A proposed overhaul of Mobile’s animal ordinance looks far different than it did a few weeks ago — and pet owners, animal advocates and local business owners are claiming credit. After weeks of emails, phone calls and public comments, the Mobile City Council’s Public Safety Committee worked through a stack of amendments Tuesday that soften some of the proposal’s most controversial language.
“We sent it to committee and we got feedback from the community,” said Councilman Cory Penn. “They sent emails, they came down and they expressed their concerns, and by doing that we were able to create those changes.”
The ‘High-Risk Animal’ Redefinition
Among those who spoke up were the owners of B & B Pet Stop, the long-running Mobile pet store. Bill Trufant said his family supported much of the ordinance but believed some original definitions were so broad they could accidentally turn responsible owners into violators.
“The biggest thing was we didn’t agree with some of the language, particularly some of the definitions,” Trufant said. “When they started being so broad and basically covering every animal in the world, literally, it just didn’t make any sense.”
The biggest change: the definition of a “high-risk animal.” The original version listed specific dog breeds — a list Animal Services officials said was borrowed from breeds commonly restricted by homeowners insurance policies. Under the amended language discussed Tuesday, the designation would instead apply to an individual animal with a prior unprovoked bite or attack on a person or another animal — a behavior-based standard rather than a breed-based one.
Trufant said the old broad definition had even worried owners of birds and reptiles: “You wouldn’t be able to take your bird out of your cage. You wouldn’t be able to hold your snake.”
How Many Pets Is Too Many?
City leaders also clarified the proposal’s limits on the number of animals per household. Animal Services officials said the caps were meant as a tool against hoarding, neglect and nuisance cases — not a way to force responsible owners to give up well-cared-for pets. The amended version would exempt households from the limit if they meet requirements including spaying or neutering, current rabies vaccinations, required city licenses, and no public nuisance or unsanitary conditions.
Officials stressed that bringing more animals into the city shelter is the last thing they want; the first response to an over-limit home would be to work with the owner to fix problems before any punitive action.
Even the Ferret Made News
The collaborative spirit produced a moment of levity: after questioning whether ferrets truly belonged in the high-risk definition, council members struck them from the language. “All right, ferret is out,” one council member said as the room laughed.
“We started getting with these guys and telling them, suggesting other ways to phrase things,” Trufant said. “And interestingly enough, they did. They listened. They fixed everything.”
What’s Next
The amended ordinance could appear on the City Council agenda as early as next Tuesday, though members stressed they won’t rush a vote if the final language needs more review. Penn said he believes the sides are now largely aligned: “They sent their request in, they shared their concerns and even today we created some changes. I think we’ll be ready to go.”