Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kanosh council discusses draft animal control ordinance; asks for county code review before proceeding
Summary
Councilors reviewed a draft 'fence‑in' animal ordinance that would make owners liable for wandering animals, fines, and potential forfeiture after repeat violations; members asked staff to verify existing county and state laws and enforcement procedures before drafting a town ordinance.
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilors reviewed a proposed ordinance to declare Kanosh a "fence‑in" community and to create fines and liabilities for owners whose animals leave their property and cause damage, injury or death.
The draft ordinance would require owners to contain animals on their own property (leased, rented or borrowed) and would make owners responsible for restitution of damaged town or private property. Proposed penalties included escalating fines — $25 for a first wandering offense (increasing by $25 per occurrence), fines up to $100 (increasing by $100 per incident) for injuries to persons, and fines up to $5,000 for incidents resulting in a person’s death; the draft also contemplated forfeiture of an animal after three violations and owner responsibility for associated veterinary bills and replacement value for animals killed.
Council members and attendees warned the proposal intersects with existing state and county law (for example, statutes on vicious animals and county nuisance and enforcement codes). Staff and the council asked the sheriff’s office about local enforcement capacity; deputies said they will enforce town laws if a clear ordinance is on the books and said patrols in the area have improved since staffing changed. Councilors asked staff to pull the existing county and state ordinances on animal control and vicious animals, and to circulate them for drafting a town ordinance. Several residents urged informal neighbor‑to‑neighbor resolution where possible; the council agreed a local ordinance should complement — not duplicate — county and state law, and directed staff to return with a refined draft after legal review and input from the sheriff’s office.
No ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
