shiawasseecounty.net

The Sunday Independent • Sunday, August 12, 2007 Page 9

Dog License Enforcement

The Shiawassee County Sheriff’s Department Animal Control Division is preparing to begin a compliance check for dog licenses.

Every dog in Shiawassee County, four months and older, is required to be licensed.

County dog licenses must be purchased annually prior to March 1 of each year.

Cost of a dog license purchased prior to March 1, is $10 for neutered dogs and $30 for others.

The cost after March 1 is $20 for neutered and $60 for others.

After March 1, the only places to purchase a dog license are at the County Animal Control Shelter on Hibbard Road south of Corunna and the County Treasurer’s Office in the landmark Courthouse in Corunna.

Dog owners, who have not already done so, are encouraged to get their dog(s) licensed immediately.

During the upcoming compliance check, all persons found in possession of an unlicensed dog will be issued a citation (violation ticket).

The fine for a citation for an unlicensed dog in Shiawassee County is $75.

In addition to receiving a citation, violators will also be required to purchase a dog license.

DOG LAW OF 1919 (EXCERPT)
Act 339 of 1919


MCL 287.277 Identification and location of unlicensed dogs; public nuisance; list; commencement of proceedings; duties of sheriff; nonfeasance in office.

Sec. 17.

The county treasurer may, based on records of the dogs actually licensed in each city or township of the county and any report under section 16, identify and locate all unlicensed dogs.

If a dog is required to be licensed under this act but is unlicensed, the dog is a public nuisance.

The county treasurer shall immediately list all unlicensed dogs identified by this section and shall deliver copies of the list to the prosecuting attorney of the county and to the director of the department of agriculture.

On receiving from the county treasurer the name of any owner of an unlicensed dog, the prosecuting attorney shall at once commence the necessary proceedings against the owner of the dog, as required by this act.

The sheriff shall locate and kill, or cause to be killed, all such unlicensed dogs.

Failure, refusal, or neglect on the part of a sheriff to carry out the provisions of this section constitutes nonfeasance in office.

DOG LAW OF 1919 (EXCERPT)
Act 339 of 1919


287.276 Listing of dogs; compensation of supervisor; appointment, duties, and compensation of animal control officer.

Sec. 16.

The supervisor of each township and the assessor of every city, annually, on taking his assessment of property as required by law, may make diligent inquiry as to the number of dogs owned, harbored or kept by all persons in his assessing district; and on or before June 1, make a complete report to the county treasurer, for his county, on a blank form furnished by the director of agriculture, setting forth the name of every owner, or keeper, of any dog, subject to license under this act, how many of each sex are owned by him, and if a kennel license is maintained such fact shall be also stated.

Every supervisor or assessor shall receive for his services in listing such dogs at a rate determined by the board of supervisors for each dog so listed, which sums shall be paid out of the general fund of the county.

In any city having a population of 5,000 or more, the county board of supervisors may by resolution appoint for a term of 2 years, an animal control officer, who shall perform in and for the city all the duties which this act prescribes for the supervisors of townships, and who shall receive the same compensation as is herein provided for supervisors.

The board of supervisors of any county may, by resolution, appoint for the county for a term of 2 years an animal control officer whose duties and compensation shall be such as shall be prescribed by the board of supervisors and who may be delegated the duties required by this section to be performed by the supervisors and assessors without extra compensation.

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

hmmmmmmmmm.........that's what the law says

DOG LAW OF 1919 (EXCERPT)
Act 339 of 1919

MCL 287.266 Dog licenses; application; resolution; provisions; proof of vaccination.

Sec. 6.

(1) The owner of a dog that is 4 or more months old shall apply to the treasurer of the county or, except as provided in section 14, the treasurer of the township or city where the owner resides, or to the treasurer's authorized agent, for a license for each dog owned or kept by him or her.

(2) Unless the county board of commissioners adopts a resolution under subsection (3), the owner shall apply for a license annually on or before March 1.

