Grayson County Fiscal Court on Thursday heard and voted on the second and final reading of an ordinance related to “uncontrolled danger and/or nuisance” caused by dogs on “private property of another.”
The ordinance was considered by magistrates after complaints were received from a citizen concerning dogs on his property disrupting his hunting endeavors, according to County Attorney Jeremy Logsdon, as well as other complaints about loose dogs impinging upon private property.
Since the first reading of the ordinance on November 17, an exception to Section 2 of the ordinance was added by County Attorney Jeremy Logsdon after concerns were raised by hunters.
The ordinance, in part, reads as follows:
WHEREAS, The Fiscal Court of Grayson County is (considering) this Ordinance to address the issue of an uncontrolled danger and/or nuisance to persons trying to enjoy the use of their own property.
Section 2 – Trespassing Dogs
No owner of a dog shall fail to exercise proper care and control of his or her dog in such a manner which thereby allows the dog to enter onto a prohibited (read: private) property.
It is a violation of this Ordinance, for an owner of a dog to fail to exercise proper care and control of his or her dog thus allowing said dog to enter onto a prohibited property.
Section 3 – Exceptions for Hounds and Hunting Dogs
A hound or hunting dog may be unrestrained when engaged in lawful hunting activities while on private or public property designated or authorized for that purpose. An exception to Section 2 of this ordinance shall be afforded to a citizen when one or more hounds or hunting dogs are utilized by the citizen while on a properly licensed, legal hunt in the event that said dog[s] temporarily wander onto the private property of another. This exception will only be provided upon proper proof of the date/time of the hunt and a review by the County Attorney of the proper license[s], current hunting season, chart and any other information necessary from Kentucky Fish and Wildlife.
Section 4 — Penalty
Any person in violation of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined no less than $100 nor more than $250 for each dog and each violation and any restitution to be paid in the amount of the reasonable costs associated with sheltering and caring for the animal if seized by Animal Control and stored, cared for, etc. by Animal Control or any shelter, and any restitution for any damage done to victim’s property.
Section 5 – Civil Liability
No penalties addressed by the enforcement of this ordinance shall prevent a victim or an aggrieved party from seeking address under any civil cause of actions.
Magistrates in attendance unanimously voted to approve the ordinance (Magistrate Damon Hornback was attending his son’s college graduation).
By Ken Howlett, News Director
Contact Ken at ken@k105.com
