SHIAWASSEE COUNTY
ANIMAL CONTROL
And
Their ‘policy’ of
ANNUAL KENNEL
INSPECTIONS
Saturday, November 29, 2008
OVERVIEW
The State of Michigan's dog law of 1919 provides that an inspection be made precedent to issueing a kennel license for a new kennel.
It also provides that kennel license fees are $10 for up to 10 dogs and $25 for more than that.
Many counties have mistakenly set the kennel license fee higher and when brought to their attention, they had to lower their kennel license fee.
They didn't like losing this revenue (not that it amounted to much), so some have decided they would do an "annual" inspection and charge a ridiculous fee for it.
This also does not comply with state law, but they haven't let that slow them down much.
It will catch up with them, eventually.
In the meantime kennel owners are subjected to this 'inspection' by an animal control officer that may barely know what a dog is and certainly has little consideration for sanitation or the possibility of carrying diseases into these kennels.
They are acting outside the law when they do these 'inspections'.
We have little choice but to suffer through or file a lawsuit.
There are other ramifications for "police officers" acting "under color of law" that would also apply.
So far, you should be able to read this blog from top to bottom and it will make sense.
It is very confusing and the law is rather convuluted, to say the least.
I am specific towards Shiawassee County, but there are other counties that are doing about the same. They just have to CONTROL people and their dogs........NO THEY DON'T! ! ! ! !
As you scroll down, be sure to check the bottom of the page for a link that says
OLDER POSTS that will take you to the next page, when you get to the end it will say NEWER POSTS.
MAYBE
Maybe I was thinking a little wrong.
I was thinking Wilson did this on his own.
Not exactly. I don’t know exactly how he came up with the idea, but he did.
That part was on his own.
Then he did get the Board of Commissioners to approve implementation, during the budget process.
That might complicate things, just a tiny bit. But, this ‘kennel inspection’ is supported by no law or ‘ordinance’, even. It is a ‘policy’ that contravenes state law. As such, it can be discontinued at any time.
The Board of Commissioners has no legal authority to approve or disapprove such.
There is no authority granted by law to do this.
I suppose the sheriff’s dept is bound to enforce county ordinances, but I’m also assuming no one is expected to enforce local ordinances that contravene state law. Well, if you do, then you are an outlaw, just like the rest of them. Violating state law to enforce county ordinances that are created without authority to do so is not an enviable position to be in. jmho
I don’t know your relationship with our prosecutor, but I suspect you will also be guilty of doing whatever he says. He is wrong on this issue. If you want to drop everything and run and ask him, he will tell you I am wrong. I would suggest you use your position to request an opinion from the current attorney general via our State Representative and/or our State Senator. They are tired of hearing from me. The law is there, the attorney general opinion is there. I have asked if that opinion is still valid. I have asked if that opinion was made obsolete (as Colbry states). They have not answered and/or they have sent requests to the Attorney General and he sees no reason to answer a question that has already been answered. As sheriff, you may have better luck. They see no reason to answer to a lonely citizen.
I was thinking Wilson did this on his own.
Not exactly. I don’t know exactly how he came up with the idea, but he did.
That part was on his own.
Then he did get the Board of Commissioners to approve implementation, during the budget process.
That might complicate things, just a tiny bit. But, this ‘kennel inspection’ is supported by no law or ‘ordinance’, even. It is a ‘policy’ that contravenes state law. As such, it can be discontinued at any time.
The Board of Commissioners has no legal authority to approve or disapprove such.
There is no authority granted by law to do this.
I suppose the sheriff’s dept is bound to enforce county ordinances, but I’m also assuming no one is expected to enforce local ordinances that contravene state law. Well, if you do, then you are an outlaw, just like the rest of them. Violating state law to enforce county ordinances that are created without authority to do so is not an enviable position to be in. jmho
I don’t know your relationship with our prosecutor, but I suspect you will also be guilty of doing whatever he says. He is wrong on this issue. If you want to drop everything and run and ask him, he will tell you I am wrong. I would suggest you use your position to request an opinion from the current attorney general via our State Representative and/or our State Senator. They are tired of hearing from me. The law is there, the attorney general opinion is there. I have asked if that opinion is still valid. I have asked if that opinion was made obsolete (as Colbry states). They have not answered and/or they have sent requests to the Attorney General and he sees no reason to answer a question that has already been answered. As sheriff, you may have better luck. They see no reason to answer to a lonely citizen.
CLEAN UP / SYNOPSIS
You think you want to clean up the Animal Control operation……
OK…That can be done, Not easily, but it can be done.
The first thing you can do is get rid of that illegal kennel inspection. That may sound self-serving since I have a kennel license, but that is the first thing you can do. You can’t do anything about individual dog licenses until next year’s budget process, by law. This kennel thing is under no authority of law and you can dump it anytime. Kennel licenses are due by June 1 and I suggest you dump this illegal ‘inspection’ business as quickly as you can, send letters to the kennel owners, veterinarians and county treasurer. The inspection fees from kennels only adds up to about $1,500 and for the animosity it generates, it is hardly worth bothering with. Wilson came up with this on his own, but he did get the board to approve it, and they did get a legal opinion from Randy Colbry telling them they had the authority to do it. Colbry is wrong. That may be a difficult thing to deal with.
Your information toolbox.
2. SYNOPSYS-attached, the rest later, should you wish to pursue
4. Shiawassee County Sherriff’s Department
5. Copy of 2005 Shiawassee County Kennel License Changes (scanned)
Copy of 2005 Shiawassee County Kennel License Changes (typed)
With note instructions to treasurer and veterinarians
6. Inspection slip AND “form”
7. Dog Law of 1919 Sec 10 Kennels
Sec 10 b Kennel licensing ordinance
9. Department of Agriculture Admin rule R 285.129.1
10. Report of the Attorney General No. 1897 January 24, 1955
12. Randy O. Colbry LEGAL OPINION (typed one page as he delivered)
13. Randy O. Colbry LEGAL OPINION (typed split up for easier reading)
15. Randy O. Colbry LEGAL OPINION (typed split up for easier reading with my response)
20. ARGUMENT kinda sums it all up
OK…That can be done, Not easily, but it can be done.
The first thing you can do is get rid of that illegal kennel inspection. That may sound self-serving since I have a kennel license, but that is the first thing you can do. You can’t do anything about individual dog licenses until next year’s budget process, by law. This kennel thing is under no authority of law and you can dump it anytime. Kennel licenses are due by June 1 and I suggest you dump this illegal ‘inspection’ business as quickly as you can, send letters to the kennel owners, veterinarians and county treasurer. The inspection fees from kennels only adds up to about $1,500 and for the animosity it generates, it is hardly worth bothering with. Wilson came up with this on his own, but he did get the board to approve it, and they did get a legal opinion from Randy Colbry telling them they had the authority to do it. Colbry is wrong. That may be a difficult thing to deal with.
Your information toolbox.
