Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly reviews animal-restraint ordinances; sponsors favor voice-control approach for posted areas
Summary
Assemblymembers considered two related ordinances to update animal-restraint rules: a substitute to Ordinance 2025-29 (electronic-collar language) and Ordinance 2026-10, which would allow animals off-leash on posted public property if under 'competent voice control.' Sponsors said they removed e-collar language and recommended caution and posting requirements.
Assemblymember Wilson and Mayor Hopkins briefed the Committee of the Whole on two animal-restraint ordinance items on April 16 that remain under active consideration.
The first item (Ordinance 2025-29) contains a proposed substitute that had been referred to the Bridal Control Commission; Wilson said the commission recommended the substitute 5–4 but that she intended to ask the assembly to vote no on the substitute because of lingering concerns about electronic collars and other methods. "Although we received a 5–4 in favor of the substitute, I am going to be requesting that you vote no," Wilson said.
The second item (Ordinance 2026-10) would amend FNSBC Title 22 to allow animals on posted public property to be considered restrained if they are under "competent voice control" and follow the facility rules. Wilson described the hearings and said councilors removed explicit e-collar language; she emphasized that off-leash allowances would only apply in posted areas and that the Borough does not currently own any trails where such a rule would immediately apply.
Assembly members pressed for practical definitions and implementation. When asked "What is the definition of competent voice control?" one presenter answered, "You yell and the dog returns to you," and staff further described it as reliable recall despite distractions. Members also discussed which landowner or operator can post rules for an area; staff said the owner/operator of the facility would decide and post signage.
Sponsors and staff framed the package as narrowly targeted and contingent on clear posting and management rules; Wilson asked assembly members to defer adopting the substitute until concerns were resolved and recommended focusing on voice-control language rather than electronic stimulators.
