Share This Article
The Mountain Home City Council conducted the first reading of a comprehensive new animal control ordinance Thursday that would replace the city’s pit bull ban with broader “vicious dog” regulations.
During their February 20 meeting, council members decided to put the ordinance on first reading only, allowing time for public feedback before final consideration next month.
“I think that’s been mostly the consensus of the council, even in committee. We’ve talked about this before about there not being a need to just hammer this through,” said Councilman Bob Van Haaren.
The proposed ordinance would update several animal regulations, most notably changing how dangerous dogs are identified.
From Breed-Specific to Behavior-Based
Mountain Home City Clerk Scott Liles, who presented the ordinance alongside Mountain Home Animal Control Officer James Tilley, explained that the current law from 1996 bans pit bull terriers outright, but this approach has proven difficult to enforce.
“It’s hard to have that held up in the courts,” Liles said. “We’re going to replace that with a vicious dog prohibition.”
City Attorney Roger Morgan elaborated on the enforcement challenges.
“To be able to prove its a pit bull, you almost have to have genetic testing, and I think it’s expensive, and it’s a question whether taxpayer money ought to be spent on genetic testing on a dog that’s a pit bull,” Morgan said. “I think the viciousness addresses it better, makes it easier for us to address the problem.”
Under the proposed ordinance, the animal control officer would determine if a dog is vicious based on behavior, not breed. Owners would receive a citation and appear in court to defend their animal.
Mayor Hillrey Adams highlighted problems with the current breed-specific approach, citing a recent incident at the dog park.
“We had an issue come up a couple years ago, I believe it was at the dog park out there with a group that went out in the afternoon. And it wasn’t a pit bull—it was some sort of Alaskan wolf, or yeah, some type thing, and we were going to have to get that animal checked to ban that lady from being in that park,” Adams said.
Councilman Van Haaren interjected that focusing on behavior was better since even golden retrievers can become aggressive in certain instances.
“There we go,” Adams agreed. “So actually, I like the vicious part a lot better. That’s a lot easier for James and Roger to defend there than is that breed stuff.”
Pet Licensing Changes
The ordinance also makes significant changes to the city’s pet licensing system. The current system, established in the early 1980s, requires annual renewal with fees of $5 for neutered animals and $10 for intact animals.
The proposed change would create a one-time $5 flat fee per animal that would remain valid for as long as the owner has the pet.
“After a lot of talk about this, especially in public safety the other day, we’ve decided we’re still doing the pet licenses. They’re just going to be a flat five dollar fee,” said Liles. “Whether you’re neutered, whether you’re intact, whether you’re chipped, whether you’re unchipped, if it’s an animal, it’ll be five dollars.”
Councilman Nick Reed expressed reservations about the licensing requirement.
“I actually have had quite a few calls and emails on this. I’m not wild about the licensing or everything else. I really like the way it was working out,” Reed said. “To be honest with you, I don’t want to license my pets, and so I don’t want to make people do something that I don’t want to do myself.”
Mayor Adams reminded the council that the licensing requirement has existed “since the 80s,” though Reed replied, “I know, but I didn’t put it in in the 80s.”
Mountain Home Police Chief Eddie Griffin clarified the practical benefits of licensing.
“It’s just about ability to track the dog. You know, even as state law that you have to have your dog rabies vaccinated, but you can’t believe how many people have that or ladies vaccinations tag on there because it is, in all likelihood, James can track it down that way,” he said.
Councilwoman Jennifer Baker noted this change should be clearly communicated to residents.
“I know I’ve had some inquiries about it and the confusion about the licensing. And I know, even in committee, that’s gone back and forth, and so now it’s a one-time permanent license as long as you own that one animal,” Baker said. “I really think, you know, we need some clarification, and publicity about what this entails now.”
One resident at the meeting, Mary O’Shields, remarked she was unaware of the existing licensing requirement.
“I have two dogs, and they’re not licensed. I don’t know, I’ll probably get a fine, but I never knew that there was a licensing fee,” she said. “I mean, I’m certainly willing to pay it, but didn’t know that it existed.”
Cat Problem Addressed
Mayor Adams highlighted the need for the ordinance to address feral cat issues in the city.
“We have a huge problem here in town with people feeding cats on public property. And we’re not talking about, you know, Jennifer having a cat at our house and feeding that. We’re talking about going behind shopping centers, in front of public buildings in town, doing that,” Adams said. “We have to somehow have a way to deal with that issue. And right now, we can’t, or we’re not very successful with it.”
The new ordinance specifically prohibits feeding animals on another person’s property without permission.
Fowl Regulations
The fowl regulations were particularly debated during development. While the original draft proposed a 12-fowl limit, feedback from residents prompted a change.
“We’ve changed that now. It’s a reasonable number of fowl permitted,” Tilley explained. “We started out with a cap of 12. People weren’t happy with that. Some thought it should go up, some thought it should go down. I’ve had some tell me quail are smaller, and they’re better well-behaved than chickens. They shouldn’t count the same.”
Councilman Van Haaren mentioned that fowl ownership has become more popular given current economic conditions.
“There’s several people—did I say several? Honestly, there were three—that were concerned about the limiting of the numbers because they provided eggs, not only for their family but for other folks in their neighborhood,” he said. “And especially with the price of eggs, the way they are right now, I mean, you’ve got a gold mine if you’ve got a chicken coop in the back of your house.”
The ordinance now allows a “reasonable number” of fowl based on housing and confinement capacity, to be determined by the animal control officer. It also prohibits housing fowl in front yards.
Public Feedback Encouraged
Council members unanimously voted to place the ordinance on first reading only, emphasizing the importance of public review before final passage.
“I would recommend we put this on first reading and not proceed to have it voted all the way through until we have a chance for the public to read this and get input,” Baker said.
The council agreed to post the full ordinance on the city website and make it available through the city clerk’s office.
“For the stream, you can contact the clerk’s office and they’ll email you a copy of it,” Van Haaren noted. “If you have any questions, it’ll be on the second reading at the next council.”
