Public hearing on Lincoln County dog ordinance draws lengthy defense from kennel owners and recusal request

A Lincoln County public hearing on proposed revisions to the county's dog-control ordinance drew more than an hour of public comment May 27 as kennel owners, neighbors and county staff debated whether the changes would narrow or expand exemptions from barking complaints.

Ben Barks, who said he operates a commercial boarding business in Lincoln County, told the commissioners he was charged in June 2025 with nine counts of criminal barking or howling. He said a judge dismissed all nine counts on Oct. 2 after finding Houndtown Kennels qualified as a boarding facility and therefore exempt from the barking statute. "The possibility for a citizen of Lincoln County to serve up to 4.5 years in jail for barking or howling dogs, particularly for my first offense, is ludicrous," Barks said, urging the board to vote no on the proposed changes.

Don Clark read a lengthy statement from Mity Barks, who described kennel operations, investments in facilities and noise-reduction measures. Mity Barks asked the commissioners to recuse Commissioner Tesy, alleging a conflict of interest because the complaint had familial ties; she urged commissioners to reject the proposed wording, which she characterized as an effort to target a small set of operators.

County staff and the county attorney's office responded that the proposed revisions are intended to add explicit definitions so that enforcement officials and the public understand who is exempt under state law. The county emphasized that Montana law excludes licensed boarding facilities, veterinarians, animal shelters and qualifying agricultural or livestock operations from the barking statute and that the proposed ordinance language is intended to reflect that statute rather than eliminate exemptions.

Speakers pressed the board on practical details: how many boarding facilities are licensed in southern Lincoln County, whether a state or local license is required, how a boarding facility differs from a kennel or a licensed kennel, and whether grants or other third-party funding count as "compensation provided by the pet owner." Staff acknowledged gaps in the ordinance's prior text and said additional definitions (for "boarding facility," "livestock operation," and "agricultural operation") would help enforcement distinguish legitimate exemptions from improper claims.

Commissioners said no vote would be taken that day. Chair closed the public hearing and said staff would return with clarifications to the definition language before any ordinance vote. The county also acknowledged public requests for clearer guidance on licensing and pledged to publish the updated ordinance language and related health-department licensing criteria when available.

What happens next: The hearing closed with no immediate action; commissioners asked staff to add clearer definitions and to supply licensing guidance before the matter returns for a vote.