Shiawassee County Animal Control - Michigan

59) Important Win for Dog Breeders

2011-12-30T11:25:00.000-08:00

December 2011

Important Win for Dog Breeders

Louisville Bulldog Owners Win in Federal Appeals CourtIn November, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals published its decision in the case of O’Neill v. Louisville/ Jefferson County Metro Government. The court�s decision in favor of the O’Neills signals an important win for both the O’Neills and for dog owners across the country.

Read the opinion here: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0287p-06.pdf

THE FACTS

In 2008, James and Angela O’Neill bred their Bulldogs for the first and only time, and advertised some of their 11 puppies for sale in the local newspaper. Posing as potential puppy buyers, two undercover agents of Louisville Metro Animal Services answered the ad and were invited into the O’Neill’s home to see the puppies.

They left the home, but returned almost immediately with several uniformed Animal Services officers and demanded to see their breeder’s license. Without a warrant or the O’Neill’s permission, in fact, over their specific objection the officers immediately entered the O’Neill’s home and took all of the dogs to the Animal Services facility, claiming they were operating an unlicensed kennel. The following day, the O’Neills were able to recover their dogs after paying over $1,000, and only after each dog was microchipped and the adult dogs were neutered and spayed. The O’Neills sued in federal court, but all of their claims were dismissed. They appealed their case to the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided several important issues in their favor.

THE DECISION

In writing for the court, Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, who was joined by Judge Raymond Kethledge and Judge Thomas Ludington in the opinion, made several key decisions in favor of the O’Neills.

First, Judge Gilman found that the O’Neills were not operating a Class A kennel out of their home, as the lower court ruled, and were therefore not required to obtain a breeder’s license to sell their litter of puppies.

(Additionally, because it found that the district court wrongly determined that the O’Neills were operating an unlicensed kennel, the appellate court held that the state law claims for trespass, conversion, and outrage were erroneously dismissed.)

Second, the court noted that Metro Animal Services was not able to rely on the consent initially given to the undercover agents for the later entry into the O’Neill’s home. To enter a person’s home, government agencies usually need to secure a warrant or receive the homeowner’s consent to enter. The court therefore deemed the action a violation of the O’Neill’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Third, Judge Gilman wrote that Metro Animal Services never gave the O’Neills proper notice during the invasion and seizure as to what provisions of the animal control ordinance they reportedly violated.

Proper notice, usually in the form of a citation along with a chance to contest the citation, is required by both federal and state procedural due process laws.

Therefore, the court held that Metro Animal Services violated the O’Neill’s procedural due process rights.

Judge Gilman, however, also affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of several of the O’Neill’s arguments, including their substantive due process and equal protection claims.

THE IMPACTThe case is far from over. It has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in line with the appellate court’s decision, and an appeal can be sought.

Additionally, the direct impact of the case as valid law is limited only to the geographic limits of Sixth Circuit of the federal appellate court system, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

It may be used only persuasively throughout the rest of the country.

However, the importance of this holding cannot be overstated, especially for dog breeders. As reports of overzealous enforcement of animal control laws have become more prevalent, the O’Neill decision should serve as a reminder that it is the right of people to be secure in their private property from illegal law enforcement actions.

The American Kennel Club congratulates the O’Neills and everyone associated with their case on this important victory.

For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail mailto:doglaw%40akc.org.

BLOG INDEX 12/10/11

2011-12-09T18:45:00.000-08:00

1) Shiawassee County adopted ordinance in 2000
2) illegally charged fees should be refunded
3)Letter to Lansing State Journal (150 word limit)...
4)kennel license for vet clinics - from Open Forum...
5)Animal Control Ordinance Table of Contents
6)Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance
7)Conversation with Sheriff Jon Wilson
8)Dog Law of 1919 Kennel Definition
9)"They" decided
Somebody's gotta keep an eye on these birds
10)Motion from last month that was tabled
11)Resolution brought to the board June 22, 2006
12)Kennel defined by Michigan Dog Law and Shiawass...
13) Powers of county board of commissioners.
14)Shiawassee vet clinics might pay county's fee f...
15)Veterinarians could be required to purchase ken...
16)BIG DEAL.......SO WHO GIVES A RIP????
17)
18)Public Safety & Courts Committee 5/17/06
19)Committee of the Whole 5/23/06
20) FOIA minutes and resolution
21) New Kennel "policy" January 2005
22) New Kennel "policy" January 2005 - typed versi...
23) December 2004
24) December 2004 - excerpt
25)Michigan Dog Law of 1919 - Sec 10 Kennels plus
26) Heavy Reading and just what does it say?
27) County Commissioners
28) KENNEL OWNERS
29) PUBLIC HEARING/Resolution Minutes 7/27/06
30) REFUND ILLEGAL FEES
31) Families' animals too often targets of neighbo...
32) This little dog
33) Open season on Cats
34) Powers of county board of commissioners. [M.S...
35) MCL 287.270b Kennel licensing ordinance.
36) SAME/DIFFERENT-Kennel Definition
37) Animal License Fees 2006 from another Michigan...
38) Contravenes State Law - Kennel Ordinance
39) 501 visitors have viewed 1611 pages - thankyou...
Somebody's gotta keep an eye on these birds
40) Shiawassee County Dog Licenses
41) City of Owosso Code - Animals
42) HORSESHOES AND HAND GRENADES
44) Shiawassee Twps Cities Villages
45) Budget sets amount of dog license fee
46) Randy O. Colbry - Opinion
47) Randy O. Colbry - Opinion My RESPONSE
48) Open Forum Threads
49) Animal Control 2003-2012 Actuals/Budget
Somebody's gotta keep an eye on these birds
50) HS AC Shelter Reports 2004 thru 2010
51) Michigan 2011 Dog Licenses by County
52)Number of abandoned animals increases, animal a...
53) American Sporting Dog Alliance
54) MDA "policy"
55) WOW and YAY - YAY - YAY FINALLY
56) Due Process - Louisville
57) Illegal v. Unconstitutional Laws--New Developm...
58) Pinheads - AGAIN
59) Important Win for Dog Breeders

58) Pinheads - AGAIN

2010-11-18T17:06:00.000-08:00

BOC 11/18/2010
2011 Budget public hearing
Animal Control reduced budget and
closing shelter

Humane Society-Marlene Fick
Kay Lorraine-Lauro

a2
Cindy Livingston
Cindy a little off base at the end. Four of these commissioners will not be coming back for another term. Two quit, two were voted out.

57) Illegal v. Unconstitutional Laws--New Development in Louisville KY

2010-02-08T10:34:00.000-08:00

Illegal v. Unconstitutional Laws--New Development in Louisville KY
Sunday, February 7, 2010 8:25 PM
From: "Elizabeth Brinkley"

On October 1st of 2009, federal Judge Charles Simpson ruled in the case of Louisville Kennel Club et al v. Metro Louisville/Jefferso n County KY that the section of the Metro Animal Ordinance which allowed for a forfeiture bond was unconstitutional because it had the potential to deprive an innocent person of their property (pets) through the mechanism of not being able to post a cash bond rather than by being found guilty in a court of law. In fact, they could be stripped of their property/animals BEFORE going to court, much less found guilty of anything.

Judge Simpson found this to be so egregious, that he issued a PERMANENT INJUNCTION against it ever being carried out.

Now, this law was reviewed inumerable times BEFORE it was enacted. The last page of the law even bears the nice big seal and signature of then-County Attorney (and now state judge), Irv Maze saying it was all hunkey-dory by him and passed his department's legal 'sniff test'.

However, that's just standard procedure. In truth, while County Atty's can advise Councils that a law they want to pass is unconstitutional or could be rendered invalid due to some other legal challenge, they have no authority to prohibit Councils from passing legislation that is faulty. Add to that the fact that most folks elected to local (and even state) legislatures have NO legal training and are not required to know or understand anything about law and you have the ingredients for what passes today as 'leadership' in America.

But what happens when not even the County Attorney is aware of (or cares) that a proposed ordinance is unconstitutional or faulty?

Since Simpson's decision came out, Metro Council has been scrambling to fix the current ordinance (which had several other problems beyond the forfeiture bond issue). They've gone through a couple of drafts on this, and the most recent one came out of the County Atty's office just this week. And it contained... forfeiture wording!

When the key Council person contacted Bill Warner, the County Atty who has been redrafting the ordinance to ask why in the name of God it still had a forfeiture provision, Mr. Warner told him it was 'Because Pam Rogers (Kentucky's HSUS representative) wants it in there.'

HELLO! Who elected Pam Rogers to office? Where did Pam Rogers attend law school to be put in a position to give LEGAL ADVICE to a County Atty on how to craft a law that will affect all taxpayers in this county? And, wasn't it this same woman who insisted on the forfeiture wording in the original ordinance to begin with, which resulted in the county being sued and having to shell out a large amount of moolah to the plaintiffs?

When the Metro Council member pointed out to Warner "That provision will only affect poor people" ATTORNEY Warner replied, "So what?".

Can they pass an amended version of the ordinance that is still not constitutional? Yes. Will the new law be legal? Yes. Until it's challenged in court.

In the meantime, even though they might pass a revised law that includes forfeiture, Simpson's permanent injunction remains in place. Could the new law be used against someone? Yes. But the moment it is and we find out about it, the County will be found in contempt of court and that particular bond will be declared null and void by Simpson. Let's just hope that in the meantime, nobody loses their pet because of how much the HSUS 'cares' for animals.

Permission to x-post
Barbara Haines

56) Due Process - Louisville

2009-10-08T08:47:00.000-07:00

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
THE LOUISVILLE KENNEL CLUB, INC., ET AL. PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-230-S
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS
ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion entered this date, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

2. Section 91.101 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances is declared unconstitutional insofar as it threatens to deprive pet owners of their property rights without a finding of guilt. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (DN 20) is GRANTED in this respect, and Metro’s motion for summary judgment (DN 27) is DENIED to the same extent. Metro is hereby enjoined from enforcing § 91.101 in the manner just described.

1 Ordinance No. 290, Series 2007, “An Ordinance Amending Chapter 91 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances (“Code”) Pertaining to Unaltered Dogs, the Waiver of Metro Animal Service
Fees Due to Financial Hardship, and the Quarantine of Animals (Amended by Substitution).” The Court will refer to this legislation as “the ordinance.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

THE LOUISVILLE KENNEL CLUB, INC., ET AL. PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-230-S
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

………edited out other sections and only included those that apply to this….

One provision allegedly requires forfeiture of certain pets without adequate “procedural” Due Process. A fourth set of provisions, it is argued, authorize illegal warrantless searches and seizures of pet owners’ homes and property

………edited out other sections and only included those that apply to this….

III. Procedural Due Process
Plaintiffs claim that § 91.101 of the ordinance threatens a citizen’s right to a fair hearing before being deprived of property. Before delving into the governing jurisprudence, we think it wise to determine how the ordinance operates.
As with other sections of the ordinance in question, § 91.101 seems to be the victim of hasty drafting. Entitled “Confiscation of Victimized Animal,” its purpose is to allow the authorities to take possession of an animal that has been the victim of any of several forms of inhumane treatment.
These include (inter alia) failure to provide necessities, abandonment, mutilation, and “exhibition fighting.” Section 91.101(A) provides that an animal found involved in a violation of any of these prohibitions may be confiscated by an animal control officer, evidently for its protection.
Once an animal has been confiscated, subsection (B) provides for a hearing before a judge. That judge is to determine whether probable cause existed for the confiscation. If so, the owner must post a $450 bond within 24 hours to cover the cost of 30 days’ boarding and veterinary care for the animal, which remains in the city’s possession. A new bond must be posted every 30 days, and failure to do so results in immediate forfeiture of the animal. The ordinance does not say what happens if no probable cause is found, but the implication of the bond and forfeiture provisions, coupled with general background notions of justice, must be that absent probable cause the animal is to be returned to its owner.

Section 91.101(B)(1) goes on to provide that upon a plea or finding of guilt, the animal’s owner becomes responsible for all costs created by the impoundment. (That is, any bond he has posted is not returned, and he must pay any outstanding amount due.) Further, the animal in question becomes property of the city. If the accused is found innocent, subsection (B)(2) provides that any posted bond is to be returned to the owner. The ordinance does not explicitly provide for return of a seized animal if its owner is found to be innocent. Again, however, context leads the Court to conclude that returning the animal on a finding of innocence must have been the Metro Council’s intent. There is, first, the obvious fact that this is the just result of such an adjudication. In addition, it makes little sense for the government to return the posted bond—leaving it on the hook for all the animal’s expenses up to the acquittal—and then to hold onto the animal at its own further expense.

Finally, the last sentence of subsection (B)(1) states: “Upon conviction, all animals not forfeited pursuant to subsection (B) herein above shall become the property of the Metro Government.” This implies that, prior to conviction, ownership of the animal does not change. After an acquittal, then, the original owner retains his rights, and the city has no further basis for holding the animal.

The construction offered above solves two problems with § 91.101, allowing for the return of a confiscated animal upon a finding of either no probable cause or innocence (if the bond has been duly paid). But a third problem lingers. It is undoubtedly the case that the ordinance mandates permanent forfeiture of a seized animal if the judge finds probable cause and the owner fails to timely post the appropriate bond. This provision is evidently meant to ensure that the owner of a confiscated dog has an interest in posting the bond: If he could refuse to do so and then wait for an adjudication of guilt, he might never have to post before getting the dog back (if he is found innocent), or he might lose his ownership of the dog (if he is found guilty) and thus any incentive to pay the past-due boarding and veterinary costs. The result is that a person whose dog has been confiscated, and against whom there is probable cause that he violated one of the humane treatment requirements, will lose his dog permanently unless he posts bond, even if he is ultimately found innocent of the underlying charge. This possibility presents a legitimate due process claim.

Claims under the “procedural” arm of the Due Process Clause are governed by the balancing framework set up by Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Determining how much process is due in a given case involves consideration of three factors:
(1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”;
(2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”;and
(3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. at 335.

As plaintiffs argue, pet owners clearly have a property interest in their animals. See Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177, 180 (Ky. 2006) (recognizing that dogs are personal property). This interest is not absolute and is subject to regulation by state and municipal governments. Id. Nonetheless, the government is not permitted to deprive an animal owner of his property without due process of law. The question is not whether process is due, but rather how much is required.
We therefore inquire into the second prong of the Mathews test. As the procedure stands, the risk of erroneous deprivation of this property interest is significant. It is perfectly possible for a judge to find probable cause that a person has committed an offense, but for that person later to befound innocent. Under the scheme set up in § 91.101, if such a person was unable to put up $450 immediately upon the probable cause finding, his pet is forfeit and he has no apparent recourse for its recovery, even if he is ultimately found innocent of the underlying charge. There is thus a high risk of erroneous deprivation, which some sort of additional hearing, appeal, or late-payment process could remedy. Moreover, the government has little interest in keeping ownership of pets belonging to innocent citizens. Presumably most of the animals kept under this ordinance have to be euthanized, lest the burden of boarding and caring for them grow too high. The government does not articulate any interest whatsoever in its brief—it does not even cite Mathews—and the Court is unwilling to fabricate one. Consequently we must hold that the portion of § 91.101 that would permanently deprive a pet owner of his property, absent a finding of guilt, is unconstitutional.
It seems likely that § 91.101 is poorly drafted and does not properly represent the intent of its authors. However, this Court is not in the business of authoring or revising legislation. As a remedy for the constitutional failing just described, the Court will therefore enter an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance in the manner just described. Applications of § 91.101 that do not infringe the constitutional right to due process of law may continue.

55) WOW and YAY - YAY - YAY FINALLY

2009-10-03T20:41:00.000-07:00

Another big animal seizure. This one in Houston.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/21164605/detail.html?dsq=18446644#comment-18446644

The way it works.
1. Somebody says the animals are in deplorable conditions, abused, neglected.
2. The SPCA (or whoever) confiscates ALL the animals
3. They charge the owner for the "care" of the animals (that would be whatever care they deem necessary - only in some instances they have neglected to continue the treatment the animal was already on - under the direction of a vet)
4. There is some time delay in getting to court.
5. There is a whole lot of time delay if the person pleads not guilty and goes to trial
6. In some places the judge can order the animals disposed of before a trial
7. Should a person win in a trial they might get some of their animals back, not likely all, and guaranteed any they do get back will be so damaged as to be unrecognizable.
8. The person would have to pay for the "care" of the animals before they could get them back. Apparently these people providing the "care" can charge whatever they like and run up ridiculous vet bills, as well. $213,000 in Houston, mostly for rodents.
Nobody can afford that, and yes, it does work the same for children.
It isn't enough that the government has to run how children are raised, now they have found a new victim. People who raise animals.

But this news came today.

WOW!

Well, guess that just may be the way it used to work.

WOW! This is the greatest thing since sliced bread!

--- On Sat, 10/3/09, goodthingimrich barbarajhaines@ wrote:

This past Friday, very late in the day, the federal judge finally issued his decision in the case of Louisville Kennel Club, et al vs. Metro Government.

The final ruling ran to over 20 pages and will have sweeping impact on a national level as well as here in Louisville, which was always part of our strategy. Below is the notice from LKC President, Donna Herzig, which clarifies some of the decision:

"This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs by Animal Control is unconstitutional.