2. SYNOPSYS-attached, the rest later, should you wish to pursue
4. Shiawassee County Sherriff’s Department
5. Copy of 2005 Shiawassee County Kennel License Changes (scanned)
Copy of 2005 Shiawassee County Kennel License Changes (typed)
With note instructions to treasurer and veterinarians
6. Inspection slip AND “form”
7. Dog Law of 1919 Sec 10 Kennels
Sec 10 b Kennel licensing ordinance
9. Department of Agriculture Admin rule R 285.129.1
10. Report of the Attorney General No. 1897 January 24, 1955
12. Randy O. Colbry LEGAL OPINION (typed one page as he delivered)
13. Randy O. Colbry LEGAL OPINION (typed split up for easier reading)
15. Randy O. Colbry LEGAL OPINION (typed split up for easier reading with my response)
20. ARGUMENT kinda sums it all up
4. Copy of 2005 Shiawassee County Kennel License Changes (scanned)
5. Copy of 2005 Shiawassee County Kennel License Changes (typed)
With note instructions to treasurer and veterinarians
The treasurer was instructed to require an inspection ‘slip’ before selling a kennel license.
That is not part of the treasurer’s job description.
The veterinarians (illegally acting as agents of the treasurer) were instructed to not sell more than 4 individual dog licenses to an address and tell those people they had to get in touch with animal control to get a kennel license.
That is also not part of the treasurer’s job description. Misfeasance of office?
6. Inspection slip
The first one I saw had some crap on it about SENATE BILL No. 782 which later became the “Large Carnivore Act” and SENATE BILL No. 705 which later became the “Wolf Dog Cross Act”. But a “Senate Bill” is not a law, statute or anything else. Totally irrelevant as to a dog kennel and just BS to try to snow people into believing it was something official. I don’t know where that form came from and I don’t know where this latest one comes from, either.
Sheriff Jon Wilson did this all on his own, so far as I can tell. I have no evidence of anything else, but I did hear somewhere that the Department of Agriculture suggested this as a means to recover ‘lost’ revenue when counties discovered they were overcharging for kennel licenses and had to reduce the kennel license fee. I have nothing to substantiate that and the Dept of Agriculture does not have the authority to do that. I would assume they might deny saying that, but I think they said it. When I FOIA’d they came up with all kinds of lame excuses, said that was up to the counties ( they really didn’t know or didn’t want to admit they knew anything about it ).
Anyway, since JW did this all on his own, you can undo it all on your own. It is easy to stop, just send a letter to kennel owners, dog license sellers (the Humane Society now sells licenses- equally as illegal as the vets selling them) and the county treasurer.
I am, of course, assuming you will be elected and you fully understand that, as sheriff, you are in charge. It would be a good thing to have your department operating within the law. ( novel idea )
7. Dog Law of 1919 Sec 10 Kennels
This is the law for kennels.
Sec 10 b Kennel licensing ordinance
This states a city, township or village may adopt a kennel ordinance provided it is the same as section 10. It does not say a county may do that.
9. Department of Agriculture Admin rule R 285.129.1
Section 10 provides that the department of agriculture shall promulgate reasonable rules with respect to the inspections of new kennels and that kennels comply with reasonable sanitary requirements. This is the Admin rule that establishes those requirements.
10, Report of the Attorney General No. 1897 January 24, 1955
Section 10 contains some confusing wording that was added later.”The provisions of this act shall not be effective in the counties of this state that are operating under the provisions of section 16…etc……. Without further thought many have simply dropped the whole thing, figuring they were not subject to the Dog Law of 1919. Sorry, not true. This AG opinion address that issue.
Those counties are not subject to the act that added this amendment and only that amendment, they are still subject to the Dog Law of 1919 and Sec 10 as the kennel regulations. Nice try.
12. Randy O. Colbry LEGAL OPINION (typed one page as he delivered)
13. Randy O. Colbry LEGAL OPINION (typed split up for easier reading)
Mr. Colbry’s opinion states a section added in 1973 makes the AG Opinion of 1955 obsolete, the county is free to regulate kennels and the county does not need to consider only one year in determining the dog license fee.
Colbry is WRONG.
The section he refers to (29a) refers only to individual dog licenses and History: Add. 1972, Act 349, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973 also amended Sec 10.
If Sec 10 were to become obsolete, they would have eliminated it.
15. Randy O. Colbry LEGAL OPINION (typed split up for easier reading with my response)
My responses to this particularly stupid LEGAL OPINION are in red.
20. ARGUMENT kinda sums it all up
22a. new instructions and why
23. Complete Dog Law of 1919 Complete Through PA 300 of 2008
for your reference and it is also available online at
The Michigan Legislature website
NARRATIVE
Under the Michigan State Dog Law of 1919 a county has no authority to promulgate rules, regulations pertaining to kennels.
Under MCL 46.11 Powers of Boards of Commissioners the board may adopt ordinances that do not contravene state law.
Shiawassee County has violated both of those with their Animal Control Ordinance and at this moment I will specifically direct the kennel licensing part.
The Dog Law of 1919 requires an inspection of a kennel facility precedent to issuing a kennel license for a new kennel.
That would mean the first time an applicant applies for a kennel license, the kennel must be inspected previous to application.
Not even the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance, but merely a new “POLICY” adopted by the sheriff, requires an annual inspection, with outrageous fee.
Nowhere in the dog law is there authority given to do this.
It was done during the budget process and the county board of commissioners approved it.
This contravenes state law.
The Dog Law of 1919 says a person who owns three or more dogs may purchase a kennel license in lieu of individual licenses.
That would mean a person could buy individual licenses or a kennel license.
The Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance says that and then adds a section that says a person who owns four or more dogs is required to purchase a kennel license.
They enforce the section that says “requires”. However, should that ever face a court challenge there is a good chance that could be declared “void for vagueness” without looking any further. It does contravene state law.
The animal control officer has instructed veterinarians who sell dog licenses (also illegal) and the Humane Society and the county treasurer that they are not to sell four or more individual dog licenses to an address (also illegal). They are to instruct those people that they must ‘get with animal control to obtain a kennel license’. WRONG, but that is what they do.
Animal control then tells them they must get with zoning to make sure they are properly zoned to operate a kennel. WRONG, again. (After I bitched about it and described it at a county meeting, Wilson made the animal control officer quit doing that). Animal Control is not zoning enforcement and that is another whole ball of wax.
The Dog Law of 1919 says a certificate of vaccination for rabies is not required at the time of purchasing a kennel license.
Then animal control wants to inspect rabies certificates when they inspect the kennel.
This contravenes state law.
The Dog Law of 1919 says the treasurer shall issue a kennel license.
The Shiawassee County Treasurer will not issue a kennel license without a ‘slip’ from the animal control officer. WRONG…….not in his job description to make any requirement of any kind.
He SHALL ISSUE,
Only on the very first time a person applies for a kennel license may there be an inspection required, and then only if the board of supervisors has not appointed a dog warden.
Technically, our board of supervisors has not.
From AG Opinion 1897
“ The regulations promulgated by the director of agriculture based upon the authority of said Sec. 10 with reference to kennel licenses are effective in all counties in which the board of supervisors has not appointed a county dog warden as authorized by Sec. 16 of the act.