(3) The county board of commissioners of a county may adopt a resolution during the 60-day period before the beginning of the county's fiscal year providing when the owner of a dog that is required to be licensed under subsection (1) must apply for a license. Before adopting the resolution, the county board of commissioners shall obtain the county treasurer's written approval of the resolution. Subject to subsection (4), the resolution shall provide for 1 of the following:

(a) That the owner apply for a license by March 1 every year or every third year, at the owner's option.

(b) That the owner apply for a license by June 1 every year.

(c) That the owner apply for a license by June 1 every year or every third year, at the owner's option.

(d) That the owner apply for a license by the last day of the month of the dog's current rabies vaccination, every year.

(e) That the owner apply for a license by the last day of the month of the dog's current rabies vaccination, every third year.

(f) That the owner apply for a license by 1 of the following, at the owner's option:

(i) The last day of the month of the dog's current rabies vaccination every year.

(ii) The last day of the month of the dog's current rabies vaccination, every third year.

(4) A resolution adopted under subsection (3) shall include necessary provisions for conversion to a new licensing schedule. The resolution may extend the effective period of outstanding licenses but shall not shorten the effective period of outstanding licenses or prorate license fees.

(5) The 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 States 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, in the veterinarian's opinion. A license shall not be issued under subsection (3)(d), (e), or (f) if the dog's current rabies vaccination will expire more than 1 month before the date on which that license would expire. 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.

For a spayed or neutered dog, the license fee, if any, shall be set lower than the license fee for a dog that is not spayed or neutered.

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

(6) If a dog is licensed before it becomes 5 months old and is subsequently spayed or neutered before it becomes 7 months old, the owner of the dog may exchange the license for a license for a spayed or neutered dog and receive a refund for the difference in the cost of the licenses. The owner shall exchange the license before the dog becomes 7 months old.

(7) Subsection (6) applies in a county only if the county board of commissioners adopts a resolution to that effect during the 60-day period before the beginning of the county's fiscal year. Before adopting the resolution, the county board of commissioners shall obtain the county treasurer's written approval of the resolution.

( 8 ) The owner of a dog that is required to be licensed under this section shall keep the dog currently vaccinated against rabies by an accredited veterinarian with a vaccine licensed by the United States department of agriculture.
---------------------------

hmmmmmmmmm........so where does the $75 fine come from?
They already set the license fee at double the amount legally plausible, now they want to double it, again, for those applying after March 1.
and a fine on top of that, greedy buggers.......ain't they?

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

So, nobody can answer my question and I have to dig some more.

DOG LAW OF 1919 (EXCERPT)
Act 339 of 1919

MCL 287.286 Penalties; disposition of fines. [M.S.A. 12.536 ]
Sec. 26. Any person or police officer (HA! who's gonna prosecute a police officer?), violating or failing or refusing to comply with any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall pay a fine not less than $10.00 nor more than $100.00, or shall be imprisoned in the county jail for not exceeding 3 months, or both such fine and imprisonment.

Any person presenting a false claim, knowing it to be false, or receiving any money on such false claim, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall pay a fine of not less than $10.00 nor more than $100.00, or shall be imprisoned in the county jail for not exceeding 3 months, or both such fine and imprisonment.

All fines collected under the provisions of this act shall be paid to the treasurer of the county to be credited to the library fund of the county.

HA! and the people of this county approved a millage to support the library...HA! Shiawassee County could end up with the best library in the state. Except I doubt they will put this money in the library fund. they'll put it in the general fund and claim they pay it to the library.

A person should be able to walk down the street, without the police arbitrarily demanding papers, as proof that the law isn't being broken. Where else would this happen, but Shiawassee County?

It's arguably a violation of your fourth amendment right, protection from unreasonable search and seizure. (JMO, but I'll bet you a dog biscuit, Kaylor.)

You like dog biscuits?

Well, it appears, according to the Dog Law of 1919, that the "tax collector" may inquire as to how many dogs you own, when they collect taxes.

then make a list of those dogs (they get extra pay for that).

