The Hancock City Council listens to citizens speak at the public hearing regarding the proposed Ordinance 316. The ordinance passed by a vote of four in favor and two against. (Ben Garbacz/Daily Mining Gazette)

HANCOCK — The city of Hancock held a public hearing on Wednesday evening to hear citizens’ thoughts and concerns about the contents of the proposed Ordinance 316 before its ultimate vote. The city hall was filled with citizens bringing up their objections to some of the language of the ordinance and how they believed its interpretation could hinder their pet ownership, ability to keep chickens and interact with local wildlife.

The ordinance covers a variety of issues regarding animals including rules of where an unleashed dog is permitted, the list of animals citizens are allowed to keep as pets and which are prohibited, keeping chickens maintained to one’s property and following guidelines set by Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices, intolerance of animal abuse or neglect and the prohibition of feeding wildlife.

Citizens who spoke up in concern brought up the fact that some like to feed animals like squirrels and chipmunks by hand or with feeders and emphasized that they had been feeding foods that are not unnatural to the animals’ diets. There was also concern over what defines an exotic animal and observations of unleashed dogs, but there was one concern that the majority of attendees shared. Though there was a glossary included at the end of the ordinance, many of the citizens believed that the ordinance and the language was far too vague and that the definitions were not clear. The city council addressed the concerns and went over the definitions to further explain the wording and thought process of the ordinance.

The council then made their vote and the ordinance passed with four in favor and two opposed. After the passing the council acknowledged the member who would not be rerunning in the election for his position and had attended his last meeting, Rick Freeman. Freeman thanked the city of Hancock the experience and privilege to serve the city. He was also one of the two members who voted “no” to the ordinance.

“I voted no, because I wanted the individual citizen to have the opportunity to choose,” Freeman explained. “I’m opposed to some stuff in the ordinance; the big thing was chickens. I believe that where you live it might be restrictive. I live in Hancock because of the convenience of the stores and the roads are normally plowed in the winter and you give up certain freedoms for that. But I think it should have went through a ballot, but unfortunately we didn’t get that.”

Another council member, Whitney Warstler, voted “yes” and said it was to encourage the citizens to be as self sufficient as possible.

“I think that ordinances are living documents and we can always make changes,” Warstler said. “We mirrored some of the verbiage from cities that are our neighbors and I’m confident the changes will work out well.”