In counties wherein a county dog warden has been appointed, the board of supervisors has the option of accepting by resolution the provisions of Sec. 10
Unless the board adopts such a resolution, inspection and certification of kennels by the director of agriculture or his authorized representative is not required as a condition to the issuance of kennel licenses. “
No matter how you cut it,
An inspection is not required in this county.
They must appoint an animal control officer. They didn’t.
They must adopt a resolution accepting the inspection requirement.
They didn’t do that either.
What they are doing contravenes state law.
The Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance says that the animal control officer has the right to inspect kennels.
Nowhere, no how, no way is there anything that gives anybody the RIGHT to do that.
That contravenes state law, state constitution and federal.
The county board of commissioners may not give authority they do not have to anyone.
Under MCL 46.11 Powers of Boards of Commissioners the board may adopt ordinances that do not contravene state law.
Shiawassee County has violated both of those with their Animal Control Ordinance and at this moment I will specifically direct the kennel licensing part.
The Dog Law of 1919 requires an inspection of a kennel facility precedent to issuing a kennel license for a new kennel.
That would mean the first time an applicant applies for a kennel license, the kennel must be inspected previous to application.
Not even the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance, but merely a new “POLICY” adopted by the sheriff, requires an annual inspection, with outrageous fee.
Nowhere in the dog law is there authority given to do this.
It was done during the budget process and the county board of commissioners approved it.
This contravenes state law.
The Dog Law of 1919 says a person who owns three or more dogs may purchase a kennel license in lieu of individual licenses.
That would mean a person could buy individual licenses or a kennel license.
The Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance says that and then adds a section that says a person who owns four or more dogs is required to purchase a kennel license.
They enforce the section that says “requires”. However, should that ever face a court challenge there is a good chance that could be declared “void for vagueness” without looking any further. It does contravene state law.
The animal control officer has instructed veterinarians who sell dog licenses (also illegal) and the Humane Society and the county treasurer that they are not to sell four or more individual dog licenses to an address (also illegal). They are to instruct those people that they must ‘get with animal control to obtain a kennel license’. WRONG, but that is what they do.
Animal control then tells them they must get with zoning to make sure they are properly zoned to operate a kennel. WRONG, again. (After I bitched about it and described it at a county meeting, Wilson made the animal control officer quit doing that). Animal Control is not zoning enforcement and that is another whole ball of wax.
The Dog Law of 1919 says a certificate of vaccination for rabies is not required at the time of purchasing a kennel license.
Then animal control wants to inspect rabies certificates when they inspect the kennel.
This contravenes state law.
The Dog Law of 1919 says the treasurer shall issue a kennel license.
The Shiawassee County Treasurer will not issue a kennel license without a ‘slip’ from the animal control officer. WRONG…….not in his job description to make any requirement of any kind.
He SHALL ISSUE,
Only on the very first time a person applies for a kennel license may there be an inspection required, and then only if the board of supervisors has not appointed a dog warden.
Technically, our board of supervisors has not.
From AG Opinion 1897
“ The regulations promulgated by the director of agriculture based upon the authority of said Sec. 10 with reference to kennel licenses are effective in all counties in which the board of supervisors has not appointed a county dog warden as authorized by Sec. 16 of the act.
In counties wherein a county dog warden has been appointed, the board of supervisors has the option of accepting by resolution the provisions of Sec. 10
Unless the board adopts such a resolution, inspection and certification of kennels by the director of agriculture or his authorized representative is not required as a condition to the issuance of kennel licenses. “
No matter how you cut it,
An inspection is not required in this county.
They must appoint an animal control officer. They didn’t.
They must adopt a resolution accepting the inspection requirement.
They didn’t do that either.
What they are doing contravenes state law.
The Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance says that the animal control officer has the right to inspect kennels.
Nowhere, no how, no way is there anything that gives anybody the RIGHT to do that.
That contravenes state law, state constitution and federal.
The county board of commissioners may not give authority they do not have to anyone.
MCL vs SCAC
Sec 10 of the Dog law of 1919 says a kennel owner may purchase a kennel licenses in lieu of individual dog licenses.
I would interpret that to mean a person who owns more than 3 dogs can purchase individual dog licenses for their four or more dogs and they are not required to get a kennel license.
The Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance says a lot of things about kennels the county has no authority to say, but it also says:
Section 7. Any person who own, keeps or operates a kennel may,
In lieu of individual licenses required
under this ordinance and
under the laws of the State of Michigan,
apply to the Treasurer for a kennel license
intitling him/her to own, keep or operate
such kennel in accordance with the applicable laws and
the fee for same shall be in accordance with the laws of the state
or as established by the rules and regulations of licensing fees by
the Board of Commissioners.
Section 8. Any person owning a kennel shall obtain a kennel license upon commencement of kennel operations from the County Treasurer.
Sections 7 and 8 do appear to contradict each other and this could be declared void for vagueness. They also contravene state law and are null and void.
The instructions to the dog license sellers to not sell more than 4 individual dog licenses to an address and to tell those people they must contact animal control to obtain a kennel license, needs to be rescinded (this will result in more revenue).
If anything, the license sellers should inform people with more than 4 dogs that they may obtain a kennel license, in lieu of individual licenses. For a new kennel they need to contact animal control and have animal control inspect, as per Dept AG Admin Rule for reasonable sanitary requirements. The kennel license is $10 for up to 10 dogs and $25 for more than 10 dogs. They could be provided a copy of the Admin Rule.
A renewal on an existing kennel does not require an inspection.
I would interpret that to mean a person who owns more than 3 dogs can purchase individual dog licenses for their four or more dogs and they are not required to get a kennel license.
The Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance says a lot of things about kennels the county has no authority to say, but it also says:
Section 7. Any person who own, keeps or operates a kennel may,
In lieu of individual licenses required
under this ordinance and
under the laws of the State of Michigan,
apply to the Treasurer for a kennel license
intitling him/her to own, keep or operate
such kennel in accordance with the applicable laws and
the fee for same shall be in accordance with the laws of the state
or as established by the rules and regulations of licensing fees by
the Board of Commissioners.
Section 8. Any person owning a kennel shall obtain a kennel license upon commencement of kennel operations from the County Treasurer.
Sections 7 and 8 do appear to contradict each other and this could be declared void for vagueness. They also contravene state law and are null and void.
The instructions to the dog license sellers to not sell more than 4 individual dog licenses to an address and to tell those people they must contact animal control to obtain a kennel license, needs to be rescinded (this will result in more revenue).
If anything, the license sellers should inform people with more than 4 dogs that they may obtain a kennel license, in lieu of individual licenses. For a new kennel they need to contact animal control and have animal control inspect, as per Dept AG Admin Rule for reasonable sanitary requirements. The kennel license is $10 for up to 10 dogs and $25 for more than 10 dogs. They could be provided a copy of the Admin Rule.
A renewal on an existing kennel does not require an inspection.
2005 Kennel license changes - typed
SHIAWASSEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
2005 SHIAWASSEE COUNTY KENNEL LICENSE CHANGES
Starting in January of 2005, Shiawassee County has implemented new policies and fees for all kennels throughout the county.
