Franklin County hears split public input on dissolving 12 herd districts and proposed livestock ordinance

Franklin County commissioners on April 22 heard strong and divided public testimony on a proposal to dissolve 12 existing herd districts and on a draft Livestock Control and Fencing Ordinance, but delayed a decision to allow revisions and another hearing.

Commissioner Chair Robert Swainston opened the meeting and commissioners Zan Bowles and Zach Stewart moved unanimously to open the first public hearing. Yance Bosen, a member of the county committee that drafted recommendations, told the board the committee met with County Attorney Vic Pearson and concluded the existing herd districts are inconsistently formed and difficult to enforce; the committee recommended dissolving the districts and adopting a county ordinance to clarify definitions and enforcement.

The ordinance and dissolution proposal drew sharply different concerns in testimony. Tyler Olson questioned whether the required petitions (50% of each district) had been submitted and argued that some herd districts—he cited Weston Canyon—function as intended. Landowner Jason Godfrey said he initially opposed dissolution but, after reviewing the draft and talking with Commissioner Swainston, now appreciates the effort; Godfrey raised specific liability questions, asking who would be responsible for wrecks, crop loss, costs tied to FDA E. coli testing, and repair of fences when cattle breach legal fencing.

Several residents described repeated property damage and safety risks. Gay Pace, who lives in the Cub River area, said she cannot feasibly build fences to keep cattle out and has had to call owners repeatedly when animals arrive; Burton Tew recounted hitting a cow at night in an earlier crash that totaled his car. Other speakers, including Scott Wangsgaard and several committee supporters, argued the current herd districts were not formed under the applicable statute and are confusing to enforce, and that a single county ordinance could give law enforcement clearer authority.

When the hearing shifted to the proposed Livestock Control and Fencing Ordinance, Yance Bosen presented the draft as a county-specific starting point that borrows from other counties and Idaho's fencing provisions. Sheriff Cuyler Stoker said the Sheriff's Office does not want to "hammer down on cattle owners" but wants tools to address habitual noncompliance; he said under current Idaho law the sheriff lacks a mechanism to enforce livestock-at-large and that civil suits are often the only remedy.

Opponents of the draft ordinance raised legal and practical questions. Tyler Olson and Scott Wangsgaard said the draft lacks clarity on key definitions—particularly the meaning of "custodian" and who must bear fencing costs when adjoining owners split responsibility—and questioned whether countywide regulation would properly account for open-range areas, villages, and lands under state or federal jurisdiction. Rick Hydrick and others asked how village boundaries or state/BLM/Forest Service lands would interact with county rules.

Supporters urged adoption with revisions, saying the ordinance would hold livestock owners more accountable and reduce repeated calls for law-enforcement responses. Written comments read into the record included a letter from Lora Johnson supporting the ordinance with caveats on cattle-guard requirements and a letter from Amy Haycock opposing dissolution because of repeated damage she attributes to a neighbor's cattle.

Commissioners did not vote on either proposal. Zan Bowles moved, and Zach Stewart seconded, to close the herd-district public hearing at 7:29 p.m.; the board then opened the livestock ordinance hearing. After hearing testimony, commissioners closed the livestock hearing, said they would take comments under advisement, plan revisions, and hold another public hearing in a few weeks before making a decision. Zan Bowles moved to adjourn at 8:07 p.m.; the motion passed unanimously.

The record includes repeated requests for legal clarification: witnesses and residents asked who would be liable for fence repair and crash-related losses, whether the ordinance's tort language aligns with Idaho law, and how the county would handle areas adjacent to federal or state lands. Sheriff Stoker invited written recommendations to his office for ordinance tweaks.

The board did not adopt the ordinance or dissolve the herd districts at the April 22 meeting; the commissioners said they would revise the draft and schedule another public hearing.