Then give that list to the treasurer.

Who compares it to his "list" of licensed dogs. (??)

If somebody says they own a dog and it is not on the licensed list the treasurer makes a list of unlicensed dogs and turns that list over to the prosecutor and those get prosecuted.....? or somethin' like that....

Just exactly how this "compliance" thing works, is another story that I do not know all the answers to.

However, the treasurer doesn't keep records in any fashion that would be search able (boxes of license 'books').

There is something in the dog law about having to show the license when asked. I assume that would be by an animal control/police officer.

MCL 287.269a Production of proof of license. [M.S.A. 12.519(1) ]
Sec. 9a. A person who owns or harbors a dog shall produce proof of a valid dog license upon request of a person who is authorized to enforce this act.

Does that give such a person the right to just go around asking every dog owner for proof?

I have heard of other counties doing a "dog census".

The people they hire to do these dog "census" things are not animal control/police officers and lack the authority to ask for the license. So it would be the same as the tax collector inquiring as to how many dogs you own, making a list and turning it over to the treasurer.

The animal control officer lacks authority in those municipalities that have their own animal control ordinance.

I do like your fourth amendment argument. It does seem unreasonable to have to prove you are not violating a law. Thank you for the response.

"Compliance check" what BS !!! How many other laws can they come up with a "compliance check" on?

The dog license was intended as a way to prevent people who were bitten by a dog from having to go through painful rabies treatment if the dog had a rabies shot. The record of the shot and keeping the record was supposed to be paid for by the license fee. HA! We get nothin' for the license fee. You just try to find out (from the treasurer) if a dog has had a rabies shot. He couldn't find it, if he wanted to.

First, let me state that I think that paying the $10 per dog that I have is too much money. $5 was plenty.

As far as the $75 fine goes, think of it this way......If you're driving with expired license plate tabs and get pulled over, you not only get fined but you have to pay the Secretary of State for new tabs. AND if you did buy your tabs after your birthday you get a fee tacked on to that. So, just buy the dog licenses before March 1st and then you don't have to worry about any fines what so ever. The fines and extra fees, in my opinion, are an incentive for people to purchase the licenses ON TIME. Every year I hustle my butt to my vet BEFORE March 1st to get mine. I take the time out of my busy schedule to do this. Knowing that I would have to pay more is my incentive.

As for these fines going into the library fund, ASK FOR PROOF that this is happening. The county has to show where the money is going, right?

Now you are on my side? But I think you missed some of my later posts. I did dig out the law about the fine (good argument though) and I have edited my reply to Riverman a couple times (above).

Yup...the county "has to show where the money is going" ha-ha

I have not been not on your side with this issue. I just had a problem with how you were responding to Fritz the other day. Yes, I have missed some of your earlier posts. Usually when I'm on line I'm too tired to read such long posts and a lot of your posts are very long quotes. No offense.

Hi Kaylor,

Just thought I would share a story that a friend I worked with told me.

Some years ago, the county he lived in (Eaton, I think) decided to run a similar "compliance check". He kept a half dozen dogs for hunting. The licenses were always in a state of disarray, some were late, etc.

Either an Animal Control Officer or a Deputy came and knocked on his door, and asked if he kept any dogs. Brian said no, he did not have any dogs.

The guy looked surprised, since his hounds in the kennel out back were raising a hell of a racket because a car was in the drive. He asked if he could check the back yard to be sure.

Brian looked at him carefully, to make sure he understood, and said "No."

The Officer considered this for a minute, and got in his car and left.

Brian said that was the last of it, he never heard any more. Apparently they would need a warrant to "check" and in Eaton county at that time it wasn't worth the time to pursue it.

Not sure how you would feel about lying to an officer trying to enforce an illegal ordinance. It wouldn't bother me for a minute.

No offense taken, but you really should know more about what you are saying and there is a lot to it. It isn't as simple as "I think the $10 I pay is too much." It is too much and it isn't even legal to charge that much.