Private kennels (5-10 dogs) will now be $10, with a $30 per year kennel inspection fee.
Commercial kennels (11-25 dogs) will be $25, with a $50 per year kennel inspection fee.
Each kennel throughout the county must have an officer respond to the kennel to conduct a kennel inspection prior to obtaining any kennel license. The officer will look at Rabies certificates on each kenneled dog and will be inspecting the kennel. The officer will issue a slip to the private or commercial kennel for compliance, which then can be taken to the Shiawassee County Treasurer to obtain the 2005 private or commercial kennel license and to pay the inspection fee.
I, Animal Control Officer Byles look forward to serving you throughout 2005. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 989-743-2406.
Sincerely,
Animal Control Officer Byles
Shiawassee County
Sheriff Jon Wilson
Shiawassee County
There were also instructions to veterinarians that they could no longer sell more than 4 licenses per address. Those people would have to contact animal control.
And
Instructions to the County Treasurer that he must have an ‘inspection slip’ before selling a kennel license.
2005 SHIAWASSEE COUNTY KENNEL LICENSE CHANGES
Starting in January of 2005, Shiawassee County has implemented new policies and fees for all kennels throughout the county.
Private kennels (5-10 dogs) will now be $10, with a $30 per year kennel inspection fee.
Commercial kennels (11-25 dogs) will be $25, with a $50 per year kennel inspection fee.
Each kennel throughout the county must have an officer respond to the kennel to conduct a kennel inspection prior to obtaining any kennel license. The officer will look at Rabies certificates on each kenneled dog and will be inspecting the kennel. The officer will issue a slip to the private or commercial kennel for compliance, which then can be taken to the Shiawassee County Treasurer to obtain the 2005 private or commercial kennel license and to pay the inspection fee.
I, Animal Control Officer Byles look forward to serving you throughout 2005. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 989-743-2406.
Sincerely,
Animal Control Officer Byles
Shiawassee County
Sheriff Jon Wilson
Shiawassee County
There were also instructions to veterinarians that they could no longer sell more than 4 licenses per address. Those people would have to contact animal control.
And
Instructions to the County Treasurer that he must have an ‘inspection slip’ before selling a kennel license.
DOG LAW OF 1919 - Kennels
DOG LAW OF 1919
Act 339 of 1919
Act 339 of 1919
AN ACT relating to dogs and the protection of live stock and poultry from damage by dogs; providing for the licensing of dogs; regulating the keeping of dogs, and authorizing their destruction in certain cases; providing for the determination and payment of damages done by dogs to live stock and poultry; imposing powers and duties on certain state, county, city and township officers and employes, and to repeal Act No. 347 of the Public Acts of 1917, and providing penalties for the violation of this act.
History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919
© 2004 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
287.261 Short title; definitions.
Sec. 1.
(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the “dog law of 1919”.
(2) For the purpose of this act:
(a) “Livestock” means horses, stallions, colts, geldings, mares, sheep, rams, lambs, bulls, bullocks, steers, heifers, cows, calves, mules, jacks, jennets, burros, goats, kids and swine, and fur-bearing animals being raised in captivity.
(b) “Poultry” means all domestic fowl, ornamental birds, and game birds possessed or being reared under authority of a breeder's license pursuant to part 427 (breeders and dealers) of the natural resources and environmental protection act, Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.42701 to 324.42714 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(c) “Owner” when applied to the proprietorship of a dog means every person having a right of property in the dog, and every person who keeps or harbors the dog or has it in his care, and every person who permits the dog to remain on or about any premises occupied by him.
(d) “Kennel” means any establishment wherein or whereon dogs are kept for the purpose of breeding, sale, or sporting purposes.
(e) “Law enforcement officer” means any person employed or elected by the people of the state, or by any municipality, county, or township, whose duty it is to preserve peace or to make arrests or to enforce the law, and includes conservation officers and members of the state police.
(f) “Hunting” means allowing a dog to range freely within sight or sound of its owner while in the course of hunting legal game or an unprotected animal.
287.270 “Kennel” defined; kennel license; fee; tags; certificate; rules; inspection; exception.
Sec. 10.
For the purposes of this act, a kennel shall be construed as an establishment wherein or whereon 3 or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes, for remuneration, and a kennel facility shall be so constructed as to prevent the public or stray dogs from obtaining entrance thereto and gaining contact with dogs lodged in the kennel.
Any person who keeps or operates a kennel may, in lieu of individual license required under this act, apply to the county treasurer for a kennel license entitling him to keep or operate a kennel.
Proof of vaccination of dogs against rabies shall not be required with the application.
The license shall be issued by the county treasurer on a form prepared and supplied by the director of the department of agriculture, and shall entitle the licensee to keep any number of dogs 6 months old or over not at any time exceeding a certain number to be specified in the license.
The fee to be paid for a kennel license shall be $10.00 for 10 dogs or less, and $25.00 for more than 10 dogs. A fee of double the original license fee shall be charged for each previously licensed kennel, whose kennel license is applied for after June 1. With each kennel license the county treasurer shall issue a number of metal tags equal to the number of dogs authorized to be kept in the kennel. All the tags shall bear the name of the county issuing it, the number of the kennel license, and shall be readily distinguishable from the individual license tags for the same year.
The county treasurer or county animal control officer shall not issue a kennel license for a new kennel under the provisions of this act unless the applicant furnishes an inspection certificate signed by the director of the department of agriculture, or his authorized representative, stating that the kennel to be covered by the license complies with the reasonable sanitary requirements of the department of agriculture, and that the dogs therein are properly fed and protected from exposure commensurate with the breed of the dog.
The director of the department of agriculture shall promulgate reasonable rules with respect to the inspections in the manner prescribed by law. The inspection shall be made not more than 30 days before filing the application for license. The provisions of this act shall not be effective in the counties of this state that are operating under the provisions of section 16 wherein the board of supervisors have appointed a county animal control officer with certain powers and duties, unless the counties by a resolution duly adopted by the board of supervisors accept the provisions of this act.
Admin Rule: R 285.129.1 of the Michigan Administrative Code.
287.270a Repealed. 1969, Act 195, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970.
Compiler's Notes: The repealed section pertained to vaccination of dog sold by licensed kennel.
287.270b Kennel licensing ordinance.
Sec. 10b.
Any city, township or village having in its employment a full-time animal control officer may adopt an ordinance providing for the issuance of kennel licenses by the animal control officer on the same terms, conditions and fees as is provided in section 10. Upon the adoption of the ordinance the city, township or village shall be excepted from the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of this act.
287.271 Rules governing kennel dogs.
Sec. 11.
The licensee of a kennel shall, at all times, keep 1 of such tags attached to a collar on each dog 4 months old or over kept by him under a kennel license. No dog bearing a kennel tag shall be permitted to stray or be taken anywhere outside the limits of the kennel. This section does not prohibit the taking of dogs having a kennel license outside the limits of the kennel temporarily and in leash, nor does it prohibit the taking of such dogs out of the kennel temporarily for the purpose of hunting, breeding, trial or show.
