Assembly reviews ordinance to define, limit electronic animal collars; sponsor seeks referral to Animal Control Commission

The Fairbanks North Star Borough assembly on Dec. 4 reviewed Ordinance 2025-29, a proposed change to borough code to define and regulate the use of electronic animal collars. Assemblymember Wilson, sponsor of the ordinance, described the device as “a device worn by an animal that delivers a stimulus such as a beep, vibration, or static correction,” and said the substitute would add definitions, location limits and enforcement language to the borough’s animal code.

Wilson told the committee the ordinance stems from constituent inquiries and that she had researched practices in other Alaska municipalities. The substitute would bar use of electronic collars on animals that animal control has already designated as “dangerous” or “nuisance,” and would prohibit restraining animals with electronic collars within the borough’s defined downtown area. Wilson said, “an animal that has been determined to be a dangerous animal shall not be restrained by electronic collar,” and described the downtown boundary as the area identified in the FNSB Downtown Fairbanks 2040 plan (bounded by Noyes Slough, Minnie Street and Phillips Field to the north; Steese Highway to the east; Airport Way to the south; and Cal Street to the west).

The substitute includes a distance and supervision requirement: a person accompanying an animal restrained by an electronic collar must be no more than 4 feet from the animal and be physically and mentally capable of monitoring and directing its movements. Wilson said the 4-foot figure was intended to ensure the human could see and respond to the animal, but that the number could be adjusted during revision. The draft also would limit a person from accompanying more than one animal restrained by an electronic collar.

Fines and offense language in the draft reuse existing borough fine amounts, Wilson said, so penalties are uniform with other at-large animal violations. On enforcement and code interaction, borough counsel explained the borough cannot amend a separately adopted city code by its own ordinance; local city code may still apply where a municipality has adopted borough code by reference with its own effective date.

During the committee exchange, members raised questions about scope and enforcement. Assemblymember Kelly asked how widespread collar use is locally; Wilson said only a small number of residents had been stopped by animal control and she did not have a local user estimate. Mister Armstrong asked whether devices marketed as training tools would be covered; borough counsel said the ordinance focuses on device function (delivering a stimulus) rather than marketing, so devices that deliver a stimulus would fall under the definition. Mister Kress asked how nuisance or dangerous findings are recorded; counsel said animal control serves a notice, creates a record and provides appeal rights.

Mayor Hopkins, in attendance, supported sending the substitute back for more work, noting an earlier, broader draft had been unanimously rejected by the Animal Control Commission. Hopkins said he would work with the sponsor and commission to find compromise language. Wilson asked that the assembly send the substitute back to the Animal Control Commission for additional review and suggested bringing it back to the assembly after the commission has another chance to vet the changes.

No formal motion or final vote on the ordinance was recorded at the committee meeting; the sponsor requested referral for further commission review and possible return to the assembly on Dec. 18. The committee also asked staff to request information from Anchorage, Kenai and Wasilla about their municipal experiences with electronic-collar use.

Next steps: the sponsor will circulate the substitute to the City of North Pole and the City of Fairbanks for comment and intends to refer the ordinance to the Animal Control Commission for additional work before bringing a revised draft back to the assembly.