"He additionally found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution] , and the requirement of a seizure bond (where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc.)is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.

"The judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these provisions.

"With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue, the Court dismissed it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance (a provision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must obtain a warrant prior to seizure.

"Moreover, while the Court did not strike down many of the definitions, it could have just left it at that. Instead the Court went point by point and clarified the statute as to what was permissible and what wasn't .

"Notwithstanding the story in the Courier Journal--I am not sure that they read the same opinion--we had a major victory on the issues that matter on a national basis.

"While Judge Simpson did not deal with the state issue, the veterinary issue which was the most important one, was addressed by a recent change in the state law which makes veterinary records confidential and does not permit release of them unless a court order is issued or the owner gives consent in writing.

"Since we prevailed on our Sec. 1983 issues, we will file next week for attorney's fees which are mandatory under the statute. We are hopeful that we will receive a substantial reimbursement. "

A big 'Thank you!' to every individual and every club that donated to our legal fund. This has been a great victory on the most substantive issues possible, and opens the door to citizens everywhere being able to sue for damages against similar ordinances.

--Barbara Haines

******

I must get a copy of that decision..and I will post it everywhere!

The AKC already posted it for me.

http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/LKC_Metro_Govt_100509.pdf

hmmmmmm, copy and paste the link, I'll figure it out one of these days.

This means: ( I think.)
1. There must be probable cause to get a warrant to search for and seize your animals. (no change)
2. No up front bond to care for the animals seized.
3. No charge to take care of animals until a finding of guilty.
4. Anyone who has had animals so seized and charges for care assessed before a finding of guilt may.
…….A. Sue the organization that seized the animals
…….B. Sue the individuals that seized the animals individually.

There are a lot of potential lawsuits out there.

This is not the same as a decision handed down by the Supreme Court, but it does lend substantial credence to any lawsuit.

I hope people who have suffered through this go for it.

There is no statute of limitation on this issue.

54) MDA "policy"

2009-05-28T16:17:00.000-07:00

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
GOVERNOR
DON KOIVISTO
DIRECTOR

STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LANSING
July 30, 2008

After an internal review, MDA policy and interpretation of holding times for dogs and cats at animal shelters and requirements for rabies vaccinations in kennel situations are as follows:

Holding Times

Stray dogs and cats without identification noting the owner’s address or without some type of identification that leads to an owner’s address must be held for four days. Animals with identification noting the owner’s address or identification that leads to an owner’s address (e.g., microchip, tattoo, dog license), must be held for seven days from the date the required written notice is sent to the owner alerting the owner the animal is at the shelter.

“Day” should be interpreted to mean a 24-hour period which is not a State holiday or weekend (Saturday or Sunday), regardless of the days the shelter is actually open. In addition, “day” would not include the first day of acquisition. If an animal only wearing a collar was received by a shelter on a Saturday, the animal would need to be held for four days-the following Friday, assuming no holidays fell during that week, since neither weekends nor the first day of acquisition count. Owner surrendered animals, or animals which are ill or injured to the extent that holding the animals would result in undue suffering, are not subject to a holding time.

Rabies Vaccinations in Kennel Situations

Section 10 of The Dog Law (1919, Public Act 339, as amended) clearly states that “proof of vaccination against rabies shall not be required” meaning that dogs kept under a kennel license are not required under state law to be vaccinated against rabies. A local municipality can enact an ordinance or other mechanism requiring all dogs kept under a kennel license to be currently vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian. Note, however, that dogs kept under a kennel license pursuant to state law must remain in the kennel unless temporarily being used for hunting, breeding, trail, or show, unless temporarily out and on a leash.

MDA is asking that the above replace all past correspondences received from the department regarding holding times and rabies vaccinations for dogs kept under kennel licenses, and be strictly followed. For questions or concerns regarding holding times or rabies vaccines for dogs kept under kennel licenses, please contact the Michigan Department of Agriculture at
517-373-1077.

This is available on the MDA website.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mda/HoldTime_243745_7.pdf

omg............MDA recognizes state law states "clearly"

No where does state law give MDA the authority to even so much as imply a local municipality has the authority to enact an ordinance that contravenes state law.

Now, who's ass are they trying to cover, since some municipalities have already enacted such an ordinance. Now, they want the legislature to change the law so that will be legal? After it has been illegal for who knows how many years. Right, we are all such idiots.

53) American Sporting Dog Alliance

2009-04-12T10:09:00.000-07:00

I've added a link to their message board over there on the right.

This group has a very good handle on the recent plethora of dog legislation.

I highly recommend their site and the efforts of their John Yates.

52)Number of abandoned animals increases, animal attacks remain steady

2009-03-28T11:51:00.000-07:00

So, the newspaper report said there were 83 dog bites in the county last year.I wondered how they determined that and if there was a report that showed that.So I FOIA'd. Nope, no report and I don't know how they came up with the number.

click to enlarge

http://argus-press.com/articles/2009/03/28/news/news3.txt#blogcomments

Number of abandoned animals increases, animal attacks remain steady

By NATHAN BRUTTELL Argus-Press Staff Writer

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:43 PM EDT

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY - When the economy is bad, people are forced to move to find work, leaving behind pets they cannot afford.

During the winter and spring months the problem has only been increasing, according to local officials. Despite the growing number of strays in the county, animal attacks have shown signs of slowing.

There were 83 dog bite reports in Shiawassee County in 2008, compared to 14 so far in 2009, according to Animal Control. From Jan. 1 to March 12, 2008, there were 14 dog bite reports and only nine in that same timeframe this year.

Animal Control Deputy Lauren Shelly, who has worked for the office for more than two years, said the call volume has increased lately.

“It seems like we have a lot more strays now,” Shelly said. “We don't know the circumstances these animals were left in but we've picked up more (animals) this year than in the past.”

Animal Control Shelter Officer Doreen Hilgendorf said the office has had to take in more animals this year.

“We've been running pretty full most of the winter,” she said. “Normally the winters are times where we get to relax a little bit. This was not one of those winters unfortunately.”

Hilgendorf said that while the office cannot track animal histories, “we are certainly seeing a lot more abandonments in properties lately.”

Shiawassee Humane Society Kennel Manager Amanda Reed said she has also seen more animals brought in during the last few months.

“It's just getting worse,” Reed said. “Our waiting list for people bringing in cats is up to five months now.”

Reed said there is one bright side to the spring and summer months.

“With the weather warming up a lot more families are looking for dogs,” she said. “We've been able to keep the waiting list low with dogs because we've been able to adopt out a lot more.”

But there is also a growing number of animals left illegally at the shelter.

“In the morning I often pull in and see dogs and cats abandoned here,” she said. “We've only seen a handful this year, but it's also getting worse.”

Reed estimated the shelter sees two or three animals dropped off illegally per week.

“Especially with the economy so bad, we're seeing it more,” she said. “It's a last resort for people but we're getting it more frequently.”

Reed said if animals are dropped off, the shelter is forced to make room in the already overcrowded kennels. The Humane Society has a policy that only terminally ill or severely ill-tempered animals will be euthanized.

“But it might be something we have to change,” she said. “No one wants it to happen, but it may come to that at some point if the situation doesn't improve.”

Reed said there are several obediant dogs and cats at the Society looking for homes. She also said because the shelter coordinates with the Michigan State University Teaching Hospital and veterinary students, adoption fees are at a reduced price starting at $40. Those with questions for the Humane Society are asked to call 723-4262 or visit the shelter at 2752 W. Bennington Road in Owosso.

- Contact Nathan Bruttell at 725-5136 extension 231 or nbruttellarguspress@gmail.com. Post comments about this story online at http://www.argus-press.com/.

I don't know what that means? coordinates with??? Maybe provides lab animals for?

51) Michigan 2011 Dog Licenses by County

2008-01-26T10:58:00.000-08:00

Click to enlarge

2009 Average $7.43 and $15.93

In all counties you may obtain a dog license
from your county treasurer at any time all year long
or up until March 1
from your township treasurer, city treasurer (or city clerk)
or in some areas from a veterinarian or animal control

You can obtain by mail.

Some county websites have a form you can print and fill out.
All they need is breed, sex, age, color of dog.
Copy of the Rabies certificate signed by a veterinarian
and copy of spay/neuter certificate (if applicable) also
signed by a veterinarian (a copy of the bill works, too)

Clinton County Michigan Animal Control **
Clinton County Michigan
Ingham County Michigan Dog License $45
Ingham County Michigan Ordinance bad
Outrageous/illegal Kennel inspection fee
Kent County Michigan
Kent County Michigan Ordinance bad
Muskegon County Michigan $50
Muskegon County Michigan Ordinance bad
Oceana County Michigan

50) HS AC Shelter Reports 2004 thru 2010

2007-08-30T07:52:00.000-07:00

click to enlarge

it prints nicely using
the file print option

Both shelters handle about the same number of cats as dogs, only most of the cats are killed.

If you are looking for a shelter report for other than Shiawassee County I have EXCELL spreadsheets that have most shelter reports for the state of Michigan beginning with 2004 and I would be happy to email them to you.

49) Animal Control 2003-2012 Actuals/Budget

2007-08-30T07:41:00.000-07:00

CLICK TO ENLARGE

I doubt 2011 or 2012 is going to be quite that profitable, a lot of people have moved away, some are not buying dog licenses anymore.
Even so, they will be showing a profit of some kind, which shouldn't happen.

2010 Actuals posted 2/1/11
Nice profit this year

Click to enlarge
it prints nicely on one page
just using the file print

Do you see any revenue generated by cats? Not much. Like ZERO............!

The Dog Law provides the license fee may be set sufficient to cover the cost of administering the Dog Law as it pertains to dogs. This county is generating profit from dog licenses. That is wrong! and a violation of the dog law.

Our glorious sheriff says "may" means they may also charge more than what it costs to administer the dog law. He should really research that further. There is case law and attorney general opinions that do not support his position, even to the point of stating the dog license fee is not a revenue item.

2003 looks like big profit, but I don't have the treasurer's expense

2004 Big loss (as it should be) but doesn't appear as big a loss as 2003

2004 Budget cut reduced staff

2005 Doubled and Tripled dog license fee / now shows a profit (wrong)

2005 after assuring the increased license fees would go into the shelter (did not)
2006-2007 minor loss
2008 profit (wrong)
2009 minor loss

etc

There should always be a big loss as the animal control department handles ALL animal complaints.

Dog license fees are only legally designated to cover administering the dog law of 1919, which mostly covers rabies vaccination / licensing and livestock losses due to dog attacks (about zip these days).

There are other dog laws that cover other aspects.

48) Open Forum Threads

2007-08-25T14:27:00.000-07:00

of interest and related to animal control issues

Animal Control "Issues" - sorry guys
Cats, Again!
City/animal ordinances
Dog Poop down town
end the poo
Going to the dogs!
HA! Dog license $60 now
Improperly charged fees had to be paid back?
JOKE OF THE DAY - compliance check for dog licenses
NEW DOG CATCHER ON BOARD
Pot vote symbolic: Backers say passage may help cause statew
Rabies confirmed in bats in Shiawassee County
Rabies Free - US Declared Canine-- WOW this a major milestone
Shiawassee County 2008 Budget "Schedule"
Shiawassee Humane Society to sell dog licenses all year
Time to DUMP the DOG
Cats Vs. Dogs
Reading Test (sorta) - I need an explanation.
RABIES IN MICHIGAN
Found dog

Hopefully these won't disapear too soon.

Those posts will stay there on the forum ... they won't scroll off or purge.

However the authors do have the option of going back to edit their posts later.
(not anymore-they will stay)

47) Randy O. Colbry - Opinion My RESPONSE

2007-03-15T20:30:00.000-07:00

Randy O. Colbry
Prosecuting Attorney
Shiawassee County
Michigan

LEGAL OPINION

RE: DOG LICENSE FEES

In 1973 Section 29a was added to the dog law of 1919. MCL 287.29a provides as follows:

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 any 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 animal control ordinance. The county’s animal control ordinance shall provide for animal control programs, facilities, personnel and necessary expense incurred in animal control. The ordinance is subject to sections 6 and 30.

There is no MCL 287.29a. There is a Sec 29a and that would be MCL 287.289A.

Because of this amendment to the dog law, the 1955 attorney general opinion provided by Ms Lauro indicating a county board of commissioners did not have the power to adopt regulations pertaining to dog kennels is, in my opinion, obsolete.

Well, his OPINION IS WRONG!

MCL 287.29a specifically directs; however, that a county animal control ordinance is subject to section 6 of the dog law (MCL 287.266). MCL 287.266(5) provides in part: “The county board of commissioners may set license fees in the county budget at a level sufficient to pay all the county’s expenses of administering this act as it pertains to dogs.”

This section applies to individual dog licenses and license fees.

This would, indeed, be the provisions of sec 29a and sec 6(5) as it pertains to individual dog licenses.

It is my opinion that dog license fee revenue must reasonably relate to county expenses for animal control programs, facilities, and personnel involving domestic dogs.

I would even agree with that.

It is obvious such costs go well beyond the animal control budget and include costs incurred by the courts, the prosecutor, the treasurer and the county clerk as well costs related to the operation, maintenance and depreciation of the animal shelter.

However, if it is so obvious such costs go beyond the animal control budget why does the county’s accounting system not account for such costs? Such obvious costs should be readily available for review and support of whatever license fee is charged.

Costs incurred by the courts are borne by those who are charged with violations. How can we justify including that cost in the license fee and then charging the violator for that cost, too?

Costs incurred by the treasurer are minimal, not accounted for and the treasurer could do a better job of accounting for license fees. He cannot tell you how much is for kennels, how much for altered dogs or how much for unaltered dogs. It really isn’t that difficult to record. Nobody can tell you they have a record of a dog’s license and rabies vaccination. That was what the original idea behind licensing dogs was all about. Assuring immunization for rabies and keeping a record of it. So that in the event anyone is bitten by a dog, they can know the dog was vaccinated and they will not have to go through treatment for rabies.

Costs incurred by the clerk are also minimal and are not accounted for.

The animal control budget would include the operation and maintenance costs.....but for everything, not just dogs and not just the dog law of 1919. The cost of administering the dog law of 1919 as it pertains to dogs is not even close to being accounted for. NOT EVEN CLOSE!. I believe those costs need to be accounted for, if the dog license fee is to be based on them.

It is further my belief that in determining an appropriate dog license fee the county is not limited to the budget year in question but could consider several years of costs in arriving at an appropriate fee structure.

That may be true, but I should think there should be a reasonable accounting of those costs. As it is, the license fee is an arbitrary wild guess (as much as the traffic will bear) based on arbitrary wild guesses.

Section 10 of the dog law (MCL 287.270) provides for the inspection and licensure of dog kennels and requires a fee of $10.00 for 10 dogs or less and $25.00 for more than 10 dogs.

Provides for the inspection of a NEW kennel, provided the county accepts this provision. Which this county has not. In which case the kennel is not even subject to inspection AT ALL..

MCL 287.29a does not direct that a county animal control ordinance is subject to section 10.

Since there is no MCL 287.29a I will assume he is talking about MCL 287.289a sec 29a.........and why would it direct that the ordinance is subject to section 10?

Since he states “This section applies to individual dog licenses and license fees.”

This section has nothing to do with kennels (sec 10 deals with kennels).

Sec 29a was added by Act 349 eff immed Jan 9, 1973. This same act also amended MCL 287.280 sec 10 referring to kennels and MCL 287.270b sec 10b referring to a kennel ordinance that a city, township or village may adopt providing it has the same terms, conditions and fees as section 10.

Nothing is stated about a county creating their own regulations pertaining to kennels.

If there were to be any changes for a county, I believe such changes could have been easily made at the same time by Act 349 eff immed Jan 9, 1973.

In my opinion, the county is free to regulate kennels and provide an appropriate fee structure under the terms of its animal control ordinance, and is not bound by the fee structure set forth in MCL 287.29a.

MCL 287.29a does not exist. If he is referring to sec 29a, there is no fee structure in sec 29a. Sec 29a says the county ordinance is subject to sec 6 and 30. Sec 6 (MCL 287.289a). MCL 287.266 Dog licenses; application; resolution; provisions; proof of vaccination. Sec 6 (5) does say the county may set the fee....etc (individual dog license) and sec 30 provides:

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.

History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- Am. 1921, Act 310, Eff. Aug. 18, 1921 ;-- Am. 1929, Act 329, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 5275 ;-- Am. 1933, Act 189, Imd. Eff. June 28, 1933 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- Am. 1943, Act 209, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1943 ;-- CL 1948, 287.290 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 22, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 125, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 172, Imd. Eff. June 4, 1953 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 211, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 195, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 229, Eff. Mar. 30, 1972 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 349, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973

Sec 30 was also amended by Act 349 imd eff Jan 9, 1973 and still left “except kennel licenses” as part of the provisions, which would make no reasonable sense if AG Opinion 1897 were to be made obsolete by act 349 imd eff Jan 9, 1973.

In my opinion act 349 imd eff Jan 9, 1973 does not make AG Opinion 1897 obsolete. All of the issues addressed by Ag Opinion 1897 are still contained within the Dog Law of 1919, the county is not free to regulate kennels, and the county is bound by the fee structure for kennels set in section 10. This the county has accepted and acknowledged by lowering their kennel license fees to comply with state law in 2005.

