City OKs animal ordinance

Libby City Council members approved an animal ordinance that more closely resembles one approved by Lincoln County commissioners in January, but the city’s statute will fine residents who willingly feed pigeons and wild turkeys. 

The ordinance was approved Monday by a 5-1 vote, with the lone dissention coming from Councilman Allen Olsen.

“It is very similar to the county ordinance that requires rabies vaccinations for registration, and it more clearly defines ‘vicious,’” said Kathi Hooper, Lincoln County’s Environmental Health director, whose department oversees the Animal Control Department. 

Formerly, dogs must have had to bite someone to be declared vicious, which is different now, Hooper said.

“It used to be if it bites, it could have been declared vicious,” Hooper said. “Now, if it attempts to bite a person or another (pet) it can be called vicious.”

Hooper recalled an incident as the county was drafting its ordinance six months ago when a dog that was not known bite, attacked and killed a neighbor’s cat. That incident actually helped the county define a vicious animal.

Hooper also said having city ordinance that resembles the county law aids enforcement.

“It will make things easier for Sarah,” Hooper said of Sarah Pisciotta, the county’s animal control officer who is summoned in and out of city limits.

Libby City Councilwoman Peggy Williams, who chairs the Ordinance Committee, said she and committee members Bill Bischoff and Barb Desch made several changes to the 1990 ordinance. In reviewing the ordinance, it was amended in 2002, but that revision simply increased the registration fee for dogs from $4 to $5, which is what it is today.

During a public hearing on a proposed ordinance two weeks ago, city residents offered concerns that cats were not included.

“I can tell you we did make revisions to include cats,” Williams said of the final ordinance. “The new ordinance changed the definition of at-large, meaning an unleashed pet.” 

As for the redrafted ordinance, there are those who think it goes too far and others who think it doesn’t go far enough, Councilman Allen Olsen for one. Olsen objects to restriction of feeding pigeons or turkeys.

“The bottom line is I don’t want to fine senior citizens out of their Social Security money,” Olsen said. “I know of an 82-year-old man who all he has is feeding turkeys. He goes and buys day-old bread and feeds them.”

Asked about the mess that turkeys make and that infringement on neighbors, Olsen said in most cases that can be resolved.

“I would first tell people to talk things over,” Olsen said. “Rather than go out and just fine someone. Give them a chance to talk things out. This is Montana, afterall. We live in the Rocky Mountain wilderness.”

While Olsen said the ordinance is too restrictive, there are those who say parts of it are too vague.

“I don’t believe it’s eliminating any problems,” said D.C. Orr, who attended the City Council meeting. “I just want to know what the proper function is of this legislation. It says dog owners cannot let their pets bark to excess. What is excess? They didn’t define it. This is just like the noise ordinance. All this is is feel-good legislation. At the end of it all, they just want to feel good about this.”

Orr also called the limiting of pit-bull terriers in the city limits as discriminatory.

“You really can’t discriminate against a breed,” Orr said. “It’s like discriminating against African Americans, or saying D.C. Orr is ugly and because of that we don’t want him here. I have to wonder about the legality of it.”

Orr recalled a situation of a family in 2002 that owned pit-bulls, who ultimately challenged the ordinance saying their dog was a poodle.

“It can get expensive for the city to prove otherwise,” Orr said. 

Olsen said the ordinance that calls for fines of up to $300 for a first offense of feeding wildlife and up to $500 for subsequent fines is exorbitant.

“That’s just too much,” Olsen said. “Make them talk to their neighbors or give them the options to clean the mess.”

The 12-chapter ordinance also restricts to four the number of dogs a family can have at a residence. However, the ordinance grandfathers those pet owners who currently have more, although Williams is quick to point out once the number diminishes, that’s the new limit. 

Responding to the fines, Williams said the dollar amounts are the most that can be charged.

“The ordinance states ‘up to $500’ and ‘up to $300.’ It’s not saying that’s what the fines will be,” Williams said.