Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincoln County hearing turns contentious over proposed dog-control definitions
Summary
A lengthy public hearing on proposed changes to Lincoln County's dog-control ordinance focused on a new "boarding facility" definition after a local kennel owner said criminal charges were dismissed; residents urged clarity, questioned enforcement and asked a commissioner to recuse himself.
The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners opened a public hearing May 27 on proposed changes to the county's dog-control ordinance that would add definitions for "agricultural operation," "boarding facility" and "livestock operation." The hearing drew extended public comment, including testimony from Ben Barks and a written statement from his partner, Mity Barks, who said prior criminal citations against their boarding operation were dismissed by a justice of the peace.
"All nine criminal counts were dismissed," Ben Barks told the commissioners, describing fines and jail time that he said were levied then dropped. Don Clark read a letter from Mity Barks saying the kennel is a registered boarding facility and the couple were "wrongfully charged," and asking commissioners to vote against any changes that would effectively remove exemptions under state law. Several neighbors, including Russ Goldberg, supported the Barks family and asked that Commissioner Tesy recuse himself, citing a familial relationship to the complaint filer.
County staff explained the recommended ordinance language is intended to clarify which operations qualify for the exemptions already present in Montana statute (MCA 7-23-2110), not to remove exemptions for licensed boarding facilities. A county official said the proposed definitions would help enforcement and the public determine whether a property meets statutory exemption criteria. "We had to have a definition in there so that law enforcement and the public know what they have to do to be exempt," the county representative said during the hearing.
Speakers also raised worries about vague enforcement terms such as "unreasonably annoys or disturbs" and asked for clearer licensing and inspection processes for boarding facilities and kennels. Commissioners closed the public hearing without taking a final vote; they said the ordinance will return for further clarification and discussion before any adoption vote.
The board accepted written comments made by email as part of the public record and indicated that any changes would be posted publicly before a vote. No action was taken at the May 27 meeting; commissioners said additional drafting and legal review will precede any final decision.