Further, it is my opinion that a reasonable accounting must support the fee designated by the county for an individual license fee, be it for one year or more than one year.

46) Randy O. Colbry - Opinion

2007-03-15T20:25:00.000-07:00

Randy O. Colbry
Prosecuting Attorney
Shiawassee County
Michigan

LEGAL OPINION

45) Budget sets amount of dog license fee

2007-02-09T10:23:00.000-08:00

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

Animal Control Activity 2007-2008 as reported

by newly elected Sheriff George Braidwood's staff

George said he wanted to operate Animal Control within the law. Well, that was before he was elected, you know how that goes. This is insufficient data to determine what it costs to administer the dog law of 1919. I don't think our new sheriff is much concerned about that. He doesn't realize he could improve the animal control operation, simply by operating within the law. Oh well................

Please keep in mind the Animal Control budget is to cover the expenses of administering ALL animal related laws, and the Animal control Shelter receives just as many cats into the shelter as dogs.

MCL 287.266 Dog licenses; application; resolution; provisions; proof of vaccination.
Sec. 6. (5) ……….(f) …………..When applying for a license, the owner shall pay the license fee provided for in the county budget.
....................
The county board of commissioners may set license fees in the county budget at a level sufficient to pay all the county's expenses of administering this act as it pertains to dogs.

In most counties that means the dog licenses cover about 60% of the Animal Control expenses. If you looked at the county budget you have seen that Shiawassee County Animal Control is now operating at a profit and has been for several years, since they raised the license fees.

This is the FOIA I sent:

"I don't know who would have this, but I do know there are reports prepared on the number of citations issued by county deputies. What I am looking for is a report that shows the number of complaints filed with animal control and the number by reason. Such as, number of dog bites, number of loose dogs, number stray pickups,,,,,,,etc whatever would be called in to the animal control, number citations issued and for what. That sort of thing. "

So, under the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, I am requesting a copy of such a report for the year 2006.

And this is the information I received:

User:CMYOUNG Shiawassee County Animal Control 02/06/2007
Summons/Citations Charge Summary
Agency: SHIAWASSEE CO ANIMAL CONTROL, Date Range:

Charges, Count

ALLOWING DOG TO RUN AT LARGE , 39

BARKING DOG, 2

DESTROYES PERSONAL PROPERTY, 1

DOG AT LARGE, 3

DOG LICENSE REQUIRED, 61

POULTRY ATLARGE, 1

UNLICENSED DOG, 84

Total: 192

Then there is a second report:

User: CYOUNG SHIAWASSEE CO E-911 02/06/2007
Number of Events by Nature

Nature, # Events

ACCIDENT WITH INJURY, 1
AMBULANCE CALL, 3
ANIMAL BITE, 40
ANIMAL COMPLAINT, 525
ASSIST PUBLIC OR OTHER, 4
BARKING DOG, 5
HAZARD, 1
INVESTIGATE VEHICLE, 1
MOTORIST ASSIST, 2
OTHER TYPE, 2
TRANSPORT PRISONER, 1
TRESPASS COMPLAINT, 1
TROUBLE WITH SUBJECT, 1

TOTAL, 587

I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THESE TWO REPORTS.

How can the county board of commissioners possibly determine what part of the Shiawassee County Animal Control activities involves administering this act as it pertains to dogs? This act being The Dog Law of 1919.

They certainly cannot. They cannot account for what it costs them to administer the Dog Law of 1919. They don’t even come close. So they set the license fee high enough to exceed the entire cost of the Shiawassee County Animal Control department.

Shiawassee County residents, being good little lambs don’t even kick up a fuss. They just pay it. That really blows my mind. But, if nobody minds, I’m suggesting they double the license fee and also add a license for cats at the same rate. That could kick the Animal Control revenue up to $300,000 and more. Nice little chunk of change for the General Fund.

44) Shiawassee Twps Cities Villages

2007-02-02T13:31:00.000-08:00

There are 5 cities in Shiawassee County: Corunna, Durand, Laingsburg, Owosso and Perry with a total population of about 26,000. Four of those have websites with dog ordinances quite similar to those of the city of Owosso. Perry’s ordinance does mention dog licenses. Most claim MCL 287.290 as their authority to adopt such an ordinance.

There are 6 Villages In Shiawassee County: Bancroft, Byron, Lennon (partially), Morrice, New Lothrup, and Vernon with a total population of about 4000. I don’t know if they have a dog ordinance or not. The three who have websites do not have a dog ordinance on it.

So far I have only identified one township with a website and has a dog ordinance on it. I believe they also claim MCL 287.290 as their authority to adopt such an ordinance.

MCL 287.290 Municipal animal control ordinances; ......... [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....

Does not grant the authority to adopt ordinances such as these municipalities have adopted.

The Shiawassee County Animal Control does not go into any of these municipalities. Their own police take care of any complaints. Or so I have been told by central dispatch.

That is right around 34,000 people in a county with a population of around 72,000, roughly 47% of the population of Shiawassee County that is not being covered by the Shiawassee Animal Control department. Yet, all the money collected for dog licenses goes into the county general fund with 2007 animal control estimated revenues of $158,000, expenses $153,000.

My my my…………that is interesting.

How much do you suppose it costs the county to administer the Dog Law of 1919 in this township and these cities and villages? $5 per dog? $10? $20? $30

I just don’t see it costing the county much at all. If a person buys a dog license from a veterinarian, the county pays the vet $3.00 per license. So, I guess the county could claim that those licenses cost them $3.

You can also mail in for your license, then the county wouldn’t have to pay that $3.

The county also has to buy the license from the state. That can’t be much. $1.00 per license? The book the licenses are recorded in, I think is provided.

Doesn’t amount to much, does it? The Dog Law of 1919 and the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance both allow the county to set the license fee at a level sufficient to cover the cost of administering the Dog Law of 1919.

I think they are way overcharging for dog licenses already, But this township, city and village thing is just way beyond even my idea of an overcharge! It is more like fraud. I think if I lived in this township, or a city or village I just wouldn’t buy a dog license.

That would cost the county nothing.

According to Central Dispatch the Shiawassee Animal Control officer does not go into Cities and villages, unless specifically requested to do so.

Red highlighted have a "dog ordinance".

WiKipedia Demographics WEBSITE/Municode

Cities
Corunna City of Corunna Corunna
Durand City of Durand Durand

Laingsburg
Owosso City of Owosso Owosso 41) City of Owosso Code - Animals
Perry City of Perry
Villages
Bancroft Village of Bancroft
Byron Village of Byron
Lennon (partially)
Morrice Village of Morrice
New Lothrop
Vernon
Unincorporated
Middletown, CDP
Townships
Antrim Township
Bennington Township
Burns Township
Caledonia Township Caledonia Charter Township, Shiawassee County
Fairfield Township
Hazelton Township
Middlebury Township Middlebury Township, Shiawassee County
New Haven Township
Owosso Township
Perry Township Perry Township, Shiawassee County
Rush Township
Sciota Township Sciota Township, Shiawassee County
Shiawassee Township
Venice Township
Vernon Township
Woodhull Township

1) Shiawassee County adopted ordinance in 2000

2007-01-29T11:17:00.000-08:00

1) Shiawassee County adopted ordinance in 2000

"The Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance"
.

This has been a long time coming, but its time has come.

I will attempt to provide as much information as I have available.

If any have questions, feel free to ask via the comments and I will attempt to answer....

My position is that I do not believe our Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance is written within the laws of the State of Michigan.

It is an illegal ordinance....No one seems to care much.

Surely no one can really do much about it.

What is one lonely little dog owner going to do? Or even one lonely little kennel owner?...

We are at the mercy of the arrogant Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners, the dog catcher, the sheriff, the prosecutor and judges.

None of whom give a rip. ...They believe they are right, or that they have the authority to say they are right and the peasants beware....

Well, this one has made a few noises and this one will continue to make noises.

__________________________________________

for whatever reason this post could not be found via the BLOG INDEX,

so I reposted here and will continue to call it "1)" and change the index to read it from here

42) HORSESHOES AND HAND GRENADES

2007-01-14T09:50:00.000-08:00

Kay Lorraine Lauro works on her animal issue related blog at a friend's Shiawassee Twp home. photo by Anthony Cepak

42) HORSESHOES AND HAND GRENADES

from THE ANNEX OPEN FORUM kaylor "Thanks for the post Kevin...........Just read the story, myself and I certainly wish to thank Gary Gould and Anthony Cepak for their efforts and the Argus Press for the publicity.
Publicity is always welcome for these blogs.
WELCOME to the neighborhood Gary, I hope you have a long run here.

(Sorry everyone will be expecting you to be related to the Gould Family of Owosso founding fame.)
I will have to say newspaper articles can certainly be like horseshoes and hand grenades, even with the best of intentions.

Words get remembered just a little bit askew here and there.
So, I know I'm a bit "picky" (most of you know how I am) but hope ya'll don't mind, too much, if I make just a few corrections here."

Kevin Michael Brown "Front Page Sunday Argus - Kay Lorraine Lauro (Kaylor) and her blog!!
Christine is also mentioned and quoted. Way to GO, ladies!

"Grass Roots" activism at its best!
Sign a petition here: http://www.christinebarry.com/johnson-petition"

***************************************

"Local bloggers want to be heard"

By GARY GOULD Argus-Press Staff Writer

Rather than carrying a picket sign to enact change at city hall, many are turning to the Internet to take up their cause for political change and responsibility.

Web logging, or “blogging,” has become a way for people to not only write about issues that interest them, but it also let’s them speak out about politics — whether it be on a national, state or local level.

For Christine Barry of Caledonia Township, she started her blog — http://www.christinebarry,com/ — right after the 2004 election at a time when she felt Democrats had no voice in Shiawassee County.

“I’ve had people tell me they thought they were the only liberals left out there until they read my blog,” she said. “I think blogging is good because it creates dialogue and gets people involved in the process.”

Barry said blogging forces her to learn about a subject that is interesting to her so she can not only write about it, but become versed well enough to discuss and debate that issue with other people.

In her blog, which she advertises as “the only blog focusing on the people and politics of Shiawassee County,” Barry has written about a variety of issues, ranging from the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners to the November gubernatorial election and even her thoughts on former Detroit Lion’s quarterback Joey Harrington.

“Today Joey made his first Thanksgiving touchdown pass … and then he threw a couple more,” Barry said in her Nov. 23 blog entry. “He’s having a pretty good game today. I think that’s great. But it sucks that he’s doing it as a (Miami) Dolphin. ”

Kay Lorraine-Lauro of Owosso Township became involved in blogging when she grew dissatisfied with licensing fees and practices of Shiawassee County Animal Control. "close"

Lorraine-Lauro, a kennel owner, said she thinks the county has become arrogant over its interpretation of state laws and is setting the fees for kennel licenses too high.

I said dog licenses (individual licenses).

“They have an attitude that they will do what they want to,” she said. “I’ve talked to almost 70 percent of the counties in the state and so far Shiawassee has the highest dog licensing fees.”

I said maybe 70 % of lower Michigan I looked up on the web

As she dug into state laws regarding dog licensing and kennels, Lorraine-Lauro began to put all of her research up in her Internet blog, found at http://www.shiawasseecounty.net.

Found at http://shiacac.blogspot.com/ and I started last spring when kennel licensing for veterinary clinics came up

The site has now become a major stopping point on the Internet for Shiawassee residents who are concerned with dog licensing issues.

Don't recall saying that, don't know if that is true, but I hope it is useful.

“People have so many questions,” Lorraine-Lauro said. “(The blog) has become a resource of information. It makes it so I don’t have to answer so many questions myself.”

I did put the entire Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance on it, and the City of Owosso animal code, as well as current dog licensing info.

She said she thinks people find blogs easier than Web sites to use and construct. Last year Lorraine-Lauro said she helped a friend put up a blog regarding the recall attempt against Owosso Township Supervisor Richard Gute and his wife, Clerk Judy Gute.

The blog provided readers with the specific reasons behind the recall attempt and worked to difuse some of the misinformation Lorraine-Lauro claimed (thank you Gary - The Argus has always printed the lies , without qualification, but I "claim") was circulating regarding the Gutes. The recall had to do with the Gutes voting to disband Owosso Township’s ambulance service in favor of an outside contractor.

“We were opposing the recall and they (the Gutes) are still in office,” she said. “I hope we made a difference.”

The recall against the Gutes failed in February 2006.

Lorraine-Lauro has also had some success in grabbing the attention of county officials regarding the dog licensing issue.

NOT LIKELY

About two years ago she said the county looked into the state law and discovered they were overcharging kennel fees.

THEY DID, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING I SAID. I ONLY ASKED WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO REFUND THE OVERCHARGES (LIKE THE SOIL EROSION FEES THEY REFUNDED) THEY IGNORED ME

State law said the fees should have been $10 a year for people owning 10 dogs or fewer and $25 for more than 10 dogs. Shiawassee County was charging $30 and $60 and was forced to bring the fees in line with state law.

They voluntarily did so. But they didn't volunteer to refund any of the illegal overcharges.

“Usually (county officials) ignore me,” she said. “But I think they are conceding a little bit.”

NOT LIKELY.. AND DON'T THINK I SAID THAT

Barry has been a vocal critic of the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners in her blogs, particularly over the drain commission fee scandal that has plagued the county for the past year. She has defended former Drain Commissioner Bernie Butcher who is now facing a charge of embezzlement from the county prosecutor’s office for accepting more than $31,000 in soil erosion inspection fees.

Barry, who said the charges against Butcher are unfair, has solicited donations to Butcher’s legal defense fund through her blog and raised hundreds of dollars .

Butcher’s case is scheduled to go before a Circuit Court judge Jan. 16.

Not all local bloggers have an axe to grind with officials, however. At least one blogger is a local official.

Owosso City Manager Gregg Guetschow maintains a blog on the city’s Web site — http://www.ci.owosso.mi.us/ — which he says is used to inform the public about services and events.

Started about a year and a half ago, Guetschow said the blog has been very helpful with the city’s fall leaf collection program, letting the public know where leaf removal crews would be daily.

“We look at it as one more opportunity we have to communicate with residents,” he said. “We do a lot with pictures so people don’t have to take a lot of time reading something.”

While the blog is idle right now, Guetschow said it will be used again when there is more time in his schedule to work on it.

41) City of Owosso Code - Animals

2007-01-12T14:28:00.000-08:00

41) City of Owosso Code - Animals

Just another "OUTLAW" Ordinance

City of Owosso Code
Chapter 5
ANIMALS*

__________

* Cross References: Unlawful noise from animals and birds, § 18-92.
State Law References: Authority to adopt animal control ordinance, MCL 287.290 (does not give authority to adopt an ordinance such as this*), MSA 12.541; crimes relating to animals
and birds, MCL 750.49 et seq., MSA 28.244 et seq.

__________

Art. I. In General, §§ 5-1--5-25
Art. II. Dogs, §§ 5-26--5-32

ARTICLE I.
IN GENERAL

Sec. 5-1. Cruelty to animals.
No person shall cruelly treat or abuse any animal or bird in this city. Cruel and abusive treatment shall include but not be confined to inhumanely beating, not adequately feeding, and adequately watering, abandoning, or confining in an area not sufficient to allow the animal adequate exercise.
(Code 1977, § 9.121)
State Law References: Cruelty to animals, MCL 752.21 et seq., MSA 28.161 et seq.
Sec. 5-2. Poisoning animals.
No person shall throw or deposit any poisonous substance on any exposed public or private place where it endangers, or is likely to endanger, any animal or bird.
(Code 1977, § 9.122)
State Law References: Malicious poisoning of animals, MCL 750.377, MSA 28.609; exposing poisonous substances where liable to be eaten by animals, MCL 750.437, MSA 28.692.
Sec. 5-3. Birds and birds' nests.
No person, except a police officer acting in his or her official capacity, shall molest, injure, kill or capture any wild bird, or molest or disturb any wild bird's nest or the contents thereof.
(Code 1977, § 9.123)
State Law References: Similar provisions, MCL 312.10, (1)(e), MSA 13.1339, (1)(e).
Sec. 5-4. Domestic animals and fowl.
No person shall keep or house any animal or domestic fowl within the city except dogs, cats, canaries or other animals commonly classified as pets which are customarily kept or housed inside dwellings as household pets. No person or family or household shall keep more than three (3) adult cats and/or dogs at or in any residence within the city. For purposes of this section a cat or dog is deemed to be an adult upon becoming ten (10) weeks old.
(Code 1977, § 9.124)
Sec. 5-5. Homing pigeons.
Section 5-4 to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be lawful for any member of a recognized national pigeon association, which supplies pigeons to the United States Armed Forces in time of emergency to keep, house and allow to fly for exercise within the corporate limits, homing or racing pigeons which are suitable and of the type used as messengers in time of war and in civil defense and which are banded with numbered leg bands showing the same to be registered with such associations, providing such pigeons are not kept so as to constitute a nuisance or create a hazard to public health.
(Code 1977, § 9.125)
Sec. 5-6. Baby chicks, ducklings, and rabbits.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale, barter or give-away baby chicks, rabbits, ducklings, or other fowl as pets or novelties, whether or not dyed, colored or otherwise artificially treated. This section shall not be construed to prohibit the display or sale of natural chicks or ducklings in proper brooder facilities by hatcheries or stores engaged in the business of selling same to be raised for commercial purposes.
(Code 1977, § 9.126)
State Law References: Baby chicks, MCL 287.161 et seq., MSA 12.471 et seq.; sale of dyed baby chicks, rabbits, ducklings,
MCL 752.91 et seq., MSA 12.482(1) et seq.
Secs. 5-7--5-25. Reserved.

