Ashley Kontnier
BUDA — Buda City Council postponed a vote on the allowance of potbellied pigs as pets in the city limits during its June 2 meeting.
Currently, the city’s ordinance labels all swine — including potbellied or miniature pigs — as livestock, making it unlawful to keep them as pets, explained presenter and Buda Police Department Chief Bo Kidd.
Based on a request from council to consider an amendment, Kidd and an animal control officer prepared a list of pros and cons, as well as a draft ordinance and permit.
The pros, according to agenda documents, include:
1. Highly intelligent — Pot-bellied pigs are as smart as dogs. They can learn commands, tricks and even use a litter box.
2. Strong bonding — They form deep attachments to their owners and can be very affectionate and social.
3. Relatively clean animals — Despite stereotypes, pigs are naturally clean and prefer designated bathroom areas.
4. Long lifespan — They can live 12–20 years, meaning a long-term companion.
5. Unique personality — Each pig has a distinct personality — playful, curious and sometimes surprisingly goofy.
Cons include:
1. They get bigger than expected — “Mini pigs” are often misleading — most pot-bellied pigs reach 100–200-plus pounds.
2. Destructive behavior — They root (dig with their snout), which can damage floors, yards and furniture if not managed.
3. Specialized veterinary care — Not all vets treat pigs, so an exotic or farm animal vet may be needed.
4. Diet management is critical — They gain weight easily and require a controlled, balanced diet — overfeeding can lead to serious health issues.
5. Strong-willed and stubborn — Training takes consistency. They can be manipulative and push boundaries if not properly trained.
6. Social needs — Pigs need a lot of attention and mental stimulation — bored pigs can become destructive or depressed.
7. Not ideal for all living situations — Apartments or small homes usually aren’t suitable, especially without outdoor space.
“I think, from the animal control department, [we] don’t really have an opinion one way or the other as far as keeping of potbellied pigs, but it was recommended that if council does consider amending the ordinance to permit them, that perhaps [it considers] requiring a permit,” Kidd explained.
With that, he continued, there could be an inspection and more oversight to make sure that “if we are going to keep pigs, that they are kept in a manner that is desirable for the city.”
During the public testimony, resident Eric Wallis spoke in support of the item.
“I am here tonight because we would like the city to reconsider how potbellied pigs are classified under our current ordinance, specifically to recognize them for what they truly are, they are household pets. Right now, potbellied pigs are grouped under the same category as livestock, but that classification doesn’t reflect how they are actually raised, cared for or integrated into families today. Potbellied pigs are not being kept in barns or used for agriculture. They are living inside homes, sleeping on couches and being cared for just like any other animal companion. They are highly intelligent, emotionally aware animals that bond closely with their owners. They can be house trained, walked on a leash and follow routines. They receive regular vet care, have controlled diets and live in structured, supervised environments. In every meaningful way, they function as pets,” he explained. “This is an opportunity for the city to bring clarity and fairness to the ordinance, to recognize that not all animals within a specific, broad category are the same and to acknowledge that potbellied pigs, when kept as they are today, belong in the same conversation as other household pets, not livestock.”
Beginning the conversation on the dais was council member Lavonia Horne-Williams, who advocated for a policy that regulates things, such as: limiting the number of pigs a person can own, requiring a permit, requiring sterilization and microchipping, limiting outdoor housing of the animal or how much time they are outside.
“I would not necessarily be opposed to the amendment, as long as we have a policy in place — because there are other Texas cities that have a policy in place,” Horne-Williamns said. “So, before we would make an adjustment, I would ask that we come up with a policy that’s going to be comparable, so that we are not chasing the pig later. We want to make sure that, if we allow this, we have put boundaries around it already.”
A policy may be beneficial for residents who may live within a homeowners association (HOA) that restricts the keeping of potbellied pigs, Horne-Williams continued.
“If the city has a policy, then maybe that’s something that the HOA would be able to consider. So, rather than them having a hard line of saying, ‘No, we’re not going to allow it,’ the city has come up with a feasible policy that sounds reasonable and maybe it’s something that even the HOAs could get on board with," she said.
While generally on board with the amendment, council member Greg Bowles suggested that he would like to revisit the amendment in one year to identify and remedy any potential issues with the permitting process.
“I have not been generally on board with this, simply because of the sliding scale that can happen and also because of resources,” began council member Monica Davidson. “[My bigger concern would be] if we go off of what’s been presented today, that we revisit it pretty quickly to see what this does because that is now a resource of us keeping track of all this. And, while our honest and transparent neighbor that brought this forward may have a wonderful pet, someone else may not be raising theirs that way.”
Despite these reservations and the potential for a “slippery slope,” Davidson said she is open to trying “as long as it doesn’t take a lot of effort.”
“Because I’d much rather focus on keeping our community safe and have our police officers doing that, than chasing pigs,” she concluded.
Following further questions about potential outdoor access and permit fees, Mayor Lee Urbanovsky made a motion to approve the ordinance, along with a $100 permit fee, which was seconded.
However, prior to the vote, Horne-Williams requested an amendment to require that potbellied pigs be kept strictly indoors, which Urbanovsky did not agree with.
“So, I have reservations on that one, just because that moves it beyond what we do with dogs currently; we can have dogs outside now,” the mayor said.
“I understand that dogs can be outside now, but dogs are typical household pets and so, people aren’t going to have a potential complaint about the smell or the fact that it’s rooting,” retorted Horne-Williams. “I think, because this is new for us, it’s fine to create some boundaries.”
Ultimately, the mayor rescinded his original motion and made a motion to table the item, pending staff bringing back language from ordinances from other cities on best practices.
The motion to table was approved 5-0. Council members Evan Ture and Matt Smith were not in attendance.
Buda City Council will meet next at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 16.
