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
No comments:
Post a Comment