ARTICLE II.
DOGS*
__________

* State Law References: Dog law, MCL 287.261 et seq., MSA 12.511 et seq.

__________

Sec. 5-26. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Dog pound or pound means any facility used by the county dog warden for the confinement or care of animals within the county.
Owner, when applied to the proprietorship of a dog, shall include every person having a right of property in such dog, and every person who keeps or harbors such dog or has it in his or her care, and every person who permits such dog to remain in or about any premises occupied by him or her.
Reasonable control shall mean keeping the dog on a leash other than while upon owner's property, unless the dog is confined in a closed automobile or shipping receptacle.
(Code 1977, § 9.141)
Cross References: Definitions and rules of construction generally, § 1-2.
Sec. 5-27. Running at large.
No person owning any dog, four (4) months of age or over, shall permit such dog to be at large at any time in the city in violation of any of the following restrictions:
(1) No person shall permit any vicious dog of which he or she is the owner to be unconfined unless securely muzzled and led by a leash. Any dog shall be deemed vicious which has bitten a person or domestic animal without molestation, or, which, by its actions gives indication that it is liable to bite any person or domestic animal without molestation.
(2) No person who is in the ownership of any female dog shall permit or allow such female dog to go beyond the premises of such owner when the dog is in heat.
(3) No person who is the owner of any dog shall permit it to be unconfined unless under the reasonable control of some person.
(4) No person who is the owner of any dog shall permit it to be unconfined at any time unless licensed as required by law and unless wearing its license tag and evidence of rabies immunization.
(Code 1977, § 9.142(1--4))
Cross References: Streets, sidewalks and other public places, Ch. 29.
Sec. 5-28. Noise restriction.
No person shall own any dog which by loud or frequent or habitual barking, yelping or howling, shall unreasonably annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons in the vicinity.
(Code 1977, § 9.142(5); Ord. No. 679, § 1, 9-5-06)
Cross References: Noise control generally, § 18-86 et seq.
Sec. 5-29. Seizure, impoundment.
Any dog which is in violation of any section of this article may be seized and impounded by the dog warden or any police officer of the city, or authorized city employee.
(Code 1977, § 9.143)
Sec. 5-30. Rabies control.
(a) Surrender for observation. Any person who shall have in his or her possession a dog which has contracted rabies or which has been subjected to the same or which is suspected of having rabies or which has bitten any person, shall upon demand of the dog warden, the police department or the health officer, produce and surrender up such dog to be held for observation.
(b) Exposure to rabies; notice. It shall be the duty of any person owning or harboring a dog which has been attacked or bitten by another dog or other animal showing the symptoms of rabies, immediately to notify the police department of his or her possession of such dog.
(c) Quarantine order. Any dog that has bitten a person or animal will be quarantined for a period of ten (10) days. The owner, or his or her representative, will receive a quarantine order and such animal will be kept securely confined within a building or enclosure so as to prevent it from coming into contact with any other person or any other animal. It shall not be removed for any reason, during this period, without permission. Failure to comply with this order may result in immediate impoundment at the owner's expense.
(Code 1977, §§ 9.144--9.146)
State Law References: Rules for control of rabies and the disposition of nonhuman agents carrying disease, including rabid animals, MCL 333.5111, MSA 14.15(5111).
Sec. 5-31. Released from pound.
No dog shall be released from the pound unless the owner or persons entitled to claim the same shall pay the fees established by the county dog department. If the dog was impounded by any police officer or other authorized employee of the city, the owner shall pay the additional sum to the city to reimburse for said expense as prescribed by resolution of the council.
(Code 1977, § 9.147)
Sec. 5-32. Responsibility for animal wastes.
No person shall keep a dog on leash or maintain a stationary dog house or kennel within sixty (60) feet of a neighboring residence. No person shall allow animal waste to accumulate for more than forty-eight (48) hours on the ground in the open air. No person walking a dog shall knowingly allow it to deposit its feces on property not belonging to that person, and shall clean up after said dog in case such incident does occur.
(Code 1977, § 9.148)

*At the beginning of this Chapter it states “Authority to adopt animal control ordinance, MCL 287.290” However, MCL 287.290 does not give authority to adopt an ordinance such as this.

MCL 287.290 has to do with licensing dogs. Nothing else. There is nothing in this city ordinance about licensing dogs.

State of Michigan

Dog Law of 1919

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.

History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;--Am. 1921, Act 310, Eff. Aug. 18, 1921 ;--Am. 1929, Act 329, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;--CL 1929, 5275 ;--Am. 1933, Act 189, Imd. Eff. June 28, 1933 ;--Am. 1941, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;--Am. 1943, Act 209, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1943 ;--CL 1948, 287.290 ;--Am. 1949, Act 22, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;--Am. 1952, Act 125, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;--Am. 1953, Act 172, Imd. Eff. June 4, 1953 ;--Am. 1959, Act 211, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;--Am. 1969, Act 195, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;--Am. 1971, Act 229, Eff. Mar. 30, 1972 ;--Am. 1972, Act 349, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973 .

This MCL 287.290 has not been amended since 1973. As near as I can figure, the city code was adopted in 1977.

Please feel free to leave a comment...........

40) Shiawassee County Dog Licenses

2007-01-03T14:55:00.000-08:00

Up until March 1 Shiawassee County Dog Licenses may be purchased from all but one veterinarian in the county. (I sorry, I forgot which one that is. I think one over by Byron or Bancroft, but I'm not sure.)

You must have a rabies certificate signed by a veterinarian.

If the dog is altered you must have proof of that (vet bill).

You can also buy from your City or Township Treasurer.

After March 1 you'll have to go to the courthouse and buy from the treasurer at twice the cost.

unaltered dogs are $30 and after March 1 $60

.....altered dogs are $10 and after March 1 $20

The amount of the dog license is set during the budget process.

The 2007 adopted budget projects Animal Control income of $158,000 with expenses projected at $153,811.

Please keep in mind the Animal Control budget is to cover the expenses of administering ALL animal related laws, and the Animal control Shelter receives just as many cats into the shelter as dogs while the laws only allow the license fee to be set sufficient to cover the costs of administering "The Dog Law of 1919" as it pertains to dogs. In most counties that means the dog licenses cover about 60% of the Animal Control expenes.

39) 501 visitors have viewed 1611 pages - thankyou

2007-01-03T14:47:00.000-08:00

501 Visitors have viewed 1611 pages - thankyou for visiting my blog, hope you found it useful and informative

I started in June 2006 and I hope to continue

Happy New Year to all of you

38) Contravenes State Law - Kennel Ordinance

2006-11-23T19:35:00.000-08:00

STATE OF MICHIGAN DOG LAW OF 1919

Act 339 of 1919 (EXCERPS)

287.270 “Kennel” defined; kennel license; fee; tags; certificate; rules; inspection; exception.Sec. 10.

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.

State law as it compares to:

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE

ARTICLE IV
LICENSING AND VACCINATION

Section 3. No dog shall be exempt from the rabies vaccination requirements as herein set forth.

This does seem to contravene state law, as the county requires proof of vaccination before issueing a kennel license.

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 entitling 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.

That seems to agree with state law.

Section 8. Any person owning a kennel shall obtain a kennel license upon commencement of kennel operations from the County Treasurer.

What the hell is that?

That does contravene state law and it even contradicts itself!

37) Animal License Fees 2006 from another Michigan County

2006-11-22T05:24:00.000-08:00

Animal License Fees 2006 from another Michigan County
______________ALTERED...(Late)...UNALTERED (Late)
DOG/CAT________$6.00..($26.00)...$18.00.......($38.00)
3-YR DOG/CAT___$15.00..($35.00)...$45.00.......($65.00)

cool...............

and this county even has a halfway decent Animal Control program.

This County's 2007 proposed Animal Control Budget is $339,045
Net Cost to General Fund after Revenues taken into account

That means they will contribute that much from their general fund over and above what they receive for licenses.
They don't even come close to covering the entire cost with illegally outrageous dog license fees.

The Shiawassee County Budget for 2007 has been approved and has been posted here

http://christinebarry.com/2006/11/30/shiawassee-county-budget-2007/

The Animal Control Dept doesn't project a huge 'appearing' profit for this year, but keep in mind

1. The dog license fees are more than the entire animal control budget

2. They take in as many cats as they take in dogs

3. The animal control dept is responsible for enforcing ALL animal laws of the state and county

4. State law and county ordinance states "the dog license fee may be set at a rate sufficient to cover the cost of administering the Dog Law of 1919/Shiawassee Animal Control Ordinance, AS IT PERTAINS TO DOGS. No where does it say they may set it at a rate sufficient to cover all animal related enforcement plus have a nice little bit left over

5. As they raised the dog license fee ( to maybe the highest in the state, I've found none higher or even equal) they also reduced the animal control budget

6. Dog license fees go into the General Fund and exceed the Animal Control Budget providing a nice profit for our outlaw county government.

7. Shiawassee County contributes NOTHING to the Animal Control Budget over and above the dog license fees, as does this other county.

36) SAME/DIFFERENT-Kennel Definition

2006-11-19T13:48:00.000-08:00

SAME/DIFFERENT-Kennel Definition

Is Paragraph 1 the same as Paragraph 2?

Paragrah 1. Michigan Dog Law of 1919

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

Paragraph 2. Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance amendment

A kennel shall be construed as an establishment wherein or whereon five (5) or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes.

********************************************************

Pararaph 1 is an excerpt from the Dog Law of 1919. there is no "." (period) to end the sentence. There is more to it. Actually, quite a bit more.

Paragraph 2 is the new Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance kennel definition. There is a period at the end of the sentence and that is where the definition ends. I think it falls way short of being the same as the dog law of 1919 (Michigan State law).

State law says 3 (three) dogs..county says 5

State law says "for remuneration" and that does put a whole different spin on the issue, plus it says a whole lot more.

It is interesting to note that the county's definition of a kennel was changed to make veterinarians exempt from kennel licenses, as their original ordinance required.

The county board of commissioners chose to change the ordinance after one veterinarian threw a hissy fit over it.

Oh yes...that would be the veterinarian that donates veterinary care for the sheriff's dogs. (and yes the sheriff did have something to do with recommending the ordinance be changed http://shiacac.blogspot.com/2006/06/7conversation-with-sheriff-jon-wilson.html and even more so at http://shiacac.blogspot.com/2006/06/9they-decided.html).

35) MCL 287.270b Kennel licensing ordinance.

2006-11-19T13:31:00.000-08:00

MCL 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.

History: Add. 1966, Act 132, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 349, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973

.............................

Doesn't say a county can do that.

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

(short version See the complete Opinion at 25)

http://shiacac.blogspot.com/2006/06/25michigan-dog-law-of-1919-sec-10.html

34) Powers of county board of commissioners. [M.S.A. 5.331 ]

2006-11-19T13:24:00.000-08:00

46.11 Powers of county board of commissioners. [M.S.A. 5.331 ]
Sec. 11. A county board of commissioners, at a lawfully held meeting may do 1 or more of the following:

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

(MCL 46.11(j)...very specifically, very clearly states you cannot pass an ordinance that 'disagree' with a state law.

Well,,,,,,,,,,,,it says they can't........but they did. That makes them outlaws!

"Them" would be our county board of commissioners.

33) Open season on Cats

2006-11-04T10:56:00.000-08:00

I received this from a friend:

My neighbor is trapping cats . I don't know what he does with them .His wife says he takes them to the humane society,I don't believe her. Can he do that. I know of about 10 that have disappeared now one of my pets seems to be missing.

And I responded with:

Unfortunately for cat lovers.....there are no laws that prevent trapping, hunting, killing cats, unless it could come under the "cruelty to animals" laws. Highly unlikely, difficult to prove, almost impossible to prosecute.

Only people with a lot of animals get prosecuted for "cruelty" to animals. That makes a big splash in the news, gets all kinds of people fired up, generates bunches of donations to humane societies to prevent such cruelty. (ha!)

I seriously doubt he is taking them to the humane society. They charge a fee of some kind to accept an animal.

The best deterrant for such activities is for people in the neighborhood to let it be known to that person that they know who is doing it. These sneaky, conniving, cowardly bastards generally can't take the heat of knowing that other people know just exactly what sneaky, conniving, cowardly bastards they really are.

One way to do that (diplomatically) is to take pictures of your cats and give the photos to the guy, tell him if he catches one of your cats you would appreciate it if you could recover it before he "takes it to the humane society" (funny how that sounds so much like takes it out in the bushes and shoots it).

On the other hand....we used to be a dairy farm a little over a mile down the road from the humane society. We called it the humane society annex. People would take animals and find them not open or the fee too much and then they would drive by and dump them here. Cows been gone a few years now and a couple rounds of cat respiratory infection and the cat population has thinned down a lot. Those cats carried all manner of parasites...........

Don't know where you live, but there are a couple "Chinese houses" in Owosso that have greatly reduced the pet population in their neighborhoods. (They eat them.)

Then my friend requested that I post this information on my blog and on the SRCC Open Forum. So, here it is with a little addition:

I will add this sort of thing is a good argument for licensing cats. It is against the law to shoot a dog wearing a license, could be the same for cats.

32) This little dog

2006-10-27T14:51:00.000-07:00

THE WEDNESDAY INDEPENDENT, OCTOBER 25, 2006 PAGE 7

THIS LITTLE dog, rescued by the Shiawassee Humane Society's volunteers last summer after being found abandoned and injured, received care and behavior training and was auctioned during Friday's Wild & Wonderful auction to benefit the Shiawassee United Way.

The little dog was shown here by Pam Early (left) a volunteer with the SUW, and Jenifer Evanson (right), the dog's trainer who is at the Humane Society's Shelter one day a week and has her own business, K9 Pal.

(Independent Photo/BILL CONSTINE)

____________________________________________

Shiawassee Humane Society

2752 W. Bennington Rd.

OWOSSO, MI 48867

Phone: 989-723-4262 shspets@michonline.net

----------------------------------------------------

Do let them know what you think of this bright idea.

They have just lifted a quarantine on cats.

They had respiratory infections and treated something like 40 cats.

31) Families' animals too often targets of neighbors' wrath

2006-09-19T10:34:00.000-07:00

Families' animals too often targets of neighbors' wrath.

Pets in Peril.

GENESEE COUNTY.

THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

By Joe Lawlor.

jlawlor@flintjournal.com • 810.766.6312.

Breezy wasn't acting normally.Usually shredding trash bags and pulling her owners' socks off with her teeth, the 9-month-old puppy lost her playfulness one day last month..

"She was a little sluggish that night. She kind of just snuggled up to me and wanted to be by me all day," said owner Carri Kincaid of Burton..

Breezy then started vomiting and died at the veterinarian's two days later..

The cause: A chicken leg laced with rat poison..

The Kincaids say they don't have rat poison, hadn't eaten chicken for weeks, and Breezy - a 5-pound miniature Doberman pinscher - never wandered out of their fenced-in backyard..

They say someone must have tossed the poisoned meat into their yard, maybe as a cruel joke..

If the Kincaids had harmed their own dog, charges could be brought. If the poisoning had injured a person, there could be a criminal investigation. But in their case and many others in the area involving pets hurt or killed by an outsider's malice, justice never gets done..

"I hear stories like that all the time," said kennel attendant Clarinda Lehmquhle of Genesee County Animal Control. "I tell them that, unfortunately, there's nothing we can do.".

Edith Campbell of Flint, a Last Chance Rescue volunteer, said it's often a neighbor dispute that has gotten out of control. She said angry neighbors may not be willing to harm a person, but they'll get their revenge through harming a pet..

"I've had people call me and say, 'Will you take my pet, because I'm afraid something is going to happen to my pet,'" Campbell said..

Jody Maddock of Adopt-a-Pet in Fenton said she tells dog owners not to leave their dogs unattended, even in fenced-in backyards..

And Burton Police Chief Bruce Whitman said cases of animal cruelty not caused by a pet's owner are hard to crack..

"There's all kinds of burden-of-proof issues with these kinds of cases," Whitman said. "But still, we shouldn't be turning people down.".

A few neighbor-against-neighbor pet abuse cases have wound their way through the courts recently, including:.

· A Fenton Township man who shot a dog and stashed its body in a 55-gallon container..

· A Mundy Township man who shot two dogs that were wandering the neighborhood..

· An Argentine Township man who shot three neighborhood dogs..

Teresa Steffey of Argentine Township said her neighbor shot her dog, Shelby, a German Shepherd mix, when Shelby strayed into his yard. She said the man had previously been friendly to Shelby and had told her he didn't mind if she occasionally ended up in his yard..

"Our kids grew up with Shelby. She went on vacation with us and slept in the kids' bedrooms. She was a part of the family. She wasn't a dog we just tied up in the backyard," said Steffey, who has four children. "To find out it was somebody we knew and trusted was very difficult. It was an act of violence.".

