The Town of Nederland has recently contracted with Boulder County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) for Animal Control. With the Board of Trustees (BOT) to soon vote on amendments to the Town’s Animal Ordinance, the discussion of off-leash “at-large” dogs running loose throughout Nederland’s neighborhoods has arisen amongst the community. A look into roughly 47 years of history shows that the debate surrounding dogs roaming free, and the Town’s “need” for more animal regulation and control, has always existed.

Then

It’s January, 1982 in Nederland, Colorado, and barely two weeks into the new year. Nederland Marshal Hugh Pitzer was deep into an investigation of embezzlement by then-Town Treasurer, Charles K. Walloschek. Locals were increasingly complaining about people parking in “all-directions” on First Street, and he was dealing with a lot of dogs. The good, the bad, the biting, and on the loose.

By the end of that month, Pitzer had reported to town officials six dogs had been impounded with another in quarantine for biting a child and all within the first 20 days of the new year.

The biting incident involved 10-year-old Wendy Holland. She had been playing on the playground at Nederland Elementary School. An unleashed dog approached the children during recess and she was bitten.

Before we jump too far ahead, let’s go back to 1977 and the very first publication of The Mountain-Ear newspaper. In this inaugural issue, published on October 25, there is a small blurb on the back page announcing the hiring of a new animal control officer.

In the second issue, a letter to the editor is printed in support of the new officer. The letter, submitted by resident Buff Rund, also included his sharing of a very sad and unfortunate incident involving his dogs being caught in the crossfire during the opening of deer season.

By the third issue, two responses to the first letter were printed, and thus began the decades-long documentation of residents and Town-appointed officials going back and forth on how to best handle animal control with limited resources, limited personnel, and more often than not, on a shoestring budget.

In one of the letters printed in that third issue, titled “Hunter and dog lover,” by resident Pam Worden, she argues for the side of personal responsibility. She began with, “I feel compelled to reply, not only in defense of the hunters, but also for all dog lovers.”

She wrote, “The owners of these loose dogs are at fault for not observing the law. There is a leash or verbal command law in Nederland proper, and a leash-only law for all federal lands, forestry property, and hunting areas. I give three cheers to the hunter that shoots and kills loose dogs. They are a threat to our community as are their irresponsible owners!”

The animal control officer hired that October only lasted three months. By January of 1978, the new officer, Michal Noha, was installed. During the first two months in the position, he had impounded a dog or cat almost every day.

This is also the first year the “tag” law was enacted in Nederland. The increase in enforcement of this law and others related to animal control did cause some rifts between residents. Over a year after the announcement of the new officer and the hiring of his replacement, one resident wrote in about the still ongoing threats involving unleashed dogs in Nederland

She said, ““The dog problem is a major problem, not just a minor annoyance. My son can’t walk to school anymore. Kids are even attacked by dogs in the school yard. In a three-hour period recently they counted 37 dogs roaming the streets of Nederland. The marshal and deputy are now taking warning shots at dogs that are seen attacking other animals or people.”

Although the reasons are not officially included every time a new officer is hired, over the next two years the position was filled and then vacated continuously. So much so that during the mayoral election in the spring of 1980, Nederland mayoral candidate Nick Moauro, ran on a platform that included three major issues facing residents at the time: hazardous roads that were impossible to traverse, an unfinished long-awaited new water system, and animal control.

In his announcement for candidacy he wrote, “I promise in my first year I will bring our marshal office up to full staff and give that office my full support. Under that office I would establish an animal control system that will work.”

The incumbent mayor, John Workman, was elected to a second term, defeating Moauro. If the next few years of letters and headlines are any indication of how things went from there, not much was improved.

A letter addressed directly to the Mayor and Trustees that year read, “I returned to Nederland, informed the Marshal, and signed a complaint addressed to the Mayor and the Town Board. For the last three years dog control in Nederland has been very inefficient. Either the easy dogs have been caught or a professional dog control officer has not been retained.” The letter was signed, “your angry ex-citizen, Clayton G. Brown.”

Brown had recently lost a horse to a pack of loose dogs. The incident was so disruptive and disturbing that in his letter he threatened a lawsuit against the Town for negligence and accused the current Mayor and Town council of being the root cause behind the animal control debacle.

