"Nobody told us": how an obscure Louisville ordinance is putting pets at risk

The controversy centers on updated language in Louisville Metro's Code of Ordinances, which now requires ponies, miniature horses, goats, and sheep to be kept on larger properties.

"I'm Shay McAlister, and this is Shay Informed: an independent, ad-free platform dedicated to honest journalism with compassion and clarity.

Are you new here? Sign up for the free weekly newsletter or subscribe to support our mission and access behind-the-scenes content, podcasts, and in-depth stories reserved for paid subscribers.

If you saw her walking her pets down Frankfort Avenue, it isn't a sight you'd soon forget. Bri Frederick and her family have had two goats, Boon and Betty, living in their backyard in the Clifton neighborhood for years. Neighbors smile when they see the goats walking on the sidewalk, leashed just like dogs.

Now, an ordinance quietly passed in October could force her to give them up.

"I contacted all my goat friends, and was like, did you know what this was going on?", Frederick said, "We organized pretty quickly, because suddenly, after years and years and years of perfectly fine, we're all in violation."

Frederick is one of many Louisville residents caught in the crosshairs of recent changes to the city's animal control ordinances- changes that some animal owners say came without warning and could devastate families whose lives include their livestock.

She also says she still hasn't received an explanation for what's behind the ordinance adjustment. "I've literally never heard anything negative. They're overwhelmingly loved and supported," she told me.

The controversy centers on updated language in Chapter 91 of Louisville Metro's Code of Ordinances. It was intended to combat shelter overcrowding with new microchip requirements, but also slipped in language that requires certain livestock to be kept on properties of at least one acre of land.

"Pigs are allowed on a smaller amount of land. Chickens are allowed. But goats and sheep are not," Frederick said, frustration evident in her voice. "It just doesn't make sense to me."

The case of Bandit

The issue exploded into public view when Metro Animal Services warned of enforcement actions against the owner of Bandit, a miniature horse who lives in his owner's backyard in the Meriwether neighborhood.

Neighbors took to an online petition to show support for the mini horse, calling him a "community treasure."

On Monday, Councilwoman Jennifer Chappell (D-15), who is one of the sponsors of the ordinance, issued a statement promising to fix the problem. She said the language affecting ponies and miniature horses was added inadvertently when the city was trying to clarify earlier animal control ordinances.

"This was simply meant to add clarification, not to target a specific animal or community member," Chappell said in the release.

Chappell announced that Metro Animal Services will recommend grandfathering in Bandit, and she's initiated the process to extend that protection to all animals affected by the October legislation.

"Bandit has not caused issues with Metro Animal Services in the past, and my goal is to ensure the law is applied thoughtfully and fairly while protecting both animals and neighbors," she said.

But that promise isn't easing Frederick's concerns just yet.

"These are not just animals."

For Frederick and others like her, the stakes go far beyond property rights or regulatory compliance. These animals are important parts of their lives.

Boone and Betty are used in educational events about urban farming and food insecurity. They're also part of her business- Bri Weaves.

"They're definitely a big face of my business", Frederick said, "I have a small weaving business. So I make wearables, scarves, cowls, neckerchiefs, and I use the cashmere inline that I harvest from the goats every spring."

She mentioned goat rescues in the area, and questioned if they would be able to continue taking in animals that weren't part of the 'grandfathering in' process.

"I think a lot of what we're concerned about is people making decisions about things they don't understand," Frederick said.

A pattern of unintended consequences

The issue highlights a broader problem with how animal control ordinances are sometimes drafted and implemented. Frederick said the October changes came without adequate notice to affected residents.

"None of us were told about any of this," she said. "We didn't know that they were working on changing the legislation. And so that was something that we would have liked to have known about prior to it actually being voted on and passed."

Under the current language in the ordinance, chickens can be kept on properties smaller than half an acre (up to five non-crowing birds), and pigs can too (up to three animals). But goats, sheep, and horses have no such exemption- even though, as Frederick points out, goats are generally quieter and easier to manage than many other types of livestock.

"People love their animals," Frederick said simply. "These are not just animals to us. They're family members. And to try to take that away from people- it's hard."

What happens next?

Councilwoman Chappell's commitment to adding grandfathering language offers hope to some owners, but questions remain about the timeline and scope of the fix.

Will the grandfathering apply only to current owners? What happens if someone moves and wants to bring their goats to a new property? And will the city reconsider the underlying logic of exempting some livestock but not others?

For now, Frederick is cautiously optimistic- and grateful for the community support that brought attention to the issue. She said her council representative- Andrew Owen- called her directly and reassured her no one is trying to take away her goats.

"I so appreciate everything that he's doing and has done, and I do think he honestly wants to make this work and be right for everyone. Still- I'm nervous about what is actually going to happen," Frederick said.