Steffey said Shelby was overweight, 11 years old and not aggressive. She said she escaped from the house only two or three times a year..

Scott D. Sutherland, 40, admitted to shooting Shelby and two other neighborhood dogs. He was recently sentenced to 6 months in jail..

Carri Kincaid said that when Breezy died, they called police but were told there was not enough evidence to pursue the case..

"Every time I think about it, I get angry," said Michael Kincaid. "What if it had been our son (Bradley, 4) who had eaten that?".

Bradley found a rock to use as a "headstone" to bury Breezy in the backyard. The family's other dog, Tia, 7, sleeps on Breezy's grave..

Whitman said neighbors who harm pets generally get irritated with the pets, such as a barking dog or a cat who destroys flowers. Instead of calling police or talking to their neighbor, they get rid of the pet..

But the Kincaids say their tiny dog couldn't possibly have bothered anyone..

"She could bark as loud as she could, and if you were on the other side of the window, you wouldn't hear her," Carri Kincaid said..

The Kincaids said they feel violated and powerless..

"It feels like nobody cares about it," she said. "It's very frustrating.".

***.

QUICK TAKE.

What to do The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says if you suspect your pet has been hurt or killed by someone, call your local police department and be prepared with the following information:.

· A written account of what you observed, including dates and times. If possible, provide photographs and date the pictures..

· Document everything, including when you contacted police and who you talked to. If you suspect your pet has been poisoned, call your local veterinarian or the ASPCA Poison Control Hotline at (888) 426-4435. The ASPCA recommends to have the following items handy:.

· Bottle of hydrogen peroxide (to induce vomiting).
· Turkey baster or bulb syringe.
· Saline eye solution · Artificial tear gel.
· Mild dishwashing liquid.
· Forceps.
· Muzzle.
· Can of favorite wet food.
· Pet carrier.

Source: ASPCA ***

KAYLOR SAYS: It isn't just a matter of wrath over the antics of the animal.........anyone with a grudge against anyone can do this, or if they really want to get to the people they can (and do) report them for animal cruelty.

That sparkes an 'investigation' by sometimes overzealous animal control officers, who feel perfectly justified "investigating" a complaint on 'animal cruelty'.

30) REFUND ILLEGAL FEES

2006-08-27T17:08:00.000-07:00

FROM SRCC Open Forum .

At Shiawassee it is Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 19:53:23 EDT .

Refund other fees collected illegally .

kaylor -- Thursday, 24 August 2006, at 6:57 p.m. .

In 2004 the county commissioners were made aware that they were illegally overcharging for kennel license fees. .

Maybe the whole board needs to be thrown in jail. .

State law allows for a kennel license fee of $10 or $25. The county, as approved by the board of commissioners, was charging $30 and $60 for who knows how many years. .

They lowered it to the legal amounts in 2005, but they have made no effort to refund the illegal overcharge. .

Actually, they added an "annual inspection" fee to make up the "lost revenue". I'm not so sure that is legal, either. .

So, how come the ex-drain commissioner gets charged with "embezzlement" and the county refunds these fees charged by the current drain commissioner, but nobody gets charged with anything nor do they refund the illegal overcharge on kennel fees? .

Re: Refund other fees collected illegally .

cpdc

-- Thursday, 24 August 2006, at 7:04 p.m. .

We need an term limits, salary caps, and an Inspector General. .

Re: Refund other fees collected illegally .

kaylor

-- Friday, 25 August 2006, at 8:48 a.m. .

"“It was an illegal charge to these people,” county Prosecutor Randy Colbry said." .

As quoted in the Argus Press article,

www.argus-press.com/articles/2006/08/23/news/news1.txt

referring to the 'waiver' fees charged by the drain commissioner for soil erosion inspections ...... .

So what????....why is this a bigger deal than illegally overcharging the kennel owners? and in most cases a bit more than $25, too. .

EVERYBODY admits this was an illegal overcharge. .

NOBODY does anything to refund the overcharges. .

I guess they aren't on a witch hunt in the Animal Control area.......... .

and the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners just rubber stamps whatever the prosecutor wants??? .

We need more than an inspector general..

29) PUBLIC HEARING/Resolution Minutes 7/27/06

2006-07-26T10:13:00.000-07:00

Kennel Ordinance

Posted By: kaylorDate: Wednesday, 26 July 2006, at 1:01 p.m.

The public hearing on the amendment to the animal control ordinance was also during yesterday's Committee of the Whole meeting.

At least one other kennel owner was in attendance, even took off work to be there.

Someone spoke about the inconvenience of the times for these county meetings, I think during one of monday's committee meetings. Well, I think they do that deliberately to try to avoid having many people show up for the meetings.

Most people can not afford to take time off to attend meetings.

Whatever, I was the only one that spoke up. Their current kennel ordinance does not comply with state law and what they are proposing to change it to, also does not comply with state law.

They don't seem to care. "This is Shiawassee County and this is how we do it." attitude.

We have a bunch of outlaws running the county. The "Shiawassee Gang"........

jmho........but I hope the upcoming vote reflects other's opinions are along a similar line.

excerpt minute July 27, 2006 Resolution "adopted"

At a regular meeting of the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners held on July 27, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers, Surbeck Building, Corunna, Michigan:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Fuja.
Pledge of Allegiance was given.
Prayer was offered by Commissioner Capitan.
Roll Call found Commissioners Capitan, Cole, Pavlica, Roszman, Van Pelt, Walden and Fuja present.
………………….
The following resolution was presented:

RESOLUTION NO. 06-06-20
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SHIAWASSEE COUNTY

Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance under

Article II Definitions

(l) KENNEL to read: A kennel shall be construed as an establishment wherein or whereon five (5) or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective July 27, 2006, the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners amends the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance of January 13, 2000 under Article II Definitions (l) KENNEL to read:

(l) KENNEL A kennel shall be construed as an establishment wherein or whereon five (5) or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes.

It was moved by Commissioner Roszman, seconded by Commissioner Cole to considering approving Resolution #06-06-20 amending the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance of January 13, 2000 under Article II Definitions.

Motion carried with the following roll call vote of

7 Yeas and 0 Nays. Yeas: Commissioners Capitan, Cole, Pavlica, Roszman, Van Pelt, Walden and Fuja.

_______________________________________
Lauri L. Braid, Shiawassee County Clerk
and Clerk to the Board of Commissioner

P.S. The commissioners think they approved this resolution. The above is from the official minutes. All they did was approve "to considering approving". They approved the minutes and this is the final and official word. The resolution was not adopted, but they think it was.

28) KENNEL OWNERS

2006-07-12T18:25:00.000-07:00

KENNEL OWNERS……………………

There is going to be a Public Hearing JULY 25, 2006 4 P.M.

At the Surbeck Building in Corunna (the only 3 story bldg) during the County Commissioners Committee of the Whole meeting.

They plan to amend the Animal Control Ordinance to modify the definition of a kennel to exclude veterinary clinics.

They wouldn’t do that for one of us.

This would be a good time to suggest they bring their kennel “ordinance” into compliance with state law.

Be nice if you could attend.

If not - call your county Commissioner

27) County Commissioners

2006-07-12T17:47:00.000-07:00

click to enlarge

New apportionment
County Commissioners/Outlaws email all of them

-------------------

District 1

Dan Stewart (R)
1001 Meadow Dr.
Owosso, MI 48867
989.723.3826
owosso2@aol.com

District 1 includes Fairfield, Middlebury, Owosso Pct. 1 & 2 and Rush Townships and Owosso City 1-1

District 2
Ronald Elder (R)
1018 North Washington St.
Owosso, MI 48867
989.723.3448
relder@shiawassee.net

District 2 includes Owosso City 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4

District 3
Gary Holzhausen (R)
3810 Easton Rd.
Owosso, MI 48867
989.743.3233
gwholzhausen@yahoo.com

District 3 includes Caledonia Pct. 1, Hazelton, New Haven, and Venice Pct. 1 Townships and Corunna City

District 4
Jon Michael Fuja, Chairman (R)
513 Hampton Road
Durand, MI 48429
989.288.3506
jmfuja@power-net.net

District 4 includes Venice Pct. 2 and Vernon Townships and Durand Cityict 4

District 5
Gerald W. Cole, Vice Chairman (R)
9908 S. Vernon Road
Bancroft, MI 48414
989.634.5212
colegh@aol.com

District 5 includes Antrim, Burns, Caledonia Pct. 2, and Shiawassee Township

District 6
Dale Roszman (R)
807 W. Hibbard Rd.
Owosso, MI 48867
517.202.6820
droszman@shiawassee.net

District 6 includes Bennington, Owosso Pct. III, Sciota Townships, City of Laingsburg and City of Owosso Pct. 6-1

District 7
John Plowman (R)
202 Meadowdale Lane
Perry, MI 48872
517.625.4545
jplowman@shiawassee.net

District 7 includes Perry and Woodhull Townships and Perry City

***

26) Heavy Reading and just what does it say?

2006-06-28T18:40:00.000-07:00

Well..a very short version would be:

---------------------------------------

1. It says that counties do not have the authority to promulgate rules with respect to kennels.

---
2. It says that counties may adopt an ordinance pertaining to kennels providing that ordinance is the same as section 10

---
3. It says, "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." THAT WOULD BE INSPECTION FOR A NEW KENNEL

---
4. It says, "that act does not confer upon the board of supervisors the power to adopted regulations pertaining to dog kennels."

----------------------------------------
It says more than that, but this will give you something to help guide you through all the legal jargon. The important thing is that the counties, this county, yes even

-------

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY

DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO KENNELS.

---------

THE MICHIGAN DOG LAW OF 1919 GAVE THEM NO SUCH AUTHORITY.

---------

What they have adopted in the past contravenes The Dog Law of 1919 and there is nothing that gives them the authority to do that. Under "Authorities of County Board of Commissioners it says they may adopt any ordinance provided it does not contravene the statutes of the State of Michigan.

If they adopted a kennel licensing ordinance that does not match the state statute (which they did) then the county ordinance contravenes state law. (Which it does.)

They take the part that says they can adopt any ordinance, and they adopt any ordinance!

Well, that also means any ordinance they have been given the authority to adopt by statute.

That doesn't mean any ordinance that just pops into their head.

They ignore the part about "contravenes state statute", completely.

Outlaws.........they are nothin' but a bunch of outlaws.

25)Michigan Dog Law of 1919 - Sec 10 Kennels plus

2006-06-28T16:21:00.000-07:00

at end Dept AG admin rule

AG Opinion No. 1897

STATE OF MICHIGAN
DOG LAW OF 1919(EXCERPS)
Act 339 of 1919

287.261 Short title; definitions.
Sec. 1.

(d) “Kennel” means any establishment wherein or whereon dogs are kept for the purpose of breeding, sale, or sporting purposes.

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.

History: Add. 1966, Act 132, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 349, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973

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.

History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- CL 1929, 5255 ;-- CL 1948, 287.271

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.

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.

History: Add. 1972, Act 349, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973

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.

History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- Am. 1921, Act 310, Eff. Aug. 18, 1921 ;-- Am. 1929, Act 329, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 5275 ;-- Am. 1933, Act 189, Imd. Eff. June 28, 1933 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- Am. 1943, Act 209, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1943 ;-- CL 1948, 287.290 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 22, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 125, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 172, Imd. Eff. June 4, 1953 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 211, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 195, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 229, Eff. Mar. 30, 1972 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 349, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
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.

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 (&amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; 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

24) December 2004 - excerpt

2006-06-27T15:36:00.000-07:00

I don't think this is even legal. There is nothing in The Dog Law of 1919 that gives them this kind of authority.

But, then, this is Shiawassee County.

23) December 2004

2006-06-27T15:16:00.000-07:00

22) New Kennel "policy" January 2005 - typed version

2006-06-27T14:58:00.000-07:00

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

This is nothing more than another way to extort money out of kennel owners.

21) New Kennel "policy" January 2005

2006-06-27T14:52:00.000-07:00

This is nothing more than another way to extort money out of kennel owners.

Somebody's gotta keep an eye on these birds

2006-06-26T10:46:00.000-07:00

20) FOIA minutes and resolution

2006-06-26T08:52:00.000-07:00

I sent a FOIA requesting those minutes and a copy of the resolution that was introduced 6/22/06.

County Clerk, Lauri Braid, is the FOIA coordinator.

She fired back (already this morning...good job) the minutes of the two meetings.

Those have been approved.

But she doesn't have a copy of the resolution.

She said she would see what she could do to get a copy of it.

"They" really did plan to push that through without anybody knowing anything about it and, even now, if you heard about it and wanted to find out what it was all about. Ya might have a tough time doin' that.

19)Committee of the Whole 5/23/06

2006-06-26T08:40:00.000-07:00

Committee of the Whole
(excerpt from minutes)

Date: May 23, 2006

Time: 4:00 p.m.

Place: Commissioner’s Chambers, Surbeck Building, Corunna

Present: Chairman Van Pelt, Commissioners Capitan, Cole, Fuja, Pavlica, Roszman and Walden.
………………..
It was moved by Commissioner Roszman, seconded by Commissioner Cole to move to Thursday’s Board meeting to consider approving Resolution #06-05-16 that would give a commercial kennel license to any participating veterinary clinic that sells dog licenses for the County as part of their compensation. Motion carried.
………….
Call to the public:
Gary Holzhausen, 3810 Easton Road, Owosso
Ken Hornak, 9485 Ditch Road, Chesaning
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

_________________________________________
Lauri L. Braid, Shiawassee County Clerk
and Clerk to the Board of Commissioners

18)Public Safety & Courts Committee 5/17/06

2006-06-26T08:27:00.000-07:00

Public Safety & Courts Committee
Minutes

Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Time: 4:00 p.m.

Place: Commissioner Chambers, Surbeck Building

Present: Chairman Roszman, Commissioner Cole, Van Pelt, and Fuja

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Roszman at 4:00 p.m.

Call to the Public: No one responded.

Discussion Item:
Commercial operations in the County that do not have kennel licenses as required in the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance were discussed.

It was moved by Commissioner Cole, supported by Commissioner Van Pelt to move to the next Committee of the Whole meeting to consider enforcing the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance as written. Motion carried

It was moved by Commissioner Van Pelt, supported by Commissioner Cole to move to the next Committee of the Whole meeting to consider approving a drafted resolution that would give a commercial kennel license to any participating veterinary clinic that sells dog licenses for the County as part of their compensation. Motion carried.

Other Agenda Items: None

Call to the Public:
Kay Lorraine-Lauro spoke regarding kennel licenses.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

________________________
Wayne Roszman, Chairman

Public Safety & Courts Committee

________________________

Julie Considine

Executive Assistant

16)BIG DEAL.......SO WHO GIVES A RIP????

2006-06-25T09:35:00.000-07:00

There can't be more than 20 veterinary clinics in the county.

That would only generate $75 a year in revenue from each clinic.

$1,500 maximum.

Who cares????? Well, besides me, anyway.

I care that our Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners feel so free to act outside the laws of the State of Michigan.............especially at the same time they are complaining so loudly that another elected official ( a county wide position - not just a "District") has acted outside the authority granted by the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners.

That is just too much of a whole bunch of pots calling one kettle black for my taste.

15)Veterinarians could be required to purchase kennel licenses

2006-06-24T06:36:00.000-07:00

Veterinarians could be required to purchase kennel licenses
By TARA N. MAYArgus-Press Staff Writer 5/18/06

CORUNNA — The Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners is discussing whether to require veterinarians to purchase kennel licenses through the county.

The issue was brought before the board at the Public Safety and Courts committee meeting on Wednesday. The county’s animal control ordinance requires all commercial kennels to have licenses through the county.

A kennel is defined in the ordinance as any place where animals are kept to be treated. Most county veterinary clinics do not have kennel licenses. The board discussed whether to require them to get licenses and whether to charge them for the licenses.

The kennel license fee is $25 for more than 10 dogs. A kennel inspection, which costs $50, is required to obtain the license.

Commissioner Kim Van Pelt said he believes veterinarians should be given a break on the cost of the licenses in exchange for the services they provide the county.

All but one veterinary clinic in Shiawassee County distributes dog licenses for the county. They receive $3 for each dog license they sell. “The veterinary clinics provide quite a service doingthe licensing chores for us,” Van Pelt said.

Van Pelt said he wanted to draft a resolution that would include the cost of the kennel license in the compensation for selling dog licenses for the county.

Commissioner Gerald Cole said he thought the ordinance should be enforced as it stands, and veterinary clinics should be required to pay the fees.

Sheriff Jon Wilson said he agreed commissioners needed to decide who specifically is required to get licenses and enforce that decision. “The issue does need to be addressed,” he told the board.

The commissioners decided Wednesday to bring more information on the subject to the committee of the whole meeting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday.

“I think we need more information on the topic,” commissioner Jon Michael Fuja said. “And make sure we’re aware of everything here with this issue.”

14)Shiawassee vet clinics might pay county's fee for kennel inspections.

2006-06-24T06:31:00.000-07:00

Shiawassee vet clinics might pay county's fee for kennel inspections.