He wrote, “It is the responsibility of the dog owner to restrain his dog, but it is your responsibility to make sure that the dogs of irresponsible owners do not deprive others of their property. What will you do when a child is killed by dogs?”

While researching this article and poring through The Mountain-Ear archives, a simple search of the exact phrase “animal control” resulted in more than 150 articles, reports, letters, and editorials on the topic, all before the year 2009.

In 1986, a deputy was bitten while protecting children in the B&F parking lot from an aggressive unleashed dog. Deputy Bob Holzhauer was severely bitten on his left arm and knee. The following year a woman living off Magnolia reported repeated attacks on herself, her own dogs, and her vehicle by various loose dogs in the area.

Going into the next decade, animal control remained a topic of discussion and concern for residents. The article titled “Dog task force strikes back at offenders,” published September 6, 1990, began with this sentence: “Some Nederland residents have complained so loud and so long about the dog-at-large situation in Nederland that a dog task force has been formed to solve the problem.”

The task force made it clear their goal was to bring an end to this ongoing dangerous dog situation. The approach: “education and enforcement are the means to solving the dog dilemma in Nederland.”

Within a year the task force recommended that the BOT revise the Animal Ordinance, originally adopted in 1986, adding stipulations of steeper fines for offenders and limiting the number of animals one may harbor without a commercial license. Though the existing ordinance mostly covered regulations concerning horses and llamas, language covering issues surrounding household pets was absent from the ordinance until 1991.

Sections involving the keeping of household pets, the care and keeping of animals, specifying a “vicious” animal and “offensive premises,” the seizure and impoundment of animals, the tags required for all animals, animals running at large, barking dogs, the penalties for violations of the code both involving and not involving bodily injury to a victim, and a liability clause, were all included within Ordinance 834, which was added to Nederland Municipal Code (NMC) Chapter 7, Articles V and VI in 1991.

Section 7-3, “Keeping animals,” states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to own, harbor, have custody or keep any animal, domestic hoofed livestock, or household pet on his or her premises, whether such premises are owned, rented, or otherwise occupied, within the corporate limits of the Town, except as provided by this Article or unless such premises have been granted a special use permit.”

Section 7-25, “Vicious animal,” states: “It is unlawful for any person to harbor or keep a vicious animal within the Town. Any vicious animal shall be deemed a public nuisance, and may be seized by any law enforcement officer and upon appropriate complaint and order of the Municipal Court or any court of competent jurisdiction and may be humanely destroyed or otherwise disposed of, as the Court may determine in the abatement of the nuisance and the protection of the public safety.

“It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution under this Section if the animal is provoked by a person or attacked (actual or threatened) by a domestic or wild animal if the actions of any person or animal provoke the animal to such an extent that an animal of normal temperament would react viciously.

“It is unlawful for the owner or keeper of a vicious animal to allow such animal to attack any domestic animal or fowl or any species of wildlife.”

Section 7-38, “Animals running at large; restraint and control,” states: “It is unlawful for any owner or keeper of any animal to fail to prevent the animal from running at large within the Town limits. Every owner or keeper of any animal of any age shall keep such animal exclusively upon his or her own premises. However, an animal may be off such premises if it is under the control of a competent person and restrained by a substantial chain or leash not exceeding six feet in length or if it is within a vehicle or is similarly physically confined and inaccessible to any passers-by. An animal is presumed to be at large if injury, damage or trespass has occurred, even if said animal is under leash control at the time of injury, damage, or trespass.

“Any Animal Control Division apprehending an animal at large may impound the animal, return the animal to the owner and/or issue a citation. Said officer shall have the right to enter upon private property when it is necessary to apprehend any animal that has been running at large. Such entrance upon private property shall be in reasonable pursuit of said animal and shall not include entry into a domicile or enclosure which confines an animal unless it is at the invitation of the owner.

“Repeat offenses of an animal at large within a 12-month period, for any reason, shall be cause for citation. Upon a conviction of guilt or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to violation of this Section, the Municipal Judge shall impose a mandatory minimum fine of $250 unless the defendant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Municipal Court that the animal running at large has been spayed or neutered prior to the imposition of sentence.”

