A. A municipality may:

(1) prohibit cruelty to animals;

(2) regulate, restrain and prohibit the running at large of any animal within the boundary of the municipality; and

(3) provide by ordinance for the impounding and disposition of animals found running at large. Prior to the time set for disposing of the animal as provided in the ordinance, the owner may regain possession of the animal by paying the poundmaster all costs incurred in connection with impounding the animal.

B. Dogs shall be further regulated as provided in Sections 47-1-2 through 47-1-8 New Mexico Statutes Annotated, 1953 Compilation.

C. A municipality may, by ordinance, provide for the animal control services enumerated in this section to be performed by a contractor and may enter into a contract for the services.

History: 1953 Comp., § 14-17-2, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300; 1971, ch. 171, § 1.

Compiler's notes. — Sections 47-1-2 to 47-1-8, 1953 Comp., referred to in Subsection B, are compiled as 28-11-1 and 77-1-2 to 77-1-15 NMSA 1978. However, 28-11-1 NMSA 1978, relating to hearing ear aid dogs, was enacted after this section and the reference were enacted.

Cross references. — For definition of cruelty to animals, see 30-18-1 NMSA 1978.

For right to prevent running at large and right to impound animals not affected by provisions relating to taking up strays, see 77-13-10 NMSA 1978.

For provisions on trespassing animals inapplicable to incorporated cities and towns, see 77-14-24 NMSA 1978.

For hogs, swine or goats not to run at large, see 77-14-35 NMSA 1978.

For impoundment of trespass livestock, see 77-14-36 NMSA 1978.

Establishing reasonableness. — Findings of city governing board, stated in preamble to ordinance, that keeping of certain animals within restricted district in city was a nuisance and endangered the public health, and enactment of ordinance prohibiting keeping of certain animals within the restricted district established prima facie that the ordinance was reasonable. Mitchell v. City of Roswell, 1941-NMSC-007, 45 N.M. 92, 111 P.2d 41.

Pit bull ordinance. — A village ordinance banning ownership or possession of a breed of dog known as American pit bull terrier within village limits was rationally related to the village's legitimate purpose of protecting the health and safety of village residents. Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 1988-NMCA-090, 108 N.M. 116, 767 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 107 N.M. 785, 765 P.2d 758.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 4 Am. Jur. 2d Animals § 31 et seq.

Constitutionality of "dog laws," 49 A.L.R. 847.

Indefiniteness of penal statute or ordinance relating to cruelty, or similar offenses, against animals, 144 A.L.R. 1041.

Construction and application of ordinances relating to unrestrained dogs, cats, or other domesticated animals, 1 A.L.R.4th 994.

What constitutes offense of cruelty to animals - modern cases, 6 A.L.R.5th 733.