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION Tuesday, May 23, 2006 By Linda Angelo

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY - Veterinary clinics might have to start paying for kennel licenses and annual inspections if the Board of Commissioners decides to enforce an existing ordinance.
The county's animal control ordinance requires all commercial kennels to have licenses, but most veterinary clinics don't have one.
Commissioners will discuss during today's committee of the whole meeting whether they should have the sheriff's department enforce the ordinance or change it to exempt veterinary clinics.
The board also might consider waiving the fee for clinics that distribute dog licenses for the county.
"There is some logic to exempting them," said Commissioner Wayne Roszman, R-Owosso Township. "The treasurer said if we had to sell all the licenses through his office, we would have to employ a full-time person several months of the year when we sell them in large numbers."
The commercial kennel license fee is $25 for more than 10 dogs and $50 for an annual inspection, which would be conducted by the county's animal control.
Veterinarian Wayne Bruinekoll of Clay-Mar Veterinary Clinic in Owosso said animal control should not be in charge of inspections.
"If it's a licensed veterinary clinic, then there needs to be a vet on staff to inspect them," he said.
Veterinarian Craig Hook of Northside Animal Hospital in Owosso questions why veterinary clinics are classified the same as kennels.
"I'm not a kennel; l'm a hospital," he said. "I'm here to house animals in as short of a time as possible, treat them and get them home as opposed to being a boarding facility."
The issue arose after Bennington Township resident Kay Lorraine-Lauro, who operates a kennel on her property, wrote a letter to Sheriff R. Jon Wilson.
"It's a legitimate concern," Wilson said. "If the law says they need to be inspected and have a kennel licenses, either we need to enforce it or they need to be waived."

13) Powers of county board of commissioners.

2006-06-23T21:43:00.000-07:00

COUNTY BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS (EXCERPT)

Act 156 of 1851

46.11 Powers of county board of commissioners.
Sec. 11.

A county board of commissioners, at a lawfully held meeting, may do 1 or more of the following:

(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.

......................................

If, within 50 days after the county board of commissioners adopts an ordinance or act, a petition signed by not less than 20% of the electors residing in the district to be affected by the ordinance or act is filed with the county clerk asking that the ordinance or act be submitted to electors of the district to be affected by the ordinance or act for approval or rejection, then the ordinance or act shall not take effect until it is approved by a majority of the electors of the district affected voting on that issue at a regular or special election called for that purpose.

The county board of commissioners shall provide the manner of submitting the ordinance or act to the electors for their approval and of determining the result of the election.

Somebody's gotta keep an eye on these birds

2006-06-23T21:35:00.000-07:00

12)Kennel defined by Michigan Dog Law and Shiawassee County

2006-06-23T21:22:00.000-07:00

Remember how Sheriff Jon Wilson was telling me how the definitions for a kennel should be the same?
-----------------------------------------------------------
The DOG LAW OF 1919, Act 339 of 1919 defines a Kennel as
287.261 Short title; definitions.
Sec. 1.
(d) “Kennel” means any establishment wherein or whereon dogs are kept for the purpose of breeding, sale, or sporting purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Further The Dog Law of 1919 states under section 10 in part:
--------------------------------------------------------------
287.270 “Kennel” defined; kennel license; fee; tags; certificate; rules; inspection; exception. [M.S.A. 12.520 ]
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is more to section 10, but for now we are only looking at the definition.

Does that look the same as what they are proposing?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance proposed new definition:
Article II Definitions (1) KENNEL to read:
(1) KENNEL A kennel shall be construed as an establishment wherein or whereon five (5) or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think so……they left some parts out

and I think I have run out of legs for them to pee on.
That “contravenes” State of Michigan Law, which allows for a kennel of 3 dogs, includes dogs kept for sporting purposes and also includes "for remuneration".
There is also mention of dogs over 6 months of age. I will cover Section 10 more later.
This may not seem like a big deal, but it is.

If you own more than 5 dogs and train them, you are subject to these county kennel ordinances?

That doesn't seem so bad? Well, even I have the same objection as the veterinarians.

11)Resolution brought to the board June 22, 2006

2006-06-23T20:39:00.000-07:00

This is scary. They actually believed they were going to get this adopted on June 22, 2006.

No committee, no public hearing. Just adopt it and keep the veterinarians happy.

Pity they can't put that much effort into keeping the people happy.

The vets make more than enough money to cover the puny little $75 this would cost them.

The county could pay them $75 as part of their pay for selling dog licenses.

Sure would have been a whole lot cheaper than dancing through all of these hoops!

-----------------------------------------------

RESOLUTION NO. 06-06-20

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY

WHEREAS, the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners on January 13, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance currently reads under Article II Definitions
(1) KENNEL Any lot or premise on which (5) or more household pets, six months of age or older are kept.
(1) Commercial Kennel. Any lot or premise used for the commercial sale, boarding or treatment of household pets.
(2) Private Kennel. Any lot or premise used for the private maintenance of ten (10) or fewer household pets not involving any commercial activity. Keeping of more that ten (10) animals shall be considered a commercial kennel, regardless of ownership of animal.

WHEREAS, the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners intends to amend the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance under Article II Definitions (1) KENNEL to read: A kennel shall be construed as an establishment wherein or whereon five (5) or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective June 22, 2006, the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners amends the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance of January 13, 2000 under Article II Definitions (1) KENNEL to read:
(1) KENNEL A kennel shall be construed as an establishment wherein or whereon five (5) or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes.

I hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was adopted by the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 22, 2006.
__________________________
Jon Michael Fuja, Chairperson
Board of Commissioners
__________________________
Lauri L. Braid
Shiawassee County Clerk
(not signed by either-going to public hearing at the next Committee of the Whole)

10)Motion from last month that was tabled

2006-06-23T18:22:00.000-07:00

from the minutes of the May 25, 2006 meeting
this motion was brought off the table
and voted down at the June 22, 2006 meeting
-----------------------------------------------

RESOLUTION NO. 06-05-16
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SHIAWASSEE COUNTY

Whereas, the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners compensate veterinary clinics $3.00 per dog license they sell; and
Whereas, the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners wishes to encourage veterinary clinics to sell dog licenses; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT EFFECTIVE May 25, 2006, the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners shall waive the inspection and kennel fees to licensed veterinary clinics who sell dog licenses for Shiawassee County.
It was moved by Commissioner Roszman, seconded by Commissioner Van Pelt to approve Resolutions #06-05-16 that would give a commercial kennel license to any participating veterinary clinic that sells dog licenses for the County as part of their compensation and extend the inspection period for 30 days.
It was moved by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Walden to table the motion until the June meeting. Motion carried with the following roll call vote of 4 Yeas and 3 Nays. Yeas: Commissioners Capitan, Cole, Roszman, and Walden. Nays: Commissioners Pavlica, Van Pelt and Fuja.
It was moved by Commissioner Roszman, seconded by Commissioner Walden to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2006 Public Safety & Courts Committee meeting.
Motion carried.

Somebody's gotta keep an eye on these birds

2006-06-23T15:15:00.000-07:00

9)"They" decided

2006-06-23T11:54:00.000-07:00

So, at this meeting attended by only Shiawasse County Sheriff Wilson, Prosecutor Colbry and coordinator McAvoy "They" decided how to proceed.

( I'm not even sure that meeting was legal. I don't think it was. "They" are not Shiawassee County commissioners and this should have gone back to committee, and this meeting may have been subject to the Open Meetings Act, even though "they" are not commissioners.)

At any rate "they" came to the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioner's meeting with a resolution to be adopted by the board.

First they voted down the motion that had been tabled from last month. Well, sort of. The minutes of the meeting did not exactly state the motion as it was presented.

Then puppet Roszman made a motion to adopt the resolution to change the animal control ordinance.

So, these hotshots thought they could just type it up however they wanted and the board would pass it, right then and there. Bypass all the committees and any public hearings. (Wonder if that is how they got the ordinance adopted in 2000.)

It was really kind of funny. Colbry stammered and stuttered. He didn't know how that word ( "Treatment") got in there (??? A couple years ago Kim Van Pelt said Colbry wrote the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance-guess he don't remember what he wrote??). Colbry also said he thought maybe to change an ordinance there had to be a public hearing....published and a public hearing. Stammer, stammer, stutter, stutter. Nobody seemed to know what they were doing.

What a bunch of bumbling fools.

I think they made a motion to have a public hearing at the next committee of the whole meeting and to publish, as required, prior to that.

8)Dog Law of 1919 Kennel Definition

2006-06-23T07:28:00.000-07:00

State of Michigan Compiled Laws
DOG LAW 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

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:

(d) “Kennel” means any establishment wherein or whereon dogs are kept for the purpose of breeding, sale, or sporting purposes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further The Dog Law of 1919 states under section 10 in part:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

287.270 “Kennel” defined; kennel license; fee; tags; certificate; rules; inspection; exception. [M.S.A. 12.520 ]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.

Shiawassee County Animal Control…..Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners

7)Conversation with Sheriff Jon Wilson

2006-06-23T07:21:00.000-07:00

At the last Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners meeting in May it was moved to table the issue of the kennel licenses for the illegal kennels operated by veterinary clinics until the June meeting. That was said to be June 20, which would be the committee of the whole... At least that was my ultimate understanding. That would have been today, June 20, 2006 at 4 PM for the Committee of the Whole meeting. Well, today that subject was not on the agenda.

I had some questions for Shiawassee County Sheriff Jon Wilson about the Animal Shelter Activity Report and the form used for kennel inspections and I mentioned the kennel licensing was not on the agenda. He told me, “We had a meeting this morning to discuss that.” I asked, “Who is “we”?” He said that was himself, the county coordinator, Margaret McAvoy and the Prosecutor, Randy Colbry. Seems like there might have been another involved, but I don’t remember for sure.

Sheriff Wilson said, “They decided to extend 60 days while they decided what would be done.” Or words quite similar to that effect. I am pretty sure no county commissioner took part in that decision. Sheriff Wilson also said there wouldn’t be any point in pursuing this, if they were going to change the ordinance. What?

Previously the Committee of the Whole voted to enforce the ordinance as it was written. Now these three are deciding to delay while it is decided about changing the ordinance. Somethin’ rotten in Denmark. I thought the commissioners who sit on the Committee of the Whole made it quite clear they wanted the sheriff to “enforce the ordinance as it was written”.

Sheriff Wilson continued talking about the definition of “Kennel”, which in the county ordinance reads in part “Commercial Kennel. Any lot or premise used for the commercial sale, boarding or treatment of household pets.” He said the word “treatment” should really be “training” and that was a typo. Now Sheriff Wilson, I’ve told you before, it’s like Judge Judy said, “Don’t Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It’s Raining”. That was not a typo, that word was meant to be “treatment”. You may be able to convince somebody otherwise, but it won’t be me.

Sheriff Wilson also said, “Looking at the Dog Law of 1919 the definitions are different and it doesn’t make sense to have different definitions. Don't you think people should be able to go by the same definition?”

hmmmmmmmmm...........Well, then why have an additional ordinance? Why not just enforce the State Dog Law of 1919 and throw away the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance? The two are not likely to stay the same forever. The county ordinance is somewhat redundant with a few extra twists thrown in, albeit totally unnecessarily.

And Excuse me, several years ago it was Sheriff Wilson that said the Dog Law of 1919 was old and outdated. At that time I said it is not, it is amended on a regular basis and stays current. The same as the law that was enacted in 1858 (or somewhere in there) that gives authority to the County Board of Commissioners. Today…yes today….Sheriff Wilson tells me that law gets amended. Well how do ya like that?

So, his argument is changing “treatment” to “training” will make the two definitions the same? I think not. The Dog Law of 1919 says, in part, ““Kennel” means any establishment wherein or whereon dogs are kept for the purpose of breeding, sale, or sporting purposes.”. Then in Section 10 the Dog Law of 1919 gives further definition:

The DOG LAW OF 1919, Act 339 of 1919 defines a Kennel as

287.261 Short title; definitions.Sec. 1.(d) “Kennel” means any establishment wherein or whereon dogs are kept for the purpose of breeding, sale, or sporting purposes.

-------------------------------------------------

Further The Dog Law of 1919 states under section 10 in part:

-------------------------------------------------

287.270 “Kennel” defined; kennel license; fee; tags; certificate; rules; inspection; exception. [M.S.A. 12.520 ]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.

...

Doesn’t match. So which leg do you want to pee on this time?

...

Sheriff Wilson also explained some about how he had changed things at the animal shelter and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars. I told him, “That’s a stretch. You know I have the financials.” He said he knew I did. Over the three years since he reduced staff at the animal shelter, the budget had been reduced a little over $198,000. Maybe that is a good thing, but let’s not claim “hundreds of thousands” just yet.

...

However, I do have a question about that. He reduced staff in 2004, expenses went from $198,021 in 2003 to $128,954 in 2004. So how come he/they had to double and triple the dog licenses in 2005? Revenue went from $86,399 in 2004 to $163,000 in 2005. So which leg do you want to pee on this time?

...

This raise in fees, altered dogs went from $5 to $10 (double), unaltered went from $10 to $30 (tripled and the highest in the state) turns this into a profit center paid for entirely by the dog owners, yet the shelter takes in as many cats as dogs.

Why didn’t they put a license on cats? Why should the dog owners pay for everything?

...

State of Michigan Dog Law of 1919 and their own Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance states: “The county board of commissioners may set license fees in the county budget at a level sufficient to pay all the county's expenses of administering this act (Dog Law of 1919) as it pertains to dogs. “

...

Yet they set the fees high enough to administer ALL of the laws enforced by animal control and still show a profit.

...

There are at least 20 “acts” of state law that are enforced by animal control. I can list them, it isn’t all dogs. The animal control revenue should probably be about 50% of the animal control budget, that is what state law mandates. Either that, or make two entities: Dog Licensing and Other Animal Control. Because, at this time, they cannot even show what their expenses of administering the dog law are. Their accounting system has no way of breaking that out, therefore they think they can claim anything they want??? (and appears get away with it).

...

They don’t even use the additional money to benefit the animals! It goes straight into the general fund so dog owners get to support the whole county? Not just dog control.

...

Hmmm ……the dog owners really didn’t even yelp much, maybe the county could have raised the fees even more. Great new “think outside the box” tax to raise money.

This county wants to whoop and holler over a drain commissioner doing something without authority from the county board of commissioners. HA! How about looking at the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners and all they do with no authority from anywhere and in violation of state laws.

...

Somebody needs to start an investigation into that.

6)Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance

2006-06-23T07:12:00.001-07:00

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE

AS ADOPTED BY THE SHIAWASSEE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE

Adopted January 13, 2000 John S. Pajtas
County Clerk

ANIMAL CONTROL
ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE

County of Shiawassee, Michigan

An Ordinance relating to providing for animal control within the boundaries of Shiawassee County; purpose of Ordinance: definitions: County Animal Control Officer, duties, authority, responsibilities and removal from office; Licensing and Vaccination of dogs; Animal Adoption and Alteration, alteration, contract, exemption, deposit, forfeiture, return of deposit, exempt from deposit, breach of contract; confinement of dogs and other animals under certain circumstances. County Animal Shelter and Impoundment of dogs and other animals and Redemption of dogs and other animals impounded; Killing and Seizing of dogs and other animal; Prohibition of Livestock and Poultry in Non-Agricultural Areas; Prohibition of Wild Animals; Enumeration of Certain Violations and Procedure Therefor; Penalty; Preservation of Certain Rights; County Treasurer'’ duties and record; Fees and expenses: Receipts and Disbursements of funds; Construction; Repeal.

THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY OF SHIAWASSEE, MICHIGAN DO ORDAIN:

ARTICLE I
PURPOSE

Deeming it advisable in the interest of protecting the public health, safety, convenience and welfare and to provide for the orderly and uniform administration of the dog licensing provisions of the State of Michigan, and to create the position of Animal Control Officer and define the duties, authority and responsibilities, and to regulate and control the conduct, keeping and care of dogs and certain other animals, livestock and poultry: the County of Shiawassee, Michigan, does hereby adopt the following Ordinance;

ARTICLE II

DEFINITIONS

(a) ANIMALS Unless otherwise stated in this Ordinance, the word Animal means; birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans and all other vertebrates other than human beings..

(b) ADOPTION Means a transfer of ownership, with or without remuneration, of a dog, cat, or ferret from an Animal Control Shelter or Animal Protection Shelter to an individual for the purpose of being a companion animal for that individual. A companion animal includes but is not limited to a dog that is used for hunting or as a guard dog..

(c) ALTERATION Means a professional sterilization procedure performed by a veterinarian that renders a dog, cat or ferret incapable of reproduction..

(d) ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER Means any person employed by the county for the purpose of enforcing this Ordinance or state statutes pertaining to dogs, or other animals as well as persons or deputies employed or designated by the county to act in the animal control division. Animal Control Officer shall be synonymous with “pound master”, “Chief animal control services”, “dog warden” or “dog catcher”..

(e) ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER Means a facility operated by a municipality for the impoundment and care of animals that are found in the streets or at large, animals that are otherwise held due to the violation of a municipal ordinance or state law, or animals that are surrendered to the animal control shelter..

(f) ANIMAL PROTECTION SHELTER Means a facility operated by a person, humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other nonprofit organization for the care of homeless animals..

(g) BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. Shall mean the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners..

(h) COUNTY Means Shiawassee County, Michigan..

(i) DAY Means working days. It shall not include Saturdays, Sundays or County observed holidays..