287.289a Animal control agency; establishment; employees; jurisdiction; contents of animal control ordinance.
Sec. 29a.
The board of county commissioners by ordinance may establish an animal control agency which shall employ at least 1 animal control officer.
The board of county commissioners may assign the animal control agency to any existing county department.
The animal control agency shall have jurisdiction to enforce this act in any city, village or township which does not have an animal control ordinance.
shall provide for animal control programs, facilities, personnel and necessary expenses incurred in animal control.
The ordinance is subject to sections 6 and 30.
287.290 Municipal animal control ordinances; certificate of vaccination.
Sec. 30.
A city, village or township by action of its governing body may adopt an animal control ordinance to regulate the licensing, payment of claims and providing for the enforcement thereof.
A city, village, county or township adopting a dog licensing ordinance or ordinances shall also require that such application for a license, except kennel licenses, shall be accompanied by proof of vaccination of the dog for rabies by a valid certificate of vaccination for rabies, with a vaccine licensed by the United States department of agriculture, signed by an accredited veterinarian.
Rendered 2/20/2005 01:04:08 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 596 of 2004 Regular Session and the 2004 Constitutional Amendments © 2005 Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov
Dept of Agriculture Admin rule 285.129.1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ANIMAL INDUSTRY DIVISION
REGULATION NO. 129. DOG KENNELS
ANIMAL INDUSTRY DIVISION
REGULATION NO. 129. DOG KENNELS
(By authority of section 10 of Act No. 339 of the Public Acts of 1939, as amended, being S287.270 of the Michigan Compiled Laws)
R 285.129.1 Dog kennels.
Rule 1. (1) The following rule is hereby established to be effective on and after April 22, 1946:
(a) Any dog kennel which under Michigan state law is to be covered by a license shall be of such construction as will adequately and comfortably house any dogs kept therein at any season of the year. The buildings, including walls and floors, shall be of such construction as to be readily cleaned, and kennels and yards connected therewith used to confine kennel dogs shall be kept cleaned and free from accumulation of filth, mud, and debris.
(b) All dogs kept or maintained in connection with such kennels shall be furnished with a clean, fresh water supply and adequate and proper food to maintain such animals in a normal condition of health.
(c) The necessary inspections to be made under this rule to determine whether the same has been complied with shall be made by the dog warden, if there be one, otherwise by such person as may be appointed by the board of supervisors or the legislative body of the government unit involved. If no such appointment is made and in effect in any county, city, or village, then such inspection shall be made on behalf of the commissioner of agriculture by the sheriff or chief of police.
(d) In all cases, upon such inspection being satisfactory, a certificate of inspection shall be signed by such inspector on behalf of the commissioner of agriculture as required by the act.
(2) The provisions of this rule shall not be effective in the counties of this state that are operating under the provisions of section 16 of Act No. 79 of the Public Acts of 1933, being S287.276 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, wherein the board of supervisors have appointed a county dog warden with certain powers and duties, unless such counties by a resolution duly adopted by the board of supervisors accept the provisions of Act No. 245 of the Public Acts of 1945, being S287.261 et seq. of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
History: 1944 ACS 6; 1954 AC; 1979 AC.
ATTORNEY GENERAL 25 Opinion No. 1897
REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 25
DOG LAW ___ KENNELS, LICENSING OF. REGULATIONS AS TO—
Regulations of the director of agriculture with regard to dog kennels and the inspection thereof are in effect in those counties which do not have a county dog warden.
In other counties the board of supervisors may adopt the provisions authorizing the promulgation thereof, in which case such regulations would be in effect.
The board of supervisors has no authority however to promulgate regulations in regard thereto.
No. 1897 January 24, 1955
Mr. ALFRED A. BLOMBERG, Civil Counsel
County of Macomb,
201 Mt. Clemens Savings Bank Bldg.
Mt. Clemens, Michigan
Dear Mr. Blomberg:
Your request for opinion bearing date of December 29, 1954 and addressed to my predecessor cites certain provisions of Act No. 339, P.A. 1919 as amended (&& 287.261 et seq C.L. 1948. && 12.511 et seq., M.S.A.).
The act provides for the annual licensing of dogs upon payment of the fee prescribed by Sec. 6 (&& 287.266, C.L. 1948, being as amended by Act No. 172, P.A. 1953, & 12.516, M.S.A. Supp.) The function of licensing is performed by the respective counties, townships or cities. The act vests certain powers and discretion in the several county boards of supervisors. The director of agriculture likewise is vested with powers, particularly of a supervisory nature.
Sec. 16 of the dog law (& 287.276, C.L. 1948; & 12.526, M.S.A.) imposes the duty upon the supervisor of each township and the assessor of each city of compiling an annual report to the county treasurer in which is listed each owner or keeper of any dog subject to license thereunder. For that service the officer receives a fee of 20 cents per dog payable from the county treasury. Act No. 79 P.A. 1933, in amending the dog law added the following proviso to Sec 16 thereof:
“Provided further, That the board of supervisors of any county may, by resolution appoint for said county for a term of 1 year a dog warden or dog wardens whose duties and compensation shall be such as shall be prescribed by said board of supervisors.”Sec. 10 of the act, & 287.270, C.L. 1948, being as last amended by Act No.172, P.A. 1953 ( & 12.520, M.S.A. Supp.), provides for the issuance of a kennel license upon payment of the fee therefor according to the schedule therein prescribed in lieu of the fee based upon the number of individual dog licenses as set forth in Sec. 6, supra.
Sec. 10, as amended, requires as a condition precedent to the issuance of a kennel license the inspection of such kennel by the director of agriculture or his authorized representative and the issuance of his certificate evidencing compliance with reasonable sanitary requirements. The director of agriculture is empowered to promulgate regulations with regard thereto. That section contains the following proviso:
DOG LAW ___ KENNELS, LICENSING OF. REGULATIONS AS TO—
Regulations of the director of agriculture with regard to dog kennels and the inspection thereof are in effect in those counties which do not have a county dog warden.
In other counties the board of supervisors may adopt the provisions authorizing the promulgation thereof, in which case such regulations would be in effect.
The board of supervisors has no authority however to promulgate regulations in regard thereto.
No. 1897 January 24, 1955
Mr. ALFRED A. BLOMBERG, Civil Counsel
County of Macomb,
201 Mt. Clemens Savings Bank Bldg.
Mt. Clemens, Michigan
Dear Mr. Blomberg:
Your request for opinion bearing date of December 29, 1954 and addressed to my predecessor cites certain provisions of Act No. 339, P.A. 1919 as amended (&& 287.261 et seq C.L. 1948. && 12.511 et seq., M.S.A.).
The act provides for the annual licensing of dogs upon payment of the fee prescribed by Sec. 6 (&& 287.266, C.L. 1948, being as amended by Act No. 172, P.A. 1953, & 12.516, M.S.A. Supp.) The function of licensing is performed by the respective counties, townships or cities. The act vests certain powers and discretion in the several county boards of supervisors. The director of agriculture likewise is vested with powers, particularly of a supervisory nature.
