Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Livestock Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gallatin County magistrates debate run-at-large livestock, ask staff to research legal options
Summary
Magistrates spent significant time discussing cattle and other livestock running at large across county roads and properties; they reviewed KRS options, practical limits of animal control and sheriff resources, and directed staff to research possible ordinances or remedies.
Magistrates and attendees raised repeated safety and property concerns about cattle and other livestock roaming county roads and private property during the Nov. 12 Gallatin County fiscal court meeting.
Multiple members described incidents that have continued for weeks, including cattle crossing major county roads and posing hazards. Speaker 1 recounted local calls and conversations with the sheriff’s office; the court heard that the existing Kentucky Revised Statutes permit peace officers to impound animals found at large, and that owners can be charged civilly for damages.
Magistrates questioned the practicality of current remedies. One staff speaker noted statutory limits on impound charges (cited in the discussion as low per-head fees and feeding costs), and members warned that the county sheriff’s office and animal-control staff are not equipped to handle large livestock retrieval or long-term care. "It’s not practical" to expect animal-control to pick up cattle, one magistrate said, and speakers raised safety concerns about asking officers to handle large animals.
Court members discussed alternatives: requiring owners to retrieve animals, using local farmers or cattlemen’s association members as contractors to move impounded animals, or pursuing civil damages through courts. Several magistrates urged caution about authoring a one-size-fits-all county ordinance and asked county counsel and staff to research statutes, the cost of impound facilities, and potential liability before returning with options.
No ordinance was adopted at the Nov. 12 meeting; the court asked staff and counsel to report back with legal options and practical recommendations.
Court members emphasized the need for case-by-case consideration and for communicating county capabilities to residents when they call animal-control or the sheriff.