Though the conflicts with other people created by unattended dogs had quelled slightly by the additional code language, the danger from domesticated dogs-at-large continued to threaten leashed dogs, as well as dogs in their own yards, and even the local wildlife.

In 1996, several local dogs formed a pack and killed three new elk calves in the Sugarloaf area. Residents were reminded of two important facts regarding dogs running free in the mountains: the fine for the dog’s owner for any wildlife killed can exceed $1,000, while dogs being attacked and eaten by both bears and mountain lions was, and still is, not an uncommon occurrence.

More additions were made to NMC in 1996. Ordinance 435 included code language regarding commercial and noncommercial kennel licenses, the confinement of animals, required inoculations, barking dogs, and more about penalties for violators. Boulder County Commissioners revised their animal ordinance in 1997, adding stricter fees and sanctions aimed specifically at unincorporated Boulder County’s problems with incessantly barking dogs and the continued issue of dogs at large.

Even more changes were made to NMC in 1999 with the adoption of Ordinance 508, adding more clarifying language to Section 7-38 pertaining to the restraint and control of animals. And as more and more additions were added throughout the 2000s, including Ordinance 620 in 2006, covering issues of “offensive premises,” and Ordinance 694 in 2011, adding more legal terms and definitions to Section 7-1, Nederland’s animal control issues persisted.

Letters to the editor continued, detailing experiences with roaming gangs of at-large dogs harassing residents in Big Springs, Old Town, and Cold Springs, and directly addressing the divide between citizens tired of having to deal with vicious, unleashed dogs, and those deemed “irresponsible” pet owners who prefer to let their dogs run free.

“Leave Nederland if you don’t like leash law,” begins Mary Chestnut’s letter, published in The Mountain-Ear in the year 2000. “This is to all the people that have chosen Nederland as your utopia, or nirvana, away from cities and city life. If you wanted to live without rules or leash laws, you needed to live in Nederland 100 plus years ago. It’s the 21st century and Nederland is a busy boom town, with strict leash laws.

“Not only is the leash law a protection for people, but what happens when your dog runs free and a hawk, mountain lion, or bear rips it to shreds. You would go crying to the vet, but who’s responsible? The dog owner.

“As I said before. I’ve had my last dog bite—l carry a walking stick and bear and pepper spray. If you don’t like what I say, I’ll meet you at the police station. However, if your dog runs free, we will inevitably meet anyway with a call to the police, so be ready for a confrontation. I have no intent to leave Nederland— perhaps it is too confining to you people who believe that dogs can run free in the mountains. It is time you consider leaving this booming town. It’s only going to get larger, with more police enforcement.”

For an example of how even the “good dogs” on a leash with their owners are harmed by unleashed dogs, Barbara Lawlor wrote an article in 2003 which detailed the violent harassment Fox, a seeing-eye Labrador retriever, would suffer when leading his blind owner, Ray Rovey, on walks down East 1st Street. Fox was attacked three times within six weeks.

“I will do anything to protect him because he is at a disadvantage, being in a harness and a leash. If he gets hurt, I am done.” Rovey explained to Lawlor that a guide dog being attacked can lead to the dog either refusing to work or being deemed unable to work anymore. Then Nederland Police Department (NPD) Chief Ken Robinson noted in the article that he would receive five to 10 complaints a week about dogs at large.

Lawlor would revisit the topic of at-large dogs, and would revisit Rovey and Fox, as the situation escalated again in 2006.

“There are usually more loose dogs in the summer, when the campers come to town,” Rovey told The Mountain-Ear. “The dogs are not a problem until April. But lately, I have been running into more dogs. I don’t know why. I just want to remind people to keep their dogs locked up or on a leash.

“When one dog became aggressive, I was on First Street and a dog wouldn’t stop coming at us. So I poked him with my golf club and he yipped. The owner got upset and said I shouldn’t be hitting his dog. I don’t want to hit a dog, it’s not his fault, it’s the owner’s fault.” Rovey explained that he is so defensive of Fox because he had heard stories of trained guide dogs being injured and in some cases put down. Rovey noted that The Guide Dog School, the same that trained Fox, spends $50,000 in training and operations per dog enrolled in their school.

