified the process cleared the Senate but died in the House; officials told the court a similar bill would be refiled during the 2026 legislative session. Jones said he would work with the Kentucky Association of Counties and local legislators to seek statutory clarification and that he planned to convene a meeting to consider contracts and cost commitments from rescues or other groups before signing any removal order.

The court acknowledged public emotion on the subject and signaled intent to pursue legislative and administrative steps rather than authorizing immediate county-led removal in the absence of compliant veterinary contracts and a funding plan.

Court staff and Judge Jones encouraged residents to pursue outreach to legislators and to help identify nonprofits or rescue groups willing to contractually assume required costs; they also advised residents to contact law enforcement or county attorney staff for legal questions about property access and enforcement. Judge Jones said, “Whatever I sign will only be signed if I can guarantee compliance with the statute.”

The court did not take a formal vote on policies for animal removal; instead the recorded outcome was a public discussion and a commitment to pursue statutory clarification and convene interested parties for a future meeting.