Posted on

County OKs first reading of livestock at-large prohibition

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

Floyd County is a step closer to having a law setting penalties for rural residents who let livestock wander off their property.

The Floyd County Board of Supervisors passed the first reading of an animals at-large ordinance at the regular meeting Tuesday morning, after holding a required public hearing on the proposed new law.

Only one person spoke at the public hearing, speaking in favor of the law and saying that a habitual offender was causing most of the problems in the county.

County Auditor Gloria Carr said the board had not received any written comments on the ordinance for the hearing.

Supervisors Linda Tjaden and Chairman Doug Kamm both said they had heard mostly favorable comments about the proposed ordinance, and Kamm noted that the Farm Bureau had sent a survey to members and of the returns received, 79 percent supported the law.

“The intent of this ordinance is to give officers another tool to deal with this situation,” Kamm said.

The ordinance has been considered in several forms since it was first discussed in May. It has been revised several times to narrow the scope (originally it included wandering pets such as dogs and cats) and to allow for two warnings before a citation is issued.

Key provisions of the ordinance are:

• Definition of livestock as animals belonging to the bovine (cattle), caprine (goat), equine (horse), ovine (sheep), or porcine (swine) species; ostriches, rheas or emus; farm deer or poultry.

• Defining the owner of the livestock as “person who holds title to livestock or who is primarily responsible for the care and feeding of the livestock.”

• Making it unlawful for any owner to allow livestock to run at large within Floyd County.

• Making it unlawful for the owner of livestock to allow or permit such livestock to pass upon the premises of another thereby causing damage to, or interference with the premises, property or livestock of another.

• Requiring two violations in which warnings are issued before a penalty can be assessed. The penalty for conviction of a violation could be a simple misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $625 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days; or the penalty could be a county infraction, punishable by a civil penalty of not more than $750.

The supervisors set a second reading of the ordinance for Sept. 22. It takes passage at three readings and then publication for a new ordinance to take affect.

Also at the meeting Tuesday, the supervisors:

• Passed a resolution transferring funds between several drainage district accounts to correct errors that were introduced when districts were reclassified several years ago, and assessing $1,500 to property owners in the lower main drainage district and $600 in the upper main district to cover new claims.

• Took no action on a request for a fireworks permit for an event to take place Sept. 9 on Redwood Avenue about 3 miles north of Charles City. Supervisors had some questions about the application and neither the county attorney nor assistant county attorney was available during the meeting.

Social Share

LATEST NEWS