An article published in The Mountain-Ear in 2008 reported that issues of at-large dogs in the Peak to Peak area, specifically Gold Hill, were getting so severe that Boulder County Animal Control Officers warned town officials and residents to “take care” of their at-large dog situation, or they will. Jenni Rice, Mayor of the Gold Hill Town Meeting, agreed to confer with Gold Hill’s responsible dog owners and assure adherence to Boulder County’s standards and regulations.

Chief Robinson said in his 2008 interview that dealing with dog issues, especially in the summer months, is the single largest complaint the NPD deals with. “Every year, there is some kind of incident, whether it is dogs in the highway becoming a traffic hazard, or dogs attacking other dogs or people. We want all dog owners to keep their pets under control. People are always telling us that their dog never did this before. Everyone should use a common sense approach,” Robinson commented.

Fast forward eight years and Nederland Marshal Paul Carrill is addressing the public in a letter published in The Mountain-Ear on May 21, 2016.

“With the nice weather, the NPD has noticed an increase in loose animal calls,” Carrill writes. “These calls have ranged from dogs off leash to aggressive dogs attacking other dogs. The NPD wants to remind the citizens of Nederland of their responsibility to restrain and control their animals. The NPD will handle each animal call on a “case-by-case” basis, yet persistent offenders should expect to be cited for failure to restrain/control their animal.”

Now

“I would never intentionally let my dog free roam. But let’s face it, we live in the country, not the burbs,” a Nederland resident stated on December 29, 2023, on Facebook. “I don’t know anyone in this little town that wishes Ned was more like the big city. Yes, it’s dangerous for your dog to free roam here during certain times of the year, but that’s true just about everywhere in the US where there are roads and cars.

“We definitely do not need to pay for animal control here in Ned. If a few neighbors have pet related problems, they need to work that out. If there are free roam animals, that problem will resolve itself. We don’t need more laws and policing.”

Animal control in Nederland has always been the responsibility of the NPD, though staffing issues have made it nearly impossible to assure that the Town would have a dedicated animal control officer. In 2022, the Town lost its community law enforcement. Though the BOT approved the Town contract with BCSO for law enforcement early in 2023, that contract did not include Animal Control coverage.

Despite the BOT not viewing animal control as a necessity, some Nederland residents were urging the Board to reevaluate the NMC regarding any code referring to the keeping of animals, particularly hoofed animals. On March 1, 2022, Trustees heard from a group of residents whose concerns arose from a dispute with a neighbor over the keeping of goats on their property. Though these residents did claim their concerns were for the health and wellbeing of the animals, the results from an official inspection yielded that those concerns were unfounded.

Regardless of the nature of the complaints, the residents convinced the BOT that the Town’s code language regarding animals should be reevaluated and rewritten, with some Trustees dictating that the changes to NMC should enforce matters of animal welfare, specifically neglect and cruelty concerns. The matter was pushed onto the Planning Commission, who formed a subcommittee in April, 2022 to work on the Keeping Animals Ordinance, which was aimed to focus primarily on the keeping of hoofed animals, covered by Chapter 7 Article VI in NMC.

The subcommittee was composed of Commissioners Cynthia Bakke and Michael Dye, Town Administrator Miranda Fisher, Community Planner Britt DeMinck, and SAFEbuild Code Enforcer Jake Cooke.

On March 15, 2023, the Commission was tasked with reviewing an 18-page draft ordinance, which was being presented as a complete repeal and replace of Chapter 7 Articles V and VI. According to the official Agenda Information Memorandum, prepared by DeMinck and Fisher, the subcommittee “shifted their focus on domestic large-hooved animals, clarifying barking dog language, and looking extensively at the enforcement side given the transfer to BCSO.”

That draft included regulations regarding the number of dogs and cats allowed per household (Sections 7-5 and 7-11), the proper licensing of dogs and cats (Sections 7-29, 7-20, and 7-31), the proper leashing, restraint, and control of household pets (Section 7-38), and the “persistent and habitual” barking, howling, or yelping of a household pet (Section 7-47),

Though concerns were raised regarding enforceability of the regulations outlined in the draft ordinance, Fisher stated that a Code Enforcement Officer, such as Cooke or DeMinck, has the ability to enforce much of what was regulated in the ordinance, while criminal matters of pet/animal seizure and impoundment (Sections 7-28 and 7-39 through 7-42) will be handled by BCSO.