Sec. 16 of the dog law (& 287.276, C.L. 1948; & 12.526, M.S.A.) imposes the duty upon the supervisor of each township and the assessor of each city of compiling an annual report to the county treasurer in which is listed each owner or keeper of any dog subject to license thereunder. For that service the officer receives a fee of 20 cents per dog payable from the county treasury. Act No. 79 P.A. 1933, in amending the dog law added the following proviso to Sec 16 thereof:
“Provided further, That the board of supervisors of any county may, by resolution appoint for said county for a term of 1 year a dog warden or dog wardens whose duties and compensation shall be such as shall be prescribed by said board of supervisors.”Sec. 10 of the act, & 287.270, C.L. 1948, being as last amended by Act No.172, P.A. 1953 ( & 12.520, M.S.A. Supp.), provides for the issuance of a kennel license upon payment of the fee therefor according to the schedule therein prescribed in lieu of the fee based upon the number of individual dog licenses as set forth in Sec. 6, supra.
Sec. 10, as amended, requires as a condition precedent to the issuance of a kennel license the inspection of such kennel by the director of agriculture or his authorized representative and the issuance of his certificate evidencing compliance with reasonable sanitary requirements. The director of agriculture is empowered to promulgate regulations with regard thereto. That section contains the following proviso:
“Provided, however. The provisions of this act shall not be effective in the counties of this state that are operating under the provisions of section 16 of Act No. 79 of the Public Acts of 1933, wherein the board of supervisors have appointed a county dog warden with certain powers and duties, unless such counties by a resolution duly adopted by the board of supervisors accept the provisions of this act.”
Such proviso as well as the provisions regarding inspection and certification of the kennels and the promulgation of regulations with regard thereto were added to said section by Act No. 245, P.A. 1945, which act amended only Sec. 10. Obviously, it was not intended by the above quoted provision to exempt those counties having a county dog warden from all of the provisions of Act No. 339, P.A. 1919,. Nor is it reasonable to assume that the legislature intended to make all of the provisions of Sec. 10 of said act inoperative in such a county. Since the adoption of the act in 1919. Sec. 10 has authorized the issuance of kennel licenses and it is entirely unlikely that the legislature intended by the 1945 amendment to terminate the authority to issue such licenses in a county having a county dog warden. However, the 1945 amendment imposed the requirement of inspection and certification by the director of agriculture as a condition precedent to the issurance of a kennel license and authorized the director to adopt regulations pertaining thereto. The Attorney General, therefore, interprets the above language , “The provisions of this act” as referring only to such provisions which were added to Sec. 10 by the 1945 amendatory act.
As you note, the act does not expressly authorize the board of supervisors to adopt rules and regulations with respect to dog kennels. You request opinion as to the authority of the board of supervisors to promulgate such rules and regulations.The regulations promulgated by the director of agriculture based upon the authority of said Sec. 10 with reference to kennel licenses are effective in all counties in which the board of supervisors has not appointed a county dog warden as authorized by Sec. 16 of the act.
In counties wherein a county dog warden has been appointed, the board of supervisors has the option of accepting by resolution the provisions of Sec. 10
Unless the board adopts such a resolution, inspection and certification of kennels by the director of agriculture or his authorized representative is not required as a condition to the issuance of kennel licenses. By the same token, under those circumstances regulations of the director of agriculture with respect to the inspection and certification of kennels would not be applicable.
Regulations adopted by the director of agriculture by virtue of other statutory authority would of course be in effect, even in those counties. See & 287.4 C.L. 1948 & 12.373; M.S.A.
In those counties in which the board of supervisors has accepted the provisions of Sec. 10 the issuance of kennel licenses is authorized only upon inspection and certification by the director of agriculture. The regulations of the director of agriculture pertaining thereto would, of course, be in effect in such counties.
The Attorney General is of the opinion that the board of supervisors of the several counties may exercise either of the options above indicated but that that act does not confer upon the board of supervisors the power to adopted regulations pertaining to dog kennels.
Such proviso as well as the provisions regarding inspection and certification of the kennels and the promulgation of regulations with regard thereto were added to said section by Act No. 245, P.A. 1945, which act amended only Sec. 10. Obviously, it was not intended by the above quoted provision to exempt those counties having a county dog warden from all of the provisions of Act No. 339, P.A. 1919,. Nor is it reasonable to assume that the legislature intended to make all of the provisions of Sec. 10 of said act inoperative in such a county. Since the adoption of the act in 1919. Sec. 10 has authorized the issuance of kennel licenses and it is entirely unlikely that the legislature intended by the 1945 amendment to terminate the authority to issue such licenses in a county having a county dog warden. However, the 1945 amendment imposed the requirement of inspection and certification by the director of agriculture as a condition precedent to the issurance of a kennel license and authorized the director to adopt regulations pertaining thereto. The Attorney General, therefore, interprets the above language , “The provisions of this act” as referring only to such provisions which were added to Sec. 10 by the 1945 amendatory act.
As you note, the act does not expressly authorize the board of supervisors to adopt rules and regulations with respect to dog kennels. You request opinion as to the authority of the board of supervisors to promulgate such rules and regulations.The regulations promulgated by the director of agriculture based upon the authority of said Sec. 10 with reference to kennel licenses are effective in all counties in which the board of supervisors has not appointed a county dog warden as authorized by Sec. 16 of the act.
In counties wherein a county dog warden has been appointed, the board of supervisors has the option of accepting by resolution the provisions of Sec. 10
Unless the board adopts such a resolution, inspection and certification of kennels by the director of agriculture or his authorized representative is not required as a condition to the issuance of kennel licenses. By the same token, under those circumstances regulations of the director of agriculture with respect to the inspection and certification of kennels would not be applicable.
Regulations adopted by the director of agriculture by virtue of other statutory authority would of course be in effect, even in those counties. See & 287.4 C.L. 1948 & 12.373; M.S.A.
In those counties in which the board of supervisors has accepted the provisions of Sec. 10 the issuance of kennel licenses is authorized only upon inspection and certification by the director of agriculture. The regulations of the director of agriculture pertaining thereto would, of course, be in effect in such counties.
The Attorney General is of the opinion that the board of supervisors of the several counties may exercise either of the options above indicated but that that act does not confer upon the board of supervisors the power to adopted regulations pertaining to dog kennels.
Very truly yours,
Thomas M. Kavanagh
Attorney General
Thomas M. Kavanagh
Attorney General
Well he's WRONG
Link to -------------------------------------->
47) Randy O. Colbry - Opinion My RESPONSE
--------------------------------------------->
47) Randy O. Colbry - Opinion My RESPONSE
--------------------------------------------->
Friday, November 28, 2008
Kennel "Policy" Argument
MCL 287.289a Animal control agency; establishment; employees; jurisdiction; contents of animal control ordinance. [M.S.A. 12.540(1) ]
Sec. 29a. The board of county commissioners by ordinance may establish an animal control agency which shall employ at least 1 animal control officer. The board of county commissioners may assign the animal control agency to any existing county department.
The animal control agency shall have jurisdiction to enforce this act in any city, village or township which does not have an animal control ordinance.
