Are you in or out?

Fencing facts
Want more information about Virginia fencing laws? Augusta County, which operates under a “fence in” statute, has a detailed look on its Web site at the laws and history surrounding the “fence in” and “fence out” debate. The direct link to the information is: http://www.co.augusta.va.us/Index.aspx?page=170

By NATE HUBBARD/Staff

Members of the Wythe County Board of Supervisors remained on the fence Tuesday morning regarding a request to repeal a county ordinance that opponents of the law argue places unfair absolute liability on farmers when livestock stray from their owner’s property.
After a lengthy public hearing, Board of Supervisors Chairman Bucky Sharitz accepted a request from leaders of the county’s Joint Industrial Development Authority for more time to study the potential economic impact to the county if the supervisors were to abolish the 24-year-old law.
Joe Freeman, chairman of the Joint IDA, said the group discussed the issue at its meeting Thursday night and felt overwhelmed by the complexities surrounding the subject.
“Our conclusion was we don’t know enough to have an opinion one way or another,” Freeman said.
Eric Crowgey, who spoke Tuesday morning representing the Wythe County Farm Bureau and the Wythe County Agricultural Association, said he had no comment after the public hearing regarding the governing body’s decision to delay taking action on the issue.
In basic terms, the county is debating whether to follow default state law and return to being a “fence out” locality or to maintain its current status as a “fence in” county per its state-permitted local ordinance.
Nothing about the debate, however, stayed simple Tuesday morning.
Eric Whitesell, who was introduced Tuesday as the vice-president of the Tazewell County Farm Bureau, cited a myriad of Code of Virginia statues, 17th-century House of Burgesses laws and Virginia Supreme Court decisions as he made his points during his presentation calling for the repeal of the ordinance.
Whitesell argued that the county’s fence in law is unfair to local farmers as it makes them both criminally and civilly liable should their livestock wander off their property – even if there was no negligence on the farmer’s part in maintaining his fence.
“There is no excuse that can be offered for an animal escaping,” Whitesell said about the current local law.
But he added that there are plenty of valid reasons why a fence may be temporarily damaged, from a car hitting it to a late-night storm that blows over a tree and breaks the barrier.
“There are many things that could cause livestock to escape without any criminal intent,” Whitesell said, adding that repealing the county’s law would “level the playing field” for farmers and non-farmers.
Under the state fence out law, livestock owners would only be liable for damage caused by their animals if they showed negligence in maintaining their fences and if the animals broke through a “lawful fence” surrounding another property.
Whitesell said businesses aren’t likely to be deterred from coming to the area by the need to build fences around their property as most already do so – to keep out people.
“What new industry has ever stopped to think about the fencing law before they moved here?” Crowgey added during his own presentation. “I would dare say none.”
Most of the supervisors appeared to be content with repealing the county’s law, but East Wytheville District Representative Danny McDaniel had a number of questions for Whitesell, Crowgey and the large group of farmers that attended Tuesday’s hearing.
The group was silent when McDaniel asked if anyone in the audience had been personally impacted or knew of someone else that had been charged under the county’s current law.
After the meeting, though, Crowgey said that the threat of the stringent liability is enough that the law needs to be repealed.
When asked why the local farmers were only now seeking to have the law repealed when it has been on the books for 24 years, Crowgey said it was a combination of feeling like animal control officers weren’t enforcing parts of the state law still applicable even with the county’s ordinance in place – which require adjoining landowners to share the upkeep costs of an existing fence –  and fully realizing the potentially burdensome implications of the local law after a presentation by Whitesell to the county’s Farm Bureau this winter.
During the meeting, nobody in the room was able to answer why the county’s fence in law had been passed in the first place back in 1984.
Although the governing body will not hold another public hearing on the issue, Sharitz said that notice will be sent to all those attending Tuesday’s meeting if the county’s Joint IDA seeks to make a presentation of its own to the supervisors.
A final decision by the governing body on the possible repeal of the law is expected to be made next month after the industrial authority is given time to develop its position on the issue.
Nate Hubbard can be reached at 228-6611 or .