Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Livestock Management And Road Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kane County Resource Committee discusses livestock-trailing ordinance to clarify insurance and road-use rules
Summary
The committee discussed a proposed livestock-trailing ordinance patterned on Iron County's policy that would designate county roads as livestock trails to reduce insurance ambiguity and protect agricultural trailing; staff said the ordinance covers county class B/D roads but not state-controlled rights without legislative action.
Kane County Resource Committee members on April 15 discussed a proposed livestock-trailing ordinance intended to make county roads and routes explicitly recognized as livestock trails and to clear up insurance and right-to-farm questions.
Committee member (S6) said the ordinance follows Iron County practice and would designate county roads for livestock trailing to reduce confusion over which party is responsible when animals are struck by vehicles. "For example, some insurance companies are reluctant to compensate drivers when they hit an animal or to compensate the livestock owner for the loss," S6 said, adding that the designation would help clear that ambiguity.
Members asked whether the ordinance would shift responsibility from livestock owners. S6 said it would not remove owners' responsibilities; rather, it clarifies that drivers have the duty to avoid hitting animals. Committee members also discussed signage and tourism uses and noted that marking routes as livestock trails can help both agricultural operations and recreational users anticipate livestock on the road.
A staff member (S8) clarified jurisdictional limits: the county ordinance would apply to county roads (class B and D) but does not govern state-controlled "U" rights or freeways, and fixes for state roads would require legislative action or coordination with state agencies. Several members noted that conflicts often arise when private property changes hands and new owners challenge traditional uses of roads.
No formal vote on an ordinance was recorded; discussion centered on scope, insurance effects and next steps to map trails with ranchers and coordinate with government affairs staff.
