Residents ask Weston County commissioners to expand dog-nuisance enforcement beyond Newcastle

Cody Flather, a Newcastle-area resident, told the Weston County Board of County Commissioners during public comment that he and neighbors want the county to consider expanding a dog-nuisance resolution that currently covers only the three-mile incorporated area around Newcastle to the entire county.

Flather said roaming dogs have chased livestock, damaged property and raised tensions between neighbors. “We’ve had a lot of issues … with dogs chasing livestock, dog recidences, damages from dogs,” he told the commissioners.

The request follows a year in which the county’s earlier resolution on dog nuisances was rescinded. Commissioners and attendees said the rescission leaves unclear whether the county has effective enforcement measures outside city limits.

Why this matters: Residents who own livestock said they feel exposed because enforcement depends on state statute and the sheriff’s office rather than a county ordinance with clear enforcement. Flather and others pressed the commission for clarity about what protections landowners can expect and what the county or sheriff can do to enforce trespass or nuisance laws before an incident escalates.

During the discussion commissioners said enforcement authority is limited by state law and by available sheriff’s office resources. One commissioner noted that a county resolution was rescinded after legal review that found the board lacked the necessary enforcement “teeth” in some circumstances.

Becca Flather, who identified herself as Cody’s wife, described daily consequences for residents: she said trespassing dogs raise the stress level for household pets and worried that minor incidents could escalate to bites or other injuries if there is no effective intermediate enforcement. “We can’t just wait until something bites somebody,” she said.

Commissioners and participants discussed several options and constraints raised in the meeting:

- Enforcement responsibility: County officials said enforcement would fall to the sheriff; the commission cannot directly enforce an ordinance without sheriff participation. Commissioners advised the Flathers to meet with the sheriff to discuss enforcement capacity.

- Existing penalties: Speakers noted state statute currently yields relatively small fines — speakers cited $50 and $100 penalties discussed in the meeting — which residents and commissioners questioned as an effective deterrent.

- Lethal force and trapping: Participants raised that certain state authorities (game wardens or county trappers) may be authorized in narrow circumstances to kill animals actively chasing wildlife; speakers cautioned that killing dogs is a harsh remedy and that clearer, enforceable ordinances or higher statutory fines might reduce incidents before that point.

- Legislative route: Several commissioners suggested the matter might require action at the state level to increase fines or clarify enforcement, and recommended residents speak with state legislators.

What happens next: Commissioners asked the Flathers to meet with the sheriff and said the commission could revisit the matter after more information on enforcement options and legal constraints is gathered. No ordinance or formal action was adopted at the meeting.

Ending: The Flathers thanked the commission for hearing their concerns; commissioners said they would note the issue for follow-up and advised residents to pursue conversations with the sheriff and local legislators.