McCormick County tables proposed animal‑care ordinance after public concerns over tethering and enforcement

The McCormick County Council on Oct. 2 read Ordinance 24‑06, a proposed update to Chapter 4 of the county code setting standards for animal ownership, humane care and related matters, and then voted to table the measure after public comment and council discussion.

Jimmy Collier, who said he has been in the livestock business most of his life, told the council the ordinance’s tethering provisions are "way too broad" and could unintentionally prevent farmers from carrying out normal work. "My objection to this ordinance ... is the tethering on that is an issue that is way too broad," Collier said, and asked who would enforce the law and where seized animals would be housed.

Following public comment, several council members raised legal and logistical concerns. One council member said key provisions — including a vague offense/fine standard and an undefined threshold for "excessive noise" — may be difficult to quantify in court. Another member highlighted that the ordinance includes littering language that already exists in Ordinance 18‑09 and suggested littering should be handled in a separate ordinance.

The council moved to table Ordinance 24‑06 to the next meeting and recommended further review, including a workshop that would involve law enforcement, the public and staff to refine enforcement language, quarantine procedures and the scope of tethering restrictions. The motion to table was seconded and carried by voice vote.

Council members cited a desire to protect animals while avoiding unintended financial or enforcement burdens on the county. The record reflects the council intends to rework problematic language and seek broader input before returning the ordinance for final consideration.