The county's animal control ordinance shall provide for animal control programs, facilities, personnel and necessary expenses incurred in animal control.
The ordinance is subject to sections 6 and 30.
Section 6 gives the counties several options to choose how and when dog licenses are due and Sec 30 (below listed) says :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCL 287.290 Municipal animal control ordinances; certificate of vaccination. [M.S.A. 12.541 ]
Sec. 30. A city, village or township by action of its governing body may adopt an animal control ordinance to regulate the licensing, payment of claims and providing for the enforcement thereof.
A city, village, county or township adopting a dog licensing ordinance or ordinances shall also require that such application for a license, except kennel licenses, shall be accompanied by proof of vaccination of the dog for rabies by a valid certificate of vaccination for rabies, with a vaccine licensed by the United States department of agriculture, signed by an accredited veterinarian.
Sec. 29a. The board of county commissioners by ordinance may establish an animal control agency which shall employ at least 1 animal control officer. The board of county commissioners may assign the animal control agency to any existing county department.
The animal control agency shall have jurisdiction to enforce this act in any city, village or township which does not have an animal control ordinance.
The county's animal control ordinance shall provide for animal control programs, facilities, personnel and necessary expenses incurred in animal control.
The ordinance is subject to sections 6 and 30.
Section 6 gives the counties several options to choose how and when dog licenses are due and Sec 30 (below listed) says :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCL 287.290 Municipal animal control ordinances; certificate of vaccination. [M.S.A. 12.541 ]
Sec. 30. A city, village or township by action of its governing body may adopt an animal control ordinance to regulate the licensing, payment of claims and providing for the enforcement thereof.
A city, village, county or township adopting a dog licensing ordinance or ordinances shall also require that such application for a license, except kennel licenses, shall be accompanied by proof of vaccination of the dog for rabies by a valid certificate of vaccination for rabies, with a vaccine licensed by the United States department of agriculture, signed by an accredited veterinarian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 13, 2005 I received a letter from the Shiawassee County Sheriff stating Shiawassee County has implemented new policies and fees for all kennels throughout the county, etc. An animal control officer would be inspecting my kennel and would be inspecting rabies vaccination certificates.
The Michigan State dog law of 1919 MCL 287.270 Sec 10 states “Proof of vaccination of dogs against rabies shall not be required with the application.” (for a kennel license).
Attorney General Opinion 1897 states:
Regulations of the director of agriculture with regard to dog kennels and the inspection thereof are in effect in those counties which do not have a county dog warden.
In other counties the board of supervisors may adopt the provisions authorizing the promulgation thereof, in which case such regulations would be in effect.
The board of supervisors has no authority however to promulgate regulations in regard thereto.
No. 1897 January 24, 1955
and AG opinion 1897 also states “.........Obviously, it was not intended by the above quoted provision to exempt those counties having a county dog warden from all of the provisions of Act No. 339, P.A. 1919,. Nor is it reasonable to assume that the legislature intended to make all of the provisions of Sec. 10 of said act inoperative in such a county......”
I think “policies” would fall into the category of regulations here.
and AG opinion 1897 also states “In counties wherein a county dog warden has been appointed, the board of supervisors has the option of accepting by resolution the provisions of Sec. 10
Unless the board adopts such a resolution, inspection and certification of kennels by the director of agriculture or his authorized representative is not required as a condition to the issuance of kennel licenses.”
MCL 287.270 Sec 10 also states “The director of the department of agriculture shall promulgate reasonable rules with respect to the inspections in the manner prescribed by law.” Which is addressed by AG Opinion 1897. The “reasonable rules” are Admin Rule R 285.129.1 of the Michigan Administrative Code. The Admin Rule also supports the position of the AG Opinion in that “The provisions of this act” as referring only to such provisions which were added to Sec. 10 by the 1945 amendatory act.”
The bottom line is the department of agriculture promulgates rules and regulations, the county board of supervisors does not. If the county board of supervisors has no such authority then neither does the animal control department of the county.
If the board of commissioners does not adopt such a resolution no inspection is required.
======================================================
The county acknowledged they are subject to Sec 10 when they lowered the kennel license fees to that designated by section 10 of the dog law of 1919 in December of 2004.
======================================================
Then this letter comes. As a kennel owner, I have no choice but to comply with these “new policies” or run the risk of having my dogs confiscated and myself charged with violating the county’s animal control ordinance that does not comply with state law.
The county has taken the position that local ordinances take precedence over state law. I think that is the case only when the local ordinance is in compliance with state law and does not contravene state law.
MCL 46.11 Powers of county board of commissioners.
Sec. 11.
(j) By majority vote of the members of the county board of commissioners elected and serving, pass ordinances that relate to county affairs and do not contravene the general laws of this state or interfere with the local affairs of a township, city, or village within the limits of the county, and pursuant to section 10b provide suitable sanctions for the violation of those ordinances.
State law says kennel dogs are not required to show proof of rabies vaccination. Shiawassee County‘s ordinance says the opposite. That would “contravene” state law and the Board of Commissioners does not have the power to do that. The county ordinance is null and void.
.
State law says a kennel inspection is required precedent to the issuance of a new kennel license and makes no provision for “annual” inspections. Shiawassee County‘s ordinance says the annual inspections are required and the animal control officer may inspect at any time. That would “contravene” state law and the Board of Commissioners does not have the power to do that. The county ordinance is null and void.
.
State law makes no provision for an “inspection fee”. Shiawassee County‘s “policy”says inspection fees of $30 and $50. AG Opinion 1897 also says the county may not make rules and regulations pertaining to kennels. County “policy” would “contravene” state law and the Board of Commissioners does not have the power to do that. The county “policy” is null and void.
Ag Opinion 1897 says that county’s may not promulgate regulations thereto.
Shiawassee county has an ordinance, rules, regulations and policies all over the place that contravene state law.
But, to protect my dogs and myself from the overzealous sheriff and animal control I had to give them vaccines to protect them from the virus that they have had outbreaks of at the Animal Control shelter. The Animal Control officer seems to have no inclination as to “sanitizing” anything, nor keeping his hands off anything. At least he hasn’t at kennels that I know of him “inspecting” thus far. So, I have had to give all these shots at no small cost and I have had to give them rabies shots that they are exempt from, also at no small cost (bills attached) and pay an inspection fee, which was merely concocted to generate revenue lost by having to lower the kennel license fee to comply with state law. When state law only requires one inspection precedent to obtaining a new kennel license.
MCL 287.270 Sec 10 .....”The county treasurer or county animal control officer shall not issue a kennel license for a new kennel under the provisions of this act unless the applicant furnishes an inspection certificate signed by the director of the department of agriculture, or his authorized representative, stating that the kennel to be covered by the license complies with the reasonable sanitary requirements of the department of agriculture, and that the dogs therein are properly fed and protected from exposure commensurate with the breed of the dog. “
On January 13, 2005 I received a letter from the Shiawassee County Sheriff stating Shiawassee County has implemented new policies and fees for all kennels throughout the county, etc. An animal control officer would be inspecting my kennel and would be inspecting rabies vaccination certificates.
