Hundreds sway county decision on livestock rules

By Dan MacArthur
North Forty News

Voting unanimously to reject proposed livestock limits, Larimer County commissioners brought to a close eight years of debate, which has provoked more controversy than any issue in recent memory.

The intensity of that emotion was apparent from the more than 300 people from all corners of the county, spilling into the hallway after packing the hearing room to standing-room capacity. Scores strode to the lectern, all--save for one brave soul--to protest the proposed rules.

The regulations most notably would have halved the number of horses that can be kept under current regulations. The proposal would have established stocking rates based on animal unit equivalents that calculate the impact of different types of livestock on the land. It also would have required a confinement area such as corrals to prevent horses from overgrazing, which creates problems with dust blowing from barren ground.

Cheers arose frequently along with a sea of arms showing support for speakers challenging the rules as an unenforceable and an unnecessary attack on property rights that would destroy land values and the county's considerable agricultural economy.

"There already are regulations in place to take care of all these issues," said attorney Heather Zadina, who had submitted a 12-page challenge to the proposal. "Why do we need more regulations?"

"I think we should leave the stocking rate alone. It does not address the problem," said veterinarian Racquel Rodeheaver. "I do not believe in over-regulation; I believe in education."

"If something like this gets started, it will go all over the state," contended Norm Brown of Wellington, a member of the Colorado Horse Development Authority and past president of the Colorado Horse Council.

Wellington real estate broker Lou Kinzli shared the disdain universally expressed by several others in his profession and boards of Realtors. "This law will discriminate against the small property owners," increasing the exodus of the county's agricultural community, he said.

The arguments, along with reams of written comments and countless phone calls, proved persuasive with the concurring commissioners.

Chairman Glenn Gibson criticized the proposal as an unneeded effort to fix a few problems better resolved through land management rather than regulation.

"That's interfering with my pursuit of happiness," he said. "I feel we have laws already there."

Commissioner Kathay Rennels contended that the proposal could conflict with rural development, although she said, "The biggest issue I'm concerned about is that this is really going to harm the 4-H kids."

Rennels later said the county may still want to deal with the confinement issue, although she said almost all livestock owners already are responsibly managing their properties to prevent overgrazing. She said it also may be advisable to reassess the animal stocking standards and perhaps in some instances even increase them.

But Rennels said any further efforts should occur after completion of the rural economic development pilot program now under way. That 18-month effort, she said, is aimed at examining land-use issues and the county's relationship with cities.

"I think we need to comprehensively look at it," said Rennels "I don't think we had the information tonight to set those numbers. It's not going to go anywhere until we get some rural economic recommendations."

Commissioner Karen Wagner said it was important to preserve the rural areas to serve as a buffer around the cities. "I think that's probably a good thing," she said.

Yet, Wagner also said, some of the issues such as dust, noise and odor raised in the proposed regulations may need to be addressed. "The whole land-use code is about quality of life," she said. "It needs to be good for you, but it also has to be good for neighbors."

The proposed regulations would have updated those contained in the county land-use code since 1963. Current regulations, however, do not address today's more diverse range of livestock such as alpacas, goats, llamas and emu.

County commissioners in office eight years ago also dumped an updated livestock code in the face of fierce public opposition. The commissioners then appointed an animal task force in an effort to develop accord on needed changes in the livestock regulations. After extensive outreach, the group recommended increasing land-management education rather than regulation.

But consensus proved elusive when five years following submission of the task force's recommendation, commissioners asked the county agricultural advisory board to develop more concrete standards.

In a process directed by the elected county commissioners, they and the volunteer planning commissioners arrived at a draft livestock code to present at public hearings. The planning commission's 4-3 vote in February included several amendments, but still recommended adoption of an updated livestock code.