Over the next eight months the subcommittee and the Planning Commission repeatedly analyzed the recommended changes to NMC, dealing with legally complex matters such as whether it was necessary to list every animal that was permitted and every animal that was prohibited, or whether to include a variance application process, or to simply change code as cases not covered in the ordinance come to the Commission’s table.

On November 29, 2023, the Commission voted to recommend the Keeping Animals Ordinance (Ordinance 852), which would repeal and replace Articles V and VI of NMC Chapter 7 and amend Sections 16-6 and 16-32 or NMC Chapter 16, and officially sent the matter to the BOT’s agenda. Commissioners had reached an impasse with the work that they could do on the ordinance, and agreed that it was time for Trustees to review and discuss it and bring it to a final vote for adoption.

During the November Planning Commission meeting a member of the public called in to voice their opposition to the ordinance and stated that it was an example of the Town administration infringing on residents’ personal property rights. They also mentioned that the purpose of the Commission is to “implement the provisions of Chapter 16 and 17” of NMC, though Ordinance 852 specifically involves amending NMC Chapter 7, which covers public nuisances.

Fisher spoke to that comment, explaining that the decision for the Commission to oversee the drafting of the ordinance came from the BOT. Fisher reiterated that the ordinance was less about neighborly concerns and more about sanitation and the health and wellbeing of animals.

On December 5, 2023, Ordinance 852 was listed as an Action Item on the BOT’s official meeting agenda, meaning Trustees were expected to vote on the matter. A motion was made to table the matter until January 2, 2024.

“Given the complexity and the interest in this ordinance, we want to give it its just time,” Mayor Billy Giblin said.

Trustee Eric Coombs-Esmail added a friendly amendment, asking that the matter of Ordinance 852 return to their agenda as a Discussion Item.

“My reasoning being I think that the PC subcommittee had done a lot of great work, but I think there’s a lot of things that we need to talk about and work through to the extent where I don’t think it’s actually ready to be an Action Item at this point, at least from my perspective in my reading of it,” Coombs-Esmail said.

The amendment was accepted and the motion to table until January 2 was approved, however the BOT did not discuss the matter on January 2. The Board is now tentatively scheduled to discuss Ordinance 852 during their meeting on Tuesday, February 20, 2024.

While the Keeping Animals Ordinance was being drafted, discussed, and eventually put on hold, the issue of Animal Control reentered the conversation. On December 19, 2023, during a discussion of the 2024 Town Budget, Fisher presented Town Staff’s recommendation to contract with BCSO for animal control at the cost of a projected $23,651 for the year.

“We are still not seeing a huge uptick in animal control calls. This is not a big issue in town. However, it is so complex when we get them,” Fisher explained to Trustees why Town staff were changing their suggestion in regards to contracting for animal control with BCSO.

“Right now when we get a call, typically five of us have to get involved, starting with Britt and Jake from a code enforcement standpoint, and they can only enforce up to a certain amount. We only have enforcement on certain days, and law enforcement can’t step in unless maybe there’s a criminal nature. So we have a lot of situations where residents, when they are seeking support, really feel quite let down,” Fisher said.

BCSO Sergeant Asa Mirriam, currently Nederland’s only dedicated officer, provided Trustees with an example of an animal-based situation when BCSO was unable to interfere.

“We had dogs at large that went into a neighbor’s yard and attacked the homeowner’s dog, not injuring it. Those same dogs about two weeks later got out of their yard, chased a dog in the neighborhood and were nipping at it, once again not injuring the dog so not rising to a criminal event. If it were criminal I would have been able to handle it per our contract, but because it didn’t rise to that level I didn’t do anything and code enforcement couldn’t do anything because it was too high of a level for them,” Mirriam explained.