The Michigan State dog law of 1919 MCL 287.270 Sec 10 states “Proof of vaccination of dogs against rabies shall not be required with the application.” (for a kennel license).
Attorney General Opinion 1897 states:
Regulations of the director of agriculture with regard to dog kennels and the inspection thereof are in effect in those counties which do not have a county dog warden.
In other counties the board of supervisors may adopt the provisions authorizing the promulgation thereof, in which case such regulations would be in effect.
The board of supervisors has no authority however to promulgate regulations in regard thereto.
No. 1897 January 24, 1955
and AG opinion 1897 also states “.........Obviously, it was not intended by the above quoted provision to exempt those counties having a county dog warden from all of the provisions of Act No. 339, P.A. 1919,. Nor is it reasonable to assume that the legislature intended to make all of the provisions of Sec. 10 of said act inoperative in such a county......”
I think “policies” would fall into the category of regulations here.
and AG opinion 1897 also states “In counties wherein a county dog warden has been appointed, the board of supervisors has the option of accepting by resolution the provisions of Sec. 10
Unless the board adopts such a resolution, inspection and certification of kennels by the director of agriculture or his authorized representative is not required as a condition to the issuance of kennel licenses.”
MCL 287.270 Sec 10 also states “The director of the department of agriculture shall promulgate reasonable rules with respect to the inspections in the manner prescribed by law.” Which is addressed by AG Opinion 1897. The “reasonable rules” are Admin Rule R 285.129.1 of the Michigan Administrative Code. The Admin Rule also supports the position of the AG Opinion in that “The provisions of this act” as referring only to such provisions which were added to Sec. 10 by the 1945 amendatory act.”
The bottom line is the department of agriculture promulgates rules and regulations, the county board of supervisors does not. If the county board of supervisors has no such authority then neither does the animal control department of the county.
If the board of commissioners does not adopt such a resolution no inspection is required.
======================================================
The county acknowledged they are subject to Sec 10 when they lowered the kennel license fees to that designated by section 10 of the dog law of 1919 in December of 2004.
======================================================
Then this letter comes. As a kennel owner, I have no choice but to comply with these “new policies” or run the risk of having my dogs confiscated and myself charged with violating the county’s animal control ordinance that does not comply with state law.
The county has taken the position that local ordinances take precedence over state law. I think that is the case only when the local ordinance is in compliance with state law and does not contravene state law.
MCL 46.11 Powers of county board of commissioners.
Sec. 11.
(j) By majority vote of the members of the county board of commissioners elected and serving, pass ordinances that relate to county affairs and do not contravene the general laws of this state or interfere with the local affairs of a township, city, or village within the limits of the county, and pursuant to section 10b provide suitable sanctions for the violation of those ordinances.
State law says kennel dogs are not required to show proof of rabies vaccination. Shiawassee County‘s ordinance says the opposite. That would “contravene” state law and the Board of Commissioners does not have the power to do that. The county ordinance is null and void.
.
State law says a kennel inspection is required precedent to the issuance of a new kennel license and makes no provision for “annual” inspections. Shiawassee County‘s ordinance says the annual inspections are required and the animal control officer may inspect at any time. That would “contravene” state law and the Board of Commissioners does not have the power to do that. The county ordinance is null and void.
.
State law makes no provision for an “inspection fee”. Shiawassee County‘s “policy”says inspection fees of $30 and $50. AG Opinion 1897 also says the county may not make rules and regulations pertaining to kennels. County “policy” would “contravene” state law and the Board of Commissioners does not have the power to do that. The county “policy” is null and void.
Ag Opinion 1897 says that county’s may not promulgate regulations thereto.
Shiawassee county has an ordinance, rules, regulations and policies all over the place that contravene state law.
But, to protect my dogs and myself from the overzealous sheriff and animal control I had to give them vaccines to protect them from the virus that they have had outbreaks of at the Animal Control shelter. The Animal Control officer seems to have no inclination as to “sanitizing” anything, nor keeping his hands off anything. At least he hasn’t at kennels that I know of him “inspecting” thus far. So, I have had to give all these shots at no small cost and I have had to give them rabies shots that they are exempt from, also at no small cost (bills attached) and pay an inspection fee, which was merely concocted to generate revenue lost by having to lower the kennel license fee to comply with state law. When state law only requires one inspection precedent to obtaining a new kennel license.
MCL 287.270 Sec 10 .....”The county treasurer or county animal control officer shall not issue a kennel license for a new kennel under the provisions of this act unless the applicant furnishes an inspection certificate signed by the director of the department of agriculture, or his authorized representative, stating that the kennel to be covered by the license complies with the reasonable sanitary requirements of the department of agriculture, and that the dogs therein are properly fed and protected from exposure commensurate with the breed of the dog. “
Which, by-the-way, veterinarians are "authorized representatives" of the department of agriculture, but this county won't accept an inspection certificate from a veterinarian.
Shame on them.
Letter from Margaret McAvoy
County Coordinator says "
after receiving opinion of corporate council the commissioners have concluded that they are in compliance with all applicable laws, amendments and Attorney General's opinions"
WRONG..............
Argus-Press 12/16/04
"Animal Controll, which is overseen by the Shiawassee County Sheriff Department, hopes to compensate for the loss of revenue by instituting kennel inspection fees."They acknowledge their license fee violates state law.
They lower it to comply with state law.
Then they add an 'annual' inspection with fee that violates state law.
Makes perfect sense...this is Shiawassee County.
At the time this "dog law of 1919" went into effect, dog licenses were very low $2 & $4, if that.
The kennel license was considerably higher and that was designed to cover the cost of inspection.
At least I heard that somewhere, but I don't have anything to back it up. There should be something in the 'notes' taken during the deliberation process. That would take some digging and probably a trip to Lansing.
NORTHSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL
Previously I licensed my dogs individually and mailed the rabies certificates to the vet's office, they could then fill out the paperwork, at their convenience, and I could pickup later.
Malfeasance/Misfeasance
The Animal control officer’s duties, as defined by the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance do not include zoning enforcement. Nor is that included as defined by state law.
The County Treasurer’s duties are defined by state law and do not include enforcing anything. Not animal control ordinances, not zoning ordinances. The treasurer collects and records the money.
The Zoning department is responsible for enforcing Zoning, as defined by county ordinance.
The county treasurer is abusing his position in office by enforcing animal control and zoning ordinances. Malfeasance in office.
The animal control officer is abusing his position by enforcing zoning ordinances. That would be malfeasance on the part of the sheriff, who is responsible for this position in this county.
The County Treasurer’s duties are defined by state law and do not include enforcing anything. Not animal control ordinances, not zoning ordinances. The treasurer collects and records the money.
The Zoning department is responsible for enforcing Zoning, as defined by county ordinance.
The county treasurer is abusing his position in office by enforcing animal control and zoning ordinances. Malfeasance in office.
The animal control officer is abusing his position by enforcing zoning ordinances. That would be malfeasance on the part of the sheriff, who is responsible for this position in this county.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)