(j) DOMESTIC ANIMAL Means the species of animals indigenous to North America which have lived under the husbandry of humans, including dogs and cats..

(k) EXOTIC ANIMAL Means those animals that are not domestic or any cross of those animals not domestic to North America, including but not limited to Mountain Lions, Wolverines and Badgers..

(l) KENNEL. Any lot or premise on which five (5) or more household pets, six months of age or older are kept..

(1) Commercial Kennel. Any lot or premise used for the commercial sale, boarding or treatment of household pets..

(2) Private Kennel. Any lot or premise used for the private maintenance of ten (10) or fewer household pets not involving any commercial activity. Keeping of more that ten (10) animals shall be considered a commercial kennel, regardless of ownership of animals..

(m)LIVESTOCK Means those species of animals used for human food and fiber or those species of animals used for service to humans. Livestock includes, but is not limited to, cattle, sheep, new world camelids, goats, bison, captive cervidae, ratites, swine, equine, poultry, aquaculture, and rabbits. Livestock does not include dogs and cats..

(n) NON-AGRICULTURAL AREA Means any area zoned by a city, village, township or other government body, agency or commission as other that for agricultural purposes..

(o) OWNER. The term “owner” and “persons owning premises” shall mean both the owner of title of record and those occupying or in possession of any property or premises. The term “owner” when applied to the proprietorship of an animal, means every person having a right to property in the animal, an authorized agent of the owner, and every person who keeps or harbors the animal or has it in his care, custody or control, and every person who permits the animal to remain on or about the premises occupied by that person..

(p) PERSON Means an individual, partnership, corporation, cooperative, association, joint venture or other legal entity, including but not limited to, contractual relationships..

(q) POLICE OFFICER Means any person employed or elected by the people of the State of Michigan, or by any city, village, county or township whose duty it is to preserve peace, or to make arrest or to enforce the law, and includes game, fish and forest fire wardens and members of the state police and conservation officers..

(r) POULTRY Means, but is not limited to chickens, guinea fowl, turkeys, waterfowl, pigeons, doves, peafowl, and game birds that are propagated and maintained under the husbandry of humans..

(s) RABIES SUSPECT ANIMAL Means any animal which has been determined by the Michigan Department of Public Health to be a potential rabies carrier and which has bitten a human, or any animal which has been in contact with or been bitten by another animal which is a potential rabies carrier, or any animal which is a potential rabies carrier which exhibits symptoms suggestive of rabies..

(t) TREASURER MEANS THE Shiawassee County Treasurer..

(u) WILD ANIMAL Means any non-domesticated animal or any cross of a non-domesticated animal including but not limited to wolves, except rodents or common cage birds.

ARTICLE III

ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER

DUTIES, AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Section 1. An animal Control Officer Shall be appointed by the Sheriff, who is the Director of the Animal Control Department. That person shall serve at the pleasure of the Sheriff.

Section 2. In lieu of all fees and other remuneration under the statutes of this state, the Animal Control Officer, his deputies and assistants, except census takers, shall be paid a salary as established and determined by appropriate resolution of the Board of Commissioners.

Section 3. The Animal Control Officer shall fulfill the following duties:

(a) The Animal Control Officer is authorized to promptly seize, take up and place in the animal shelter or other appropriate shelter, all dogs or other animals, livestock or poultry found running at large or being kept or harbored any place within the county, contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance or the statutes of the state.

(b) The Animal Control Officer shall be properly deputized as a peace or police officer for the purposes of this Ordinance and shall be legally authorized to have the power and it shall be their duty to issue appearance tickets, citations or summonses to those persons owning, keeping or harboring animals contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance.

(c) It shall be the duty of the Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants, to destroy in a humane manner, all impounded dogs or other animals lacking a collar, license or other evidence of ownership after being impounded for four (4) days, or if the animal has a collar, license or evidence of ownership, seven (7) days from the date of mailing to the animal’s owner written notice that the animal has been impounded.

If, however, in the Animal Control Officer’s, their deputy’s or assistant’s judgment, said dog or other animal is valuable or otherwise desirable for keeping, the Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants may release said dog, or other animal, to any person who will undertake to remove said animal from the county or keep said animal within the county in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the statutes of the state, including compliance with licensing and vaccination requirements, upon payment of the proper charge for the care and treatment of said animal while kept in the animal shelter or dispose of said dog or other animal at the expiration of the holding period required herein in a manner approved by the Board of Commissioners.

Such regulations regarding the sale of animals from the animal shelter and boarding and other charges shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the animal shelter.

The bodies of all animals destroyed at the animal shelter or elsewhere in the county shall be disposed of by the Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants, in a manner approved by the Shiawassee County Health Department and/or the Board of Commissioners.

Any animal voluntarily turned in to the animal shelter by the owners thereof for disposition need not be kept for the minimum period set forth herein before release or disposal of such animal is made by the Animal control Officer, their deputies or assistants, as provided herein.

(d) The Animal Control Officer shall promptly investigate all animal bite cases by a rabies suspect animal involving human exposure and shall search out and attempt to discover the animal involved and shall either impound or require its owner to quarantine the animal for examination for disease in accordance with applicable provisions of this Ordinance and/or the statutes of the state. In the event the owner of a quarantined animal is unable to maintain the quarantine during the required period, the owner shall deliver said animal to the animal shelter or upon notice to the Animal Control Officer to a veterinarian clinic for impoundment. Failure of an owner to maintain a quarantine or to deliver a quarantined animal for impoundment shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Article XII of this Ordinance. The Animal Control Officer shall also be obliged to seize and impound any rabies suspect animal

(e) The Animal Control Officer shall locate all unlicensed dogs, list such dogs, and deliver said list to the Prosecuting Attorney for the necessary proceedings as provided by this Ordinance and or the statutes of the state.

(f) The Animal Control Officer, his deputies or assistants are hereby authorized and empowered in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance to enter upon private premises for the purpose of inspecting same for the purpose of determining the harboring, keeping or possessing of any dog or dogs for the specific purpose of determining if the owners of said dogs have complied with the appropriate provisions of this Ordinance and to apprehend and take with them any dogs for whom no license has been procured in accordance with this Ordinance or for any other violation hereof. The provisions of this subsection shall specifically include, but not be limited to, investigation of or seizure for cruelty to animals.

(g) The Animal Control Officer shall have the right to inspect any kennel, a license for which has been issued by the Treasurer pursuant to this Ordinance and the statutes of the state, and shall have the duty to suspend said license if, in their opinion, conditions exist which are unhealthy or inhumane to the animals kept therein pending correction of such conditions, and further shall have the duty to revoke said license if such conditions are not corrected within a reasonable period of time.

(h) The Animal Control Officer shall have the right to investigate complaints of dogs or other animals alleged to be dangerous to persons or property and shall have the right to seize, take up and impound such animals.

(i) The Animal Control Officer shall have the right to investigate complaints of cruelty to dogs or other animals, livestock or poultry which has been subject to such cruelty.

(j) The Animal Control Officer shall have such other duties relating to the enforcement of this Ordinance as designated by the Sheriff or his designee.

Section 4. It shall be the further duties of the Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance and the statutes of the state pertaining to dogs and other animals, and they may make complaint to the appropriate District Court or other appropriate court in regard to any violation thereof.

Section 5. The Animal Control Officer, his deputies or assistants, shall dispose of any animal, livestock or poultry seized, taken up and/or impounded as provided for herein; in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and/or statutes of this state.

Section 6. All suspensions and or revocations of licenses and all seizures for cruelty or dangerousness as provided for herein, shall be in accordance with this Ordinance and the written policy of the Office of Animal Control.

Section 7. The Animal Control Officer may be removed from office for good cause shown.

Section 8. The Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants are further authorized and shall at all times carry a book of receipts properly numbered in sequence for accounting purposes, for the issuing of dog licenses as provided in this Ordinance and shall issue such dog licenses in accordance herewith.

Section 8. All fees and monies collected by the Animal Control Officer, his deputies or assistants as herein provided shall be accounted for and turned over to the Treasurer on or before the first of each and every month or more often if reasonably necessary under the standard practices of the Treasurer’s accounting system.

ARTICLE IV

LICENSING AND VACCINATION

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to own any dog four (4) months old or over unless the dog is licensed as hereinafter provided,

or to own any dog four (4) months old or over that does not at all times wear a collar with a tag approved by the director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, attached, as hereinafter provided,

except when engaged in lawful hunting accompanied by its owner;

or for any owner of any female dog to permit the female dog to go beyond the premises of such owner when she is in heat,

unless the female dog is held properly in leash,

or for any person except the owner, to remove any collar and/or license tag from a dog;

or for any owner to allow any dog,

except working dogs such as leader dogs,

farm dogs, hunting dogs, and other dogs,

when accompanied by their owner,

while actively engaged in activities for which such dogs are trained,

to stray unless held properly in leash.

Section 2. Before March 1 of each year, the owner of any dog (4) months old or over,
except as provided in Section 3 of this Article,

shall apply to the county, township or city treasurer or his authorized agent, where the owner resides, in writing, for a license for each dog owned or kept by them.

Such application shall state the breed, sex, age, color and markings of the dog, and the name and address of the last previous owner.

The application for a license shall be accompanied by a valid certificate of a current vaccination for rabies,

with a vaccine licensed by the United S6tates Department of Agriculture, signed by an accredited veterinarian.

The certificate for vaccination for rabies shall state the month and year of expiration for the rabies vaccination.

Section 3. No dog shall be exempt from the rabies vaccination requirements as herein set forth.

Section 4. When applying for a individual, kennel or replacement license, the owner shall pay the license fee provided for in the county budget for the year of purchase.

The county Board of Commissioners may set license fees in the county budget at a level sufficient to pay all the county’s expenses of administering the Animal Control Ordinance as it applies to dogs.

For an altered dog, the license fee, if any, shall be set lower than the license fee for a dog that has not been altered.

In addition, the license fee may be set higher for a delinquent application than for a timely application.

(a). The fee for individual, kennel or replacement licenses shall be established by the Board of Commissioners, either as part of the county budget, or otherwise.

(b) For dogs reaching the age of (4) months after March 1, the owner thereof shall obtain a license within thirty (30) days of the date in which a dog reaches (4) months of age at the rate set forth in Article IV, section 4(a).

(C) A dog which is used as a guide or leader dog for a blind person, a hearing dog for a deaf or audibly impaired person, or a service dog for a physically limited person is not subject to any fee for licensing.

(d) The license fee for any dog for which a license has not been obtained in accordance with Article IV, Section 4(a) and (b) shall be considered delinquent and the fee for such dogs shall be set by the Board of Commissioners.

(e) The dog license fees as herein established may be changed from time to time.

(f) Current dog licenses issued by other counties within Michigan, and any other governmental agencies shall be honored in Shiawassee County until the following March 1.

Section 5. No license or license tag issued for one dog shall be transferable to another dog.

Whenever the ownership or possession of any dog is permanently transferred from one person to another within the county,

the license of such dog may be likewise transferred,

upon proper notice, in writing by the last registered owner, given to the Treasurer who shall note such transfer upon his records.

This Ordinance does not require the procurement of a new license,

or the transfer of a license already secured,

where the possession of a dog is temporarily transferred for the purpose of boarding, hunting game, breeding, trial or show.

Section 6. If the dog license tag is lost, it shall be replaced by the Treasurer, upon application by the owner of the dog, and upon production of such license and a sworn statement of the fact regarding the loss of such tag.

The cost of said replacement shall be $1.00 (one dollar), or as otherwise determined by rules and regulations of the Board of Commissioners.

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.

A fee of double the original license fee shall be charged for each previously licensed or existing kennel, other than a newly created kennel, whose kennel license is applied for after June 1.

Kennel licenses shall expire on May 31 of each year.

ARTICLE V

ANIMAL ADOPTION AND ALTERATION

Section 1. Except as otherwise provided in this article, an Animal Control Shelter or Animal Protection Shelter shall not permit a person to adopt a dog, cat or ferret that has not been altered, unless that person has entered into a contract for the alteration of the dog, cat or ferret with the Animal Control Shelter or Animal Protection Shelter. The contract shall state that the adopting person agrees to have an alteration performed on the dog, cat or ferret and shall otherwise comply with this article.
Section 2. A contract for alteration shall require the adopting person to have an alteration performed on the dog, cat or ferret within 4 weeks after the adoption date if at the time of adoption the dog, cat or ferret is 6 months of age or older. If the dog, cat or ferret to be adopted is under 6 months of age at the time of the adoption, the contract shall contain the date upon which the dog, cat or ferret will be 6 months of ages, and shall require the person adopting the dog, cat or ferret to have an alteration performed on the dog, cat or ferret within 4 weeks after that date. This section does not prevent a veterinarian from performing an alteration on a dog, cat or ferret that is under 6 months of age.
Section 3. Upon certification by a veterinarian in writing that a dog, cat or ferret has a serious, permanent medical or health problem that prevents an alteration, the dog, cat or ferret adopted is not required to be altered. Upon certification by a veterinarian in writing that and alteration poses a serious, temporary medical health problem, them alteration may be postponed. The person adopting the dog, cat or ferret shall have it reevaluated by a veterinarian at intervals not to exceed 14 days and shall have the alteration performed no later than 7 days after a veterinarian determines that the temporary problem is resolved.
Section 4. Except as otherwise provided in section (7). A contract for alteration shall require the adopting person to leave with the Animal Control Shelter or Animal Protection Shelter, or a designee of the Animal Control Shelter or Animal Protection Shelter, a good faith deposit of at least $25.00 that indicates the persons’ intention to have the adopted dog, cat or ferret altered within the time provided pursuant to section (2). If the person fails to comply with the terms of the contract, the deposit is forfeited. The good faith deposit shall be returned to the adopting person if the adoption person submits written certification from a veterinarian of wither of the following:
(a) The dog, cat or ferret died prior to the time the alteration was required under section (2).
(b) The dog, cat or ferret has a serious permanent medical or health problem that prevents an alteration.
Section 5. Money forfeited under subsection (4) may be used by the Animal Control Shelter or Animal Protection Shelter to finance alterations, for public education regarding the value of having dogs, cats and ferrets altered or to otherwise ensure compliance with this statute.
Section 6. If the adopting person complies with the terms of a contract for alteration, the good faith deposit of at least $25.00 shall be refunded by the Animal Control Shelter, Animal Protection Shelter or their designee, upon submission by the adopting person of written certification by a veterinarian that the adopted dog, cat or ferret was altered. The certificate shall include the date of alteration, the name of the owner of the dog, cat or ferret, the description of the dog, cat or ferret and the signature of the veterinarian who performed the alteration.
Section 7. The good faith deposit under section (4) is not required if 1 or more of the following apply:
(a) A dog is transferred to a local, state or federal law enforcement agency.
(b) A dog is transferred to an organization or trainer that trains guide or leader dogs for blind persons, hearing dogs for deaf or audibly impaired persons or service dogs for the physically limited persons.
(c) A dog, cat or ferret that is transferred to another Animal Control Shelter of Animal Protection Shelter for the purpose of adoption or humane euthanasia.
Section 8. A contract entered into pursuant to this article shall include a statement that if the terms of the contract are breached because a person adopting a dog, cat or ferret fails to have the animal altered as required in the contract, then the person agrees to pay liquidated damages of the grater of $100.00 or actual reasonable costs incurred by the Animal Control Shelter or Animal Protection Shelter to enforce the contract. Immediately before a person signs the contract, a representative of the Animal Control Shelter or Animal Protection Shelter shall verbally direct the persons attention to the liquidated damages clause in the contract.

ARTICLE VI

CONFINEMENT

Any dog or other warm blooded animal that shall bite a person, animal or livestock shall be handled in accordance with the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc. (NASPHV, INC.). Compendium of Animal Rabies Control 1989, as amended. In the event the owner of such animal is unable to or fails to comply with any of the prescribed procedures, the Animal Control Officer shall take possession and custody of such animal and follow the prescribed procedure. The owner of such animal shall be responsible for the costs thereof. Failure of the owner of such animal to keep, maintain and confine or dispose of the animal when and as required by the NASPHV, Inc., Compendium of Rabies Control 1989 as amended, or to release custody of said animal to Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants or when so directed deliver said animal to a veterinarian clinic for confinement, shall be a violation of this Ordinance and subject an animal owner to the penalties set forth in Article XII.

ARTICLE VII

REDEMPTION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS

Section 1. All dogs found running at large shall be seized by the Animal Control Officer, their deputies of assistants, or by other law enforcement officers, and impounded at the Animal Control Shelter for a period of four (4) days if the dog lacks a collar, license or other evidence of ownership. If the dog possesses a collar, license or other evidence of ownership, it shall be held for a period of not less than Seven (7) days from the date of mailing the notice of the dog’s impoundment to the evident owner. After the required holding period has elapsed, the dog may be killed, sold or otherwise disposed of if not claimed by the owner. Disposal shall be done in a manner authorized by this Ordinance.