DeMinck detailed to Trustees how complaint calls from residents concerning dogs at large come in at all times of day, even holidays and late at night, or over weekends, and noted that the calls have increased so significantly that she and Cooke, who together represent the Town’s code enforcement, rarely have the capacity to handle them all. Fisher added that the calls have become so frequent, and that Town staff is spread so thin, and in some cases unable to provide a solution, that she has considered letting calls of animal complaints go to voicemail.

“I’m just not sure that’s what we want to tell the community, that, ‘Oh, you’re getting attacked by a dog, leave a message,’ ” Fisher said.

The Board was relatively split on the matter, as some Trustees felt that it was an immediate safety concern, and others felt that the complaint calls were a passing trend.

“It’s a safety issue, one of the most fundamental safety issues if you have children,” Mayor Pro Tem Tom Mahowald said.

“On my running route I’ve got a dog that nips at my heels every time I go by that house. I’ve never even considered or imagined the notion that I would call anybody to report that dog because I don’t think that’s a serious issue,” Coombs-Esmail offered in response.

“I think you’re in the majority of people who would say ‘that’s how dogs behave.’ I have the same issue in my neighborhood,” Mirriam said, explaining how he did not believe there were more aggressive dogs in Nederland, just more residents with a particular mentality when it comes to calling the police. “But now I think there’s just enough people that this has happened to who are willing to call, and that’s why we’re seeing the uptick.”

“My difficulty is I’m not sure I want to spend $23,000 on those people,” Coombs-Esmail retorted.

“I grew up in a small historic mining town smaller than Nederland,” Trustee Seavers said. “As kids we would run around and we had three or four dogs that were in our gang, and there were other gangs of kids and dogs, and occasionally there were big fights that broke out amongst all the dogs and all the kids, and they were fun.”

Seavers continued to explain how he has lived much of his life not adhering to such regulations as leash laws, though he detailed a confrontation with a neighbor over a pack of dogs coming into his yard, growling and baring their teeth to his wife and young children. Despite Seavers’ attempts to handle the situation civilly, he explained that he was met only with hostility and that he had no other recourse but to contact the police.

“While I don’t really want to have animal control, having daughters… it’s different. I’m looking at the world differently,” Seavers stated.

Though Mirriam has been providing the BOT with monthly data indicating that there has been a reasonable rise in the number of logged complaint calls referring to animal issues, with up to four being received a month, Mayor Giblin did not believe the complaints justified contracting for more policing from BCSO.

“I’m challenged by it because obviously I know the stress that it causes the wife, with our kids running around, but I’m torn because at the same time I do wonder what the true public sentiment is on animal control. To me I think it’s worth more discussion and in general it just seems like the complaints have been really minimal and we just have this recent trend,” Giblin said.

On Facebook the debate between those in favor of animal control and those against it rages on.

“This approach may compromise the quality and fairness of enforcement. I would like to see the budget increase going to other town-related issues rather than more policing on neighbors that have a beef with a loose dog,” one commenter against animal control wrote.

“If you need a police officer to give you a ticket because your dog is out at night when there are reports of a mountain lion, maybe you need to get a nice yard in Westminster, or have an indoor cat,” wrote another.

“I rather have crosswalks repainted. I rather have a safe town and not a neighbor who thinks they can decide my life,” wrote another commenter who was also against the prospect of animal control through BCSO, which might be used as a way to perpetuate neighborly conflicts.

But for every comment that equates aggressive off-leash dogs to being a reality of mountain living, there are those who believe sensible rules and guidelines help us to be better neighbors, as well as those who just want their beloved pets to be protected.

On November 23, 2023, a post hit the Nedheads Facebook page with a picture of a badly injured Husky who was attacked by a dog at large in its own backyard. The Husky’s owner stated that this was the second time their dog had been attacked by an off-leash dog, and that the hospital bills and trips to the ER were getting expensive.

The BOT approved the 2024 Town Budget on January 2, 2024, and opted to budget $23,651 for animal control. Mayor Giblin was the sole voice of opposition to contracting with BCSO for animal control. On January 16, 2024, the BOT approved Resolution 2024-10, amending the intergovernmental agreement with BCSO to include 20% of time of one Animal Control officer.

Only time will tell if having full-time coverage from BCSO, and a potential elimination of enforcement staffing issues, will help to change what has been one of Nederland’s age-old problems.