There is provision in the law to charge more for a late license and fine. this county charges double and triple what they should for the license, then they double that, AGAIN, for a late license and even if the fine is legal.....it is way too much with the 4 times and 6 times the amount for the license. I think you are agreeing with that part.

I said you missed some of my later posts........well you also missed the earlier ones. Apparently you missed where Fritz was more than rude to me. But then you don't think anybody needs to defend me, either.

Wouldn't bother me either. Also wouldn't bother me to tell them to get the hell off my property. They could come back with a warrant if they wanted but I would then have grounds to sue for harassment. I have a kennel license and their dog catcher has already 'inspected' my records. (That is also in violation of state law-annual kennel inspection.)

The Dog Law of 1919 reminds me of a block of Swiss cheese. No matter how you slice it, it is full of holes. Then, totally disregard it and write your own "Shiawassee County Animal Control Ordinance" and it really gets messy. The dog law is full of holes and the county ordinance violates what isn't holes.

Thanks for the story, hope Fritz doesn't accuse you of pulling it out of thin air. A friend of mine worked on the "dog census" for Ingham county some years back. I was more vague when I stated "I heard" some counties did that. I think she could sell dog licenses as she went, don't remember for sure. There is provision in the county ordinance that the dog catcher is to carry a book of dog licenses with him, so seems like he could be selling them.

That seems to be the way it is with this dog law thing. "Not worth the time to pursue".

The Dog Law of 1919 was enacted in 1919 (replacing an earlier law) and has been amended many times over the years. At best, it is still a block of Swiss cheese that no matter how you slice it, it is full of holes. Still, just not worth the time to pursue.

Individuals may think $10 and $30 per year is too much for a dog license, but it isn't enough to pursue, either.

This county admitted they were illegally overcharging for kennel licenses, but they didn't refund any of their ill-gotten gains. Let the kennel owners sue them was their attitude. But when the drain commissioner supposedly illegally charged for soil erosion fees, the county knocked their lights out to refund those fees.

Shiawassee County isn't the only county to adopt an illegal "Animal Control Ordinance". (Many cities and townships have also adopted 'illegal' ordinances. They keep copying each other. ) The board of commissioners told me the prosecutor wrote the animal control ordinance, but he really copied it from another county. A couple other counties have much the same version. Eventually the legislature will likely adopt this illegal version (???just my snark). But highly likely. These 'lawmakers' have a habit of doing things like that instead of correcting errors, they make the error the law. HA! and we pay 'em to do it. Just a little thing, hardly seems worth the bother.

Actually, you know how these threads get going and go in all different directions......???

but that was my original thought behind my "Joke of the Day".

So, they make a list of "unlicensed dogs" ( if they can ). They turn it over to the prosecutor. Does our new dog catcher actually believe the prosecutor and the judges want to fill up their valuable time with this?
If they do, they have too much time on their hands and maybe we need to cut back on the prosecutor's budget and judges?

Pity of it is: Animal lovers love their animals. That makes them an easy target for these bullies. I've no doubt a lot of people just didn't buy licenses after the county raised the fee. Just too much and it didn't raise the revenue they projected. It still raised almost double what would be reasonable. They are greedy. The county commissioners told the Animal Control Advisory Board that they were "morally" obligated to put that money back into animal control. HA! They have been running at a profit ever since and they reduced the budget.

It seems like the police would have it a lot easier if they could just drop in for a "compliance check" whenever they felt like it. It wouldn't take too long to visit every house in town and search for unlicensed guns, illegal drugs, overdue parking tickets, dogs without tags, etc.

What a great idea! Just forget about that silly old constitution! Nobody pays any attention to that old thing anyway. Just think of all the stuff they could come up with and without the hassle of having to get warrants and things like that. The police could justify their existence and maybe even demand more policemen. As it is they don't have time to write tickets for people who drive around with no washer fluid in their car's window washers. That's gotta stop.