Editorial:

One resident’s nuisance is another’s treasured pet

Posted 4/7/26

The ongoing discussions on whether to allow more dogs in Powell city limits, and the broader conversation which started with a pygmy goat, as to what regulations there should be on animals in town, …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
Editorial:

One resident’s nuisance is another’s treasured pet

Posted

The ongoing discussions on whether to allow more dogs in Powell city limits, and the broader conversation which started with a pygmy goat, as to what regulations there should be on animals in town, is an interesting one for a rural resident to consider. 

Having considered seriously a couple years ago about trading our home near Ralston on 4 acres for one in the city, the idea of animal regulations played a part in us staying in the country (or at least a rural subdivision). While we only have one dog — under Powell’s current two dog limit — we have always had well over four chickens (the in-town limit). 

We have our own HOA limits on animals, but they’re much more lenient, as expected in the country. (We could have up to six cows or horses, for instance, if we didn’t have other animals.)

Now, with all that being said, our HOA does restrict certain types of animals deemed more disruptive, such as roosters and billy goats. This is an acknowledgment of nuisance animals and connects with some of the discussions in the city, as to whether an appropriate limit should be based on the number of animals, or whether it should hinge on the potential nuisance, as is done in Cody. (As an aside, this is Powell Councilor Troy Bray’s proposed solution to simply rely on nuisance rules.)  

Beyond a question of numbers, it seems the question of how animals should be regulated is the bigger decision. 

I see good points and pitfalls with each. 

Numbers are obviously very quantifiable — if you can only have two pets and you have three, you’re in violation. 

Nuisance is simple in theory — the dog that barks all day is clearly a nuisance, even if it’s just one dog — but it can be more complicated. For instance, is it enough of a nuisance to complain if the poop from two dogs is left in the baking sun for a couple days? How about a week? Or is it not as bad if it’s four small dogs and just one day? Or a week in the winter? 

And what’s worse, one dog barking for 10 minutes, or four dogs barking for five minutes? 

On the other hand, basing this purely on the number of dogs doesn’t allow for so many types of dogs. If you have three dogs but they’re inside dogs and only out for minutes at a time, they can’t be that much of a nuisance. 

Essentially, what people want are pet owners who are diligent in cleaning up after their animals, who don’t allow dogs to bark outside incessantly, and generally are concerned about being good neighbors. 

Most pet owners in Powell seem to already be doing that, but as always, policies are often made due to the exceptions. 

The Powell Planning and Zoning Commission is studying the matter armed with comments from a number of residents. If you’re interested in how this ends, get involved and keep reading. 

Comments

1 comment on this story    Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Casey_Lycosa

The policy should fully be about people having to train their animals. If a singular dog is outside barking all day, getting loose and running around a neighborhood, etc, that person should not be allowed to have that dog or find a solution. If a family has four dogs, but they're all trained and behave well, the family should be able to keep their pets.

Perhaps cats should be kept indoors or in a catio, given how loud catfights can get and the number of birds and other small animals they typically kill.

Tuesday, April 7