Commissioners on the Henry County Board spent the longest portion of Tuesdaymorningdebating whether to remove tethering exemptions from the countyanimal code, ultimately voting to table the matter for revision and municipal coordination.

The discussion began when planning staff presented a proposal to revert to the pre-2021 version of the animal ordinance that did not explicitly address tethering. Captain Hobgood of Animal Care & Control warned the board that striking those exemptions would increase enforcement demand, risk more confiscations and euthanasia, and burden courts and staff. "Those affected most would be citizens who live in developments with strict fencing or architectural restrictions," he said, adding that the shelter is already near capacity and that increased intake would follow if owners surrendered animals who no longer comply with a stricter code.

Public commenter James Cocotillo of Locust Grove urged education rather than repeal, saying the existing tethering rules (as he read them) already prescribe water, food and access to shelter. "I appreciate the board showing concern for the health and welfare of the animals," he said.

Commissioner Michael Price pushed for a broader ban on tethering to protect animals, arguing that some dogs are left chained 24/7 and that neighboring counties have enacted similar prohibitions. "We have to be the voice for those animals who cannot speak for themselves," Price said, while acknowledging enforcement will require an education period and careful drafting.

Other commissioners raised enforceability concerns: how would officers reliably determine whether a dog had been tethered for an unlawful period, and what evidence would courts require? Animal Control and county staff emphasized that education is the primary enforcement step and that photographic or video evidence is typically used in prosecutions. Staff also recommended discussing proposed ordinance language with city managers because animal-control services are county-run across municipal boundaries.

After a multi-hour exchange that included questions about temporary tethering exceptions (for example, a brief tether while an owner is present) and whether conditions-based or time-based limits would be more enforceable, the board voted to table the ordinance to the first quarter. Staff were directed to work with Commissioner Price, revise defensible language (including a possible temporary tethering exception tied to the ownerbeing in sight), consult municipal partners and the countyattorney, and advertise any proposed changes twice before returning the item to the board.

The tabling motion was made and seconded and passed by voice vote; no final ordinance was adopted.