Your interpretation is what I get from it. The MC may regulate, restrain or prohibit the running at large of the animals within it's limits. If you're trying to determine whether farm animals are allowed in the MC, I don't think this pertains. I think this only refers to their management inside MC limits.

That said, it can also be read that MC's can regulate or restrain these animals but I would think there would be a companion piece of code that would directly address the posession of such critters...

__________________
-Evan


Benz Fleet:
1968 UNIMOG 404.114
1998 E300
2008 E63


Non-Benz Fleet:
1992 Aerostar
1993 MR2
2000 F250

Are your chickens running afowl?

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

..........

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

As far as the English language is concerned, "at large" can be a shared adverb phrase for all "regulate," "restrain," and "pertain." Or "at large" could pertain to only "running." This is just one of the many reasons English is a ***** to learn as a second language.

The judge in the case, however, will most likely interpret the sentence whichever way generates revenue for the state.

__________________

Don't Chrome them; polish them

It seems clear to me that it only pertains to animals "running at large" which is to say "not on your property". If they are on your property then they are not "at large." If you are in the city then it sounds like you need 2 acres.

__________________
1998 C230 330,000 miles (currently dead of second failed EIS, yours will fail too, turning you into the dealer's personal human cash machine)
1988 F150 144,000 miles (leaks all the colors of the rainbow)
Previous stars: 1981 Brava 210,000 miles, 1978 128 150,000 miles, 1977 B200 Van 175,000 miles, 1972 Vega (great, if rusty, car), 1972 Celica, 1986.5 Supra

From on line legal dictionary:

At Large : "Free from control or restraint"

__________________
1998 C230 330,000 miles (currently dead of second failed EIS, yours will fail too, turning you into the dealer's personal human cash machine)
1988 F150 144,000 miles (leaks all the colors of the rainbow)
Previous stars: 1981 Brava 210,000 miles, 1978 128 150,000 miles, 1977 B200 Van 175,000 miles, 1972 Vega (great, if rusty, car), 1972 Celica, 1986.5 Supra

Looks to me like that statute merely grants the authority to municipalities to do whatever they see fit when it comes to farm animals. I'd be a lot more concerned with the actual city ordinances. These codes have become pretty standard in most cities in the country, when population densities reach a certain point, farm animals become a health hazard to humans if they are kept on suburban-sized lots, most of the city ordinances out there are just boilerplate stuff they get from public health organizations. In Texas they are only allowed in urban areas in neighborhoods where all the lots are two acres or more, and they can't border directly with surburan neighborhoods. And there is a darned good reason: brucellosis ("undulant fever"). It can be transferred from live stock to humans. It's the one word I know that can make a roomful of tough cattlemen quake in fear, since the common cure is to slaughter every cow and bull, or goat, etc (even dogs can catch it) within fifty square miles of it. You can't win a court case against that.

I think the code reads to 1)"Regulate",- they can regulate animals. 2)Restrain- they put on a nose ring, halter, or lease; they can put in a cage or pen, they can put in a fenced in area. 3) Prohibit the running at large- means they can say you must keep your animals on your property, and if they feel that the animals can hurt themselves running "at large" on your property they can demand you to do your own "restraining" of their choosing.

Later in the ordinance they claim to be able to confiscate and sell your animals if you owe them $ from breaking ordinances, plus court costs..

He's not citing an ordinance, he's citing Ohio State Law that defines the parameters of city ordinances:

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusohst715_23.htm

Title VII. Municipal Corporations. Chapter 715. General Powers. Streets and Parks. 715.23 Impounding animals

It simply gives cities pretty much unlimited power to regulate all livestock within their city limits, with an exception for dogs, which are treated differently in 955.

I disagree. The language would be different. Since it says "...OF cattle..." that means this only applies to the running at large. So this code does not give any other jurisdiction other than that. Which is not to say that there could be other codes that do, for other reasons (health, noise, etc.)

__________________
1998 C230 330,000 miles (currently dead of second failed EIS, yours will fail too, turning you into the dealer's personal human cash machine)
1988 F150 144,000 miles (leaks all the colors of the rainbow)
Previous stars: 1981 Brava 210,000 miles, 1978 128 150,000 miles, 1977 B200 Van 175,000 miles, 1972 Vega (great, if rusty, car), 1972 Celica, 1986.5 Supra

It was a real stretch to pull that meaning out of it but I was trying to think of all the angles...

__________________
-Evan


Benz Fleet:
1968 UNIMOG 404.114
1998 E300
2008 E63


Non-Benz Fleet:
1992 Aerostar
1993 MR2
2000 F250