Livestock rules spur controversy

By JoAn Bjarko
North Forty News

Dozens of people raising livestock on small acreages have recommended a litany of changes to proposed land-use regulations that would govern the number of animals they can keep.

As a result, the Larimer County Planning Commission continued a January public hearing to Feb. 15 at 6:30 p.m. In the meantime, the planning staff will revise some of the proposals. A new draft will be posted on the county web site at www.larimer.org by Feb. 2, or those interested may call the planning department at 498-7683.

Most people commenting at the Jan. 19 hearing were concerned that they could not expand their small livestock businesses if the land-use code is changed.

"They're messing with our livelihoods," said horse breeder Gale Garringer after the meeting. "We don't need the county to dictate these things. They are just more rules they can't enforce."

Garringer and his wife, Deborah, own G Bar D Ranch in the Livermore area and generally have around 25 horses. He contended that teaching proper horse care is more important than regulations. "In our society, the only time things change is with education," he said.

Larimer County has regulated some livestock issues since 1963 when it adopted zoning laws, according to Al Kadera, principal planner for the county. Enforcement, however, generally occurs only when someone files a complaint.

Seven years ago, efforts to change the county's animal regulations drew hordes of angry citizens to the courthouse, causing the county commissioners to dump the new proposals. All of the old rules remained in effect until county commissioners adopted new codes for small animals in 2004. The revised rules for livestock are getting their first public airing this year. New regulations, however, will not affect any existing legal use involving horses or other livestock, Kadera said.

County residents raising horses, goats, emu, alpacas and miniature horses took turns questioning the need for regulations and arguing the details. Most of the dissent focused on a chart of numbers laying out the number of animals a person can keep based on available acreage.

Overall, the proposed regulations are less stringent, Kadera said, with the exception of keeping horses on individual lots. Current regulations on residential properties allow one horse per half-acre. The proposed regulation allows one horse per available acre.

The phrase "available to the animal" means that portions of the property with a house, garage or driveway are not counted toward the available acreage. Consequently, future horse owners will need more land than is now required to keep horses.

The problem, the owner of a 1-acre parcel lamented, is that he paid a premium price for a horse property, which won't be a horse property if the new rules are adopted. "Do I run out and get a horse right away?" he asked.

If he did, he could keep the horse if the rules change, and a subsequent buyer could continue to have a horse on the property.

Representing 12 miniature horse owners and breeders, Harry Elder said four miniature horses would be equivalent to a standard horse, but the chart allows two miniature horses per animal unit. He also advised planners that miniature horses should not be classified with ponies.

Amanda McGuiness, who is majoring in animal science at Colorado State University, said the number of goats allowed per animal unit should be increased from five to 10. The proposed regulations, she said, will prohibit her from starting her own goat operation.

"I feel like these regulations are setting a lot of businesses up for failure," added Jeremy Johnson of Fort Collins.

"If the goal is to make sure pastures recover and pastures are kept healthy, it's education," said Bonnie Templeton of Loveland. "It's not the numbers; it's your management."

In response, the planning staff noted that stocking rates could be exceeded if the livestock owner gets approval through a county review process. Application costs depend on the number of animals involved. The fee for a minor special review is $600 and the fee for a special review starts at $1,500.

The review process gives neighbors a chance to voice concerns about a livestock operation. "In special review you can demonstrate your stewardship," planning commission chairman Jeff Boulter told the livestock owners.

Others questioned how the new rules would affect properties in subdivisions with livestock covenants. Planning director Larry Timm said later the new regulations would override existing subdivision covenants that are more lax, but if a homeowners' association has stricter standards for livestock, the HOA will have to enforce them.

"We don't enforce covenants," Timm said.