Stock regs move to next arena

By JoAn Bjarko
North Forty News

Controversial rules on how much livestock people can keep on their rural properties are scheduled for a March 27 hearing before the Larimer County Commissioners.

The volunteer county planning commission on Feb. 15 recommended adoption of the rules in a 4-3 vote. After two long public hearings, planning commissioners diverged on whether the proposals should be studied further or whether it was time for the three elected county commissioners to make their decision.

"Let's send it to the commissioners and say it's as far as we can go with it, now you work on it," said planning commission chairman Jeff Boulter.

On the other side, planning commissioner Roger Morgan said, "We may need to take time to see what we're doing with rural economic development. I'm reluctant at this point to impose these regulations."

Most of the 50 citizens attending left in dismay but ready to make their arguments at the next level. The next hearing will start at 6:30 p.m. in the courthouse offices building in Fort Collins.

Since 1963, the county land use code has regulated numbers of horses and cows, but it says nothing about the many types of livestock people have today--emu, alpacas, llamas, miniature horses and others.

An attempt to update the livestock section of the code seven years ago drew hordes of angry citizens, causing the county commissioners to dump the idea after the first hearing. Since then, the county adopted regulations for small animals in 2004 with little comment, but livestock, especially horses, are generating more interest.

In 1999, the county commissioners appointed an animal task force to find a way to balance the interests of county residents. Most livestock owners insist they are good land stewards who care for their animals. Landowners who live next to dust bowls created by overgrazing, however, contend livestock regulations could prevent, or at least slow down, the damage.

The animal task force traveled around the county conducting 23 public meetings before it made its recommendations. It concluded that the county should emphasize education on land management over regulation by the numbers. Regulations, the task force concluded, should be directed toward impacts such as noise, dust and water quality, not toward livestock alone.

Changing the code

It is customary for county commissioners and various advisory boards to hold multiple work sessions on complicated issues before citizens see a proposal in writing. It took five years from the time the animal task force made its recommendations to the time the agricultural advisory board, another volunteer group, put its thoughts in writing. The two groups came to opposite conclusions.

"The ag advisory board felt there was no way to regulate management," explained Ernie Marx, staff liaison to the board.

Regulating by management is reactive, Marx added. "It's very hard to restore properties," he said. "They wanted something more preventative."

The ag board concluded that horses should be limited to one horse per acre. (The current regulation allows two horses per acre.) It also said an area of confinement, such as a corral, should be required for horses to reduce overgrazing. In addition, it supported a policy that lets existing properties with two horses per acre retain that stocking rate.

The proposed livestock regulations include all those recommendations.

Stocking rates for other livestock are based on the concept of animal unit equivalents. The proposal adopted by the planning commission in February includes the following numbers: cattle, bison, mules and horses-1 animal unit per acre; miniature horses-4; sheep and llamas- 5; alpacas and goats-8; emu-10; turkeys-25; chickens and rabbits-50.

Public response

Comments from livestock owners ranged from opposition to any numbers, to requests for no changes, to agreement that something has to be done about overgrazing, noise and smells, especially where people own small acreages.

Alpaca breeder Brian Robertson, a County Road 56 resident, thanked the commissioners for increasing the alpaca number from five to eight per acre, but said he would rather have 12 to 15. Weld County allows 13 per acre, he noted.

Ridgewood Meadows resident Chuck Bell said the proposed rules do not account for irrigated pastures. "Our carrying capacity is much greater because we get irrigation water throughout the growing season," Bell said. "We can easily carry two large animals per acre with proper management."

He added that people who don't care for their animals and land are a minority, but the county is prepared to unjustly penalize the rest. "This is not fair, and it's the kind of rule that makes people distrust and detest government," Bell said. "Let's just stick with the rules we have now."

Several noted that horses need companions, so the limit of one per acre is unreasonable. Others encouraged the county to make exceptions for horses that are kept in stalls and not on pasture.

"If horses are in a confined area, the rate should go up," said Bonnie Templeton of Loveland.

Livestock owners were also concerned that county regulations will override homeowner covenants. "Will covenants be honored where they allow more animals?" asked Sky Weitzel, an Ideal Drive resident.

LaPorte resident Ron Lindroth noted that many people make their livelihoods from large animals. Reducing stocking rates will cut business for large-animal veterinarians, for example, he said.

"The horse industry in this county generates a lot of money," noted Timothy Bratten of Wellington. "The fact that this is easy to enforce does not make it right."

Horse owner and agronomist Kathleen Kilkelly of north Fort Collins said she appreciates the effort the county has put into the issue. "I wish I could say owning horses made you intuitively a good steward of the land," she said.

Getting more

Planning commissioners noted that new regulations will have no effect on people following the current code. They can keep the same number of animals and future owners of that property can also have that number.

People with growing livestock businesses can ask the county to approve more animals, but that review process currently costs $600. Boulter noted that the elected commissioners are "aware there may be some unfairness with fee levels."