ARTICLE VIII

KILLING AND SEIZING
OF DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS

Section 1. Any person, including a law enforcement officer, Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants may kill any dog or other animal which he/she sees in the act of pursuing, attacking, about to attack, wounding any livestock, poultry or person, and there shall be no liability on such person, officer, deputy or assistant in damages or otherwise for such killing. Any dog that, enters any field or enclosure which is owned by or leased by a person producing livestock or poultry,outside of a city, unaccompanied by its owner, or its owners agent, shall constitute a trespass, and the owner shall be liable in damages. Except as provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person, other than a law enforcement officer, to kill or injure or attempt to kill or injure any dog which bears a license tag for the current year. In no event shall the provisions of this section exonerate a person from compliance with the criminal laws of this state, including but not limited to the safe discharge of firearms.
Section 2. Not withstanding any other provision in this Ordinance, it shall be lawful for any person to seize any dog or other animal running at large in violation of this Ordinance and to turn said dog or animal over to the Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants.

ARTICLE IX

PROHIBITION OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY
IN NON-AGRICULTURAL AREAS

No livestock or poultry shall be owned, kept, possessed, or harbored or kept charge of within the boundaries of any non-agricultural area within Shiawassee County except as such places are provided for shipping said livestock or poultry, and in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Shiawassee County Zoning Ordinance.

ARTICLE X

PROHIBITION OF WILD ANIMALS

No wild animal nor vicious animal shall be kept permanently or temporarily in any district accept in an accredited American Association of Zoologies Park and Aquariums (AAZPA) facility.

ARTICLE XI

ENUMERATION OF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS
AND PROCEDURE THEREFOR

Section 1. The owner of any dog shall be deemed in violation of this Ordinance and subject to the penalties set forth in Article XII if :
(a) The owner’s dog, regardless of age, and whether licensed or unlicensed, wearing a collar or not wearing a collar, runs at large, provided however, that a dog engaged in hunting need not be leashed when under the reasonable control of its owner.
(b) The owner’s dog, regardless of age, and whether licensed or unlicensed, wearing a collar or not wearing a collar, except a leader dog for the blind, hearing dog for a deaf or audible impaired person, or a service dog for a physically limited person which is accompanied by its owner, to be within the confines of any park when such par, by appropriate designation at its entrance, prohibits dogs.
(c) The owner’s dog, at any time, whether licensed or unlicensed, destroys real or personal property of another, or trespasses in a damaging way on property of persons other that the owner.
(d) The owner’s dog or other animal at any time, whether, licensed or unlicensed attacks or bites a person.
(e) The owner’s dog shows vicious habits and molests passers-by when such persons are lawfully on the public highway or right-of-way.
(f) The owner’s dog which, by loud and frequent barking, howling or yelping, is a nuisance in the neighborhood which said dog is kept, possessed or harbored.
(g) The owner of a dog fails to license their dogs in accordance with this Ordinance.

Section 2. An owner of livestock or poultry shall be in violation of this Ordinance and subject to the penalties set forth in Article XII if the owner’s livestock or poultry runs at large upon the premises of another or upon any public street, lane, alley or other public ground in the county unless otherwise specifically allowed.
Section 3. No person shall keep any exotic or wild animal or other type of animal which is determined to be in violation of local, state or federal law.
Section 4. A person shall be in violation of this Ordinance and subject to the penalties set forth in Article XII if they remove a collar or tag from any dog or other animal without the permission of its owner, or decoys or entices any dog or other animal out of an enclosure or off the property of its owner, or seizes, molests or teases any dog or other animal while held or led by any person or while on the property of its owner. Nothing in this section should be construed as a bar to proceeding under the criminal laws of this state.
Section 5. In the event of any violation of this Ordinance or of the laws of the state, the Animal control Officer, his deputies or assistants or other peace office may issue an appearance ticket, citation or summons to the owner of said dog, animal, livestock or poultry, or other person, summoning them to appear before a district court or other appropriate court within the county to answer the charges made in violation of this Ordinance. The Animal Control Officer, his deputies or assistants or other peace officer may sign a complaint before said court for violation of the provisions of this Ordinance, proceed to obtain the issuance of a warrant and make arrest of the person whom said violation is charged and bring them before the court to answer the charges. The Court may in such case, in its discretion, upon a finding of guilty, assess the penalties in accordance with the penalty provision of this Ordinance.
Section 6. In the event of a violation of any provision of this Ordinance or of the laws of the state, the Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants or other peace officer or any other person may proceed to obtain authorization of the Prosecuting Attorney and make complaint before a district court or other appropriate court within the county and obtain the issuance of a summons to show cause why such dog, animal, livestock or poultry should not be sold or otherwise disposed of, or may order the dog, animal, livestock or poultry confined to the premises of the owner, or may make such other order regarding the dog, animal, livestock or poultry as it deems proper and necessary under the circumstances, in addition to any of the penalties enumerated herein. This section shall in no way affect the provisions of Article III Section 3(c) of this Ordinance.
Section 7. Costs, as in civil cases, shall be taxed against the owner of the dog, animal, livestock or poultry and collected by the court from the person complained against upon a finding of guilty. The provisions of this paragraph shall be in the alternative to the provisions for violations set forth in the preceding paragraph and the Animal Control Officer, their deputies or assistants or other peace officer may, in his discretion, proceed under either section hereof.

ARTICLE XII

PENALTY

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, control or harbor a dog or other animal of any kind in violation of the terms of this Ordinance and any violations shall be subject to the penalties prescribed herein.
Section 2. Unless a violation of this Ordinance is specifically designated as a municipal civil infraction, the violation shall be deemed a misdemeanor. Any person deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, shall upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than ninety (90) days or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by both fine and imprisonment. If designated a municipal civil infraction, then each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate punishable offense.
Section 3. The following violations of this Ordinance shall be a municipal civil infraction:
(a) Dogs or other animals running at large and not under the reasonable control of its owner.
(b) An owner or person in control who allows a dog to enter the confines of a public park, where such park, by appropriate designation at its entrance, prohibits dogs.
(c) The owner’s dog destroys real or personal property of another, or trespasses in a damaging way on property of persons other than the owner.
(d) The owner’s dog which, by loud and frequent barking, howling or yelping, is a nuisance in the neighborhood which said dog is kept, possessed or harbored.
(e) Failure to license dogs in compliance with this Ordinance.

Section 4. The sanction for any violation of the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance, which is a municipal civil infraction shall be a civil fine as provided in Section 6.
Section 5. In addition to enforcing violations as misdemeanors or municipal civil infractions, violations of this Ordinance may be enforced by civil action along with any other remedies provided by law. Violations of the Ordinance are a nuisance per se, and adjudication of responsibility for a municipal civil infraction violation of this Ordinance shall not preclude other civil proceedings to abate such nuisance.
Section 6. A person, corporation or firm who violates any provision of section (3), of this Article and who is found responsible by the district court for a municipal civil infraction citation, shall pay a civil fine of not more than $500.00, plus costs and other sanctions, for each infraction.

ARTICLE XIII

PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS

Section 1. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent the owner of a licensed dog from recovery in an action at law from any peace officer or any other person, except as herein provided.
Section 2. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed as limiting the common law liability of the owner of a dog or other animal for damages committed by said dog or other animal.

ARTICLE XIV

TREASURER’S RECORDS AND DUTIES

Section 1. The County Treasure shall be responsible for the sale of dog licenses and shall keep a record of all dog licenses, and all kennel licenses issued during the year in each city and township in their county. Such record shall contain the name and address of the person to whom each license is issued and the expiration date of each license. For an individual license, the record shall also state the breed, sex, age, color and markings of the dog licensed; and for a kennel license, it shall state the place where the business is conducted. The record is a public record and shall be open to inspection during business hours. The County Treasurer shall also keep an accurate record of all licenses fees collected by the county Treasurer or paid over to him/her by any city or township treasurer.
Section 2. In all prosecutions for a violation of this Ordinance, the records of the Treasurer’s Office, or lack of the same, showing the name of the owner and the license number to whom any license was issued, and the license tag affixed to the collar or harness of the dog showing a corresponding number shall be prima facie evidence of ownership or non-ownership of any dog and of issuance or non-issuance of a dog license or tag.

ARTICLE XV

FEES AND EXPENSES

Section 1. Every township and city treasurer of Shiawassee County, Michigan, shall receive the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) for each dog license issued for the issuing and recording of same. The remuneration as herein established shall be deemed additional compensation for the additional services for each township or city treasurer who receives a salary in lieu of fees, when so designated by the appropriate township board or city council. This fee may be changed from time to time by the Board of Commissioners.
Section 2. The county Treasurer may annually take a census of the number of dogs owned by all persons in Shiawassee County, Michigan, in accordance with this Ordinance and state law. The County Treasurer is hereby empowered to employ whatever personnel they reasonably believe necessary to conduct this census. Such personnel shall receive for their services in listing such dogs such sum, as shall be set from time to time by the Board of Commissioners.
Section 3. The duties and obligations herein imposed upon the respective designated officials may be delegated to some other appropriate person or persons by each of said officials with like force and effect.

ARTICLE XVI

RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

Section 1. Except for those sums collected as a result of animal alteration, all fees and monies collected under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be transferred to the General Fund of Shiawassee County, Michigan, in accordance with the standard practices of the Treasurer of said county.

ARTICLE XVII

CONSTRUCTION

Section 1. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future.
Words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.
Masculine shall include the feminine and neuter.
The word “shall” is always mandatory and not merely directive.
Words or terms not defined herein shall be interpreted in the manner of their common meaning.
Headings shall be deemed for convenience and shall not limit the scope of any article or section of this Ordinance.

Section 2. The regulations of this code are minimum standards supplemental to the rules and regulations duly enacted by the Michigan Department of Health and to the laws of the state of Michigan relating to public health.

Where any of the provisions of these regulations and
the provisions of any other local or state ordinances or regulations apply,
the more restrictive of any or all ordinances or regulations shall prevail.

ARTICLE XVIII

REPEAL

All Ordinance or parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

July 27, 2006 Amended by

RESOLUTION NO. 06-06-20
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SHIAWASSEE COUNTY

WHEREAS, the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners on January 13, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance currently reads under Article II Definitions
(1) KENNEL Any lot or premise on which (5) or more household pets, six months of age or older are kept.
(1) Commercial Kennel. Any lot or premise used for the commercial sale, boarding or treatment of household pets.
(2) Private Kennel. Any lot or premise used for the private maintenance of ten (10) or fewer household pets not involving any commercial activity. Keeping of more that ten (10) animals shall be considered a commercial kennel, regardless of ownership of animal.
WHEREAS, the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners intends to amend the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance under Article II Definitions (1) KENNEL to read: A kennel shall be construed as an establishment wherein or whereon five (5) or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective June 22, 2006, the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners amends the Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance of January 13, 2000 under Article II Definitions (1) KENNEL to read:
(1) KENNEL A kennel shall be construed as an establishment wherein or whereon five (5) or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes.
I hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was adopted by the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 22, 2006.
__________________________
Jon Michael Fuja, Chairperson
Board of Commissioners
__________________________
Lauri L. Braid
Shiawassee County Clerk
(not signed by either-going to public hearing at the next Committee of the Whole)

5)Animal Control Ordinance Table of Contents

2006-06-23T07:09:00.000-07:00

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
Table of Contents
ARTICLE I PURPOSE
ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS
ARTICLE III ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER DUTIES, AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES
ARTICLE IV LICENSING AND VACCINATION
ARTICLE V ANIMAL ADOPTION AND ALTERATION
ARTICLE VI CONFINEMENT
ARTICLE VII REDEMPTION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS
ARTICLE VIII KILLING AND SEIZING OF DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS
ARTICLE IX PROHIBITION OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY IN NON-AGRICULTURAL AREAS
ARTICLE X PROHIBITION OF WILD ANIMALS
ARTICLE XI ENUMERATION OF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS AND PROCEDURE THEREFOR
ARTICLE XII PENALTY
ARTICLE XIII PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS
ARTICLE XIV TREASURER’S RECORDS AND DUTIES
ARTICLE XV FEES AND EXPENSES
ARTICLE XVI RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
ARTICLE XVII CONSTRUCTION
ARTICLE XVIII REPEAL
AMENDMENT JULY 27, 2006 RESOLUTION 06-06-20
KENNEL LICENSES - WELL SORT OF VOTED "TO CONSIDER APPROVING"

4)kennel license for vet clinics - from Open Forum

2006-06-22T15:52:00.000-07:00

NEW: kennel license for vet clinicskaylor <Send E-Mail> -- Thursday, 22 June 2006, at 6:40 p.m.

Well, it was on the agenda for today's meeting of the Shiawassee County Commissioners
This is pretty sorry and yes, I did start a blog on it........
shiacac.blogspot.com
Yes....selective enforcement and much more
The short version
Sheriff Jon Wilson, Prosecutor Randy Colbry and County Coordinator Margaret McAvoy had a meeting tuesday before the Committee of the Whole meeting. They decided what to do about kennel licensing for veterinary clinics.
1. They will amend the county ordinance and take out the word "treatment". That will exclude veterinary clinics from the kennel license requirement.

2. They wrote up a resolution and had Commissioner Roszman make a motion on it today.

3. Colbry stammered and stuttered, he didn't know how that wording got in there (he wrote it) and he thought they had to have a public hearing before they changed an ordinance, publish and public meeting.
So, they are supposed to publish and have a public hearing at the next Committee of the Whole meeting July 25th (?).
They voted down giving the clinics a kennel license as part of their pay for selling dog licenses. They would rather change the ordinance.
I'm not so sure this is even a legal procedure they are about to be doing.

Those three had a little meeting all on their own? They made up the resolution.

I think that meeting could have been subject to the open meetings act.
Too bad they couldn't do anything like that for an ordinary citizen.

Well, the license fees amount to around $160,000 now.

The vets get paid $3 for each one they sell.

3)Letter to Lansing State Journal (150 word limit)

2006-06-22T12:27:00.000-07:00

I don't know if this was publsihed or not.
Shiawassee County Committee of the Whole meeting June 20, 2006
Prosecutor Randy Colbry gave his "report" on the Drain Commissioner.
One of the things brought up by Prosecutor Colbry was that Drain Commissioner Holzhausen started charging a fee for "waivers", which Colbry says he had no authority to do. He stated those fees should be repaid.
That's what got my attention! When the county owned up to the fact they had been overcharging for kennel license fees. They lowered the fee to what state law allows.
If they are going to go back and refund those waiver fees, which were charged without authority from the board of commissioners then they might want to seriously consider refunding those excess kennel fees that were charged in violation of state law.
It’s about time somebody took a closer look at the Shiawassee county commissioners and a few others, as well.

2) illegally charged fees should be refunded

2006-06-22T12:21:00.000-07:00

....................................hmmmmmmmmm interesting
My letter to the editor on that to our local papers and The Flint Journal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shiawassee County Committee of the Whole meeting June 20, 2006
Shisawassee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry gave his "report" on the Drain Commissioner.
There were many things brought up that I'm sure most of the news reporters will cover in great detail. One of the things brought up by Prosecutor Colbry was that Drain Commissioner Holzhausen started charging a fee for "waivers", which PA Colbry says he had absolutely no authority to do. Well, this is Shiawassee County. But PA Colbry stated those fees should be repaid.
That's what got my attention! When the county owned up to the fact they had been overcharging for kennel license fees. They lowered the fee to what state law allows.
What the county had been charging was a violation of state law!
Then "to make up for the 'lost' revenue" they adopted a new "policy" of annual inspections with an inspection fee. My kennel fee plus inspection fee, of course, increased my overall expenditure and the county's revenue. Great creative taxation at work here.
But I asked the County Board of Commissioners when they were going to refund the excess license fee they had been illegally charging. Never got an answer.
If they are going to go back and refund those waiver fees, which were charged without authority from the board of commissioners then they might want to seriously consider refunding those excess kennel fees that were charged in violation of state law.
Which is worse: A new official acting without authority of the board or the county violating state law?
I know this has been a bash the drain commissioner fest, but it’s about time somebody took a closer look at the county commissioners and a few others, as well.

1) Shiawassee County adopted ordinance in 2000

2006-06-22T10:13:00.000-07:00

This has been a long time coming, but its time has come.

I will attempt to provide as much information as I have available.

If any have questions, feel free to ask via the comments and I will attempt to answer....

My position is that I do not believe our Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance is written within the laws of the State of Michigan. It is an illegal ordinance....

No one seems to care much. Surely no one can really do much about it. What is one lonely little dog owner going to do? Or even one lonely little kennel owner?...

We are at the mercy of the arrogant Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners, the dog catcher, the sheriff, the prosecutor and judges. None of which gives a rip. ...

They believe they are right, or that they have the authority to say they are right and the peasants beware....

Well, this one has made a few noises and this one will continue to make noises.

______________________________________________________

1) Shiawassee County adopted ordinance in 2000
This has been a long time coming, but its time has come.
I will attempt to provide as much information as I have available.
If any have questions, feel free to ask via the comments and I will attempt to answer....
My position is that I do not believe our Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance is written within the laws of the State of Michigan. It is an illegal ordinance....
No one seems to care much. Surely no one can really do much about it. What is one lonely little dog owner going to do? Or even one lonely little kennel owner?...
We are at the mercy of the arrogant Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners, the dog catcher, the sheriff, the prosecutor and judges. None of which gives a rip. ...
They believe they are right, or that they have the authority to say they are right and the peasants beware....
Well, this one has made a few noises and this one will continue to make noises.