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.
No comments:
Post a Comment