The full text of the repealed county law, titled “Fence Ordinance 1984-7,” is available at http://www.wytheco.org/docs by clicking on a link to the document.
The county will now operate under Code of Virginia state fencing laws which can be found at http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm by searching the term “fence.”
By NATE HUBBARD/Staff
Out is in.
And in is out.
Got it?
The Wythe County Board of Supervisors repealed a 24-year-old local fencing law Tuesday night by a 6-1 vote, changing the county from a “fence in” locality to a “fence out” district in returning to default state law.
With the change, livestock owners in the county are no longer automatically liable when animals escape from their property.
In the event of a random incident causing an animal to get loose, one without negligence on the part of the farmer, legal recourse against the livestock owner can now only be taken if the animal broke through another “lawful fence” surrounding the neighboring land – in essence requiring people to “fence out” animals from their property.
Supervisor Danny McDaniel, who cast the lone dissenting vote against repealing the ordinance, said he struggled to make a decision on the complicated subject.
McDaniel is the only one of the seven supervisors who doesn’t currently farm or have recent farming experience.
Before voting, McDaniel took Wythe County Attorney Scot Farthing through a number of “what if” scenarios under both types of fencing laws.
“I can see a lot of both sides of the issue,” he said. “I’ve tried to look at it objectively.”
In his final analysis, though, McDaniel said he supported reducing penalties against livestock owners under the county ordinance but not getting rid of the law in its entirety.
“It’s my cows – I think I should fence them in,” McDaniel said, speaking as a hypothetical livestock owner. “What’s mine is mine. I should take care of what’s mine.”
The rest of the supervisors, however, saw abolishing the county ordinance as a way to simplify law enforcement and reduce what they considered unreasonable burdens on farmers.
“We don’t need two ordinances,” Supervisor Charles Dix said, indicating that he felt the local law was unnecessary when the state law could be used instead.
“I don’t know why the law was ever changed,” Supervisor Eddie Hagee added, referring to the initial passage of the local ordinance back in 1984. “If it’s a state law, we shouldn’t have our own private law…that’s just my own personal opinion.”
After the supervisors approved the repeal, Eric Crowgey, who spoke on behalf of the Wythe County Farm Bureau and the Wythe County Agricultural Association at prior meetings to support the abolishment of county’s law, started a round of applause that was quickly picked up by the approximately 20 other farmers who attended Tuesday night’s meeting.
A decision on the ordinance had been delayed after a public hearing on the issue in late May when representatives from the area’s Joint Industrial Development Authority asked for more time to form an opinion about the subject.
But Board of Supervisors Chairman Bucky Sharitz said Tuesday night that the Joint IDA had decided to decline the opportunity to present a formal position on the issue to the governing body.
During citizen’s time at the start of the meeting, two people spoke about the fencing issue.
Oral Jones said he lives on approximately five acres next to a livestock owner. He expressed his opinion that since he doesn’t own cattle, he shouldn’t have to be responsible for fencing.
“I don’t see much reason why I should pay for a big fence I don’t need,” he said.
But Farthing told the supervisors that the issue Jones brought up – paying for repairs on an already existing fence – is covered by a different section of the state code that would remain law in the county regardless of the county’s fence in or out status.
Farthing said the key aspect of the local law regarded liability when livestock escape.
Libby Hoback also spoke Tuesday night, giving an example of a cow escaping from her farm despite having ample fencing around her property.
“There’s certain things that happen that you have no control over whatsoever,” Hoback said as she urged the supervisors to repeal the county ordinance.
Harold Hart, who has about 1,200 cattle on his Max Meadows farm, said by phone Wednesday morning that he doesn’t expect the repeal of the fence in law to mean that livestock owners will want – or be legally allowed – to let their animals run wild.
“If you’re going to keep cattle, you’ve got to keep fence anyway,” he said.
Hart also emphasized that the repeal of the local law doesn’t take all of the liability off farmers; instead it simply recognizes that animals can sometimes slip through even generally well-maintained fences that were not carelessly neglected by a farmer.
He also said he thinks it’s reasonable that, for example, developers who build a subdivision on land near an already existing farm should help pay for the cost of a fence that would then become crucial in keeping livestock away from suddenly much closer non-farm property.
“They had all the burden on the farmer before and all the liability on the farmer,” Hart said. “[The repeal] gives a little bit of relief to the farmer in case your cattle gets out.”
Regardless of the county’s fencing status, Dix said, and was echoed by Sharitz, that adjoining property owners should be respectful of each other.
“Good fences make good neighbors,” Dix said.
Nate Hubbard can be reached at 228-6611 or
.
Where did you come up with this? This is going to cause a lot of problems with people that don’t have cattle or any type of livestock. I sure don’t want someone’s cattle on my property and tearing everything up when it is their responsibility to keep their cattle fenced in. They own the cattle, they are responsible for them. No the neighbors that have property that don’t have any cattle.
Sphere IT
Save This Page
Reader Reaction