Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kennel owners press Lincoln County commissioners to reject dog-control changes; call for recusal
Summary
At a May 27 public hearing on proposed dog-control ordinance changes, kennel owners and neighbors urged commissioners to deny amendments they said would strip exemptions for licensed boarding facilities. Speakers described prior court dismissals and asked a commissioner to recuse himself for a perceived conflict; county staff said the changes aim to clarify, not remove, state-law exemptions.
Lincoln County commissioners held a public hearing May 27 on proposed edits to the county’s dog-control ordinance that would add definitions for "agricultural operations," "boarding facility" and "livestock operation," prompting lengthy public testimony from kennel owners and neighbors.
Ben Barks of 207 Heights Road in Libby told the commission he was charged in June 2025 with nine counts of criminal barking or howling — each count carrying a potential $500 fine and six months in jail — a penalty he called "totally excessive." He said a judge dismissed all charges at a pretrial after finding his business qualified as a boarding facility and was therefore exempt under state law. "The potential sum of fines per charge of $4,500 is totally excessive," Barks said, urging commissioners to vote no on the proposed changes.
Mity Barks, whose comments were read aloud by Don Clark, described Houndtown Kennels’ operations, said the kennel has been registered with the Montana Secretary of State since 2022, and listed mitigation steps taken after an earlier complaint (re-homing noisy dogs and adding kennel doors). Mity asked commissioners to reject the proposed change and asked Commissioner Brent Tesy to recuse himself, alleging a family relationship with the original complainant.
County officials told the meeting the intent of the edits is to add clear definitions so that enforcement officers and the public understand who qualifies for statutory exemptions. Commissioners and staff repeatedly cited state statute language that exempts licensed boarding facilities, licensed veterinarians, animal shelters and bona fide agricultural or livestock operations from the barking ordinance. A county official told the hearing the judge dismissed the Barkses’ earlier case because the state law provided an exemption.
Residents pressed commissioners for additional clarifications — asking whether a "boarding facility" requires a health-department license, how grant-funded programs would be treated, whether the term "kennel" should be separately defined, and how many licensed boarding facilities operate in southern Lincoln County. County staff said the board of health licenses boarding operations and that the proposed ordinance language is intended to make exemptions explicit.
The hearing elicited questions about process and equity: speakers said vague standards such as "unreasonably annoys" could produce subjective enforcement in a rural county where normal animal noises may be expected; a number of speakers characterized the change as driven by one complainant and asked for more precise definitions before any vote.
The public hearing was closed for this meeting; commissioners said they would gather additional clarifications, consider adding further definitions (for example, "kennel" versus "boarding facility"), and hold additional public discussion before taking a final vote. No ordinance vote was taken at the May 27 meeting.
What happens next: commissioners asked staff to refine the proposed definitions and to publish any changes before the next hearing or vote.
