REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 25
DOG LAW ___ KENNELS, LICENSING
OF. REGULATIONS AS TO—
Regulations of the director of agriculture with
regard to dog kennels and the inspection thereof are in effect in those
counties which do not have a county
dog warden.
In other counties the board of supervisors may adopt the provisions authorizing
the promulgation thereof, in which case such regulations would be in
effect.
The board of supervisors has no authority however to promulgate regulations in regard
thereto.
No. 1897 January 24, 1955
Mr. ALFRED A. BLOMBERG, Civil Counsel
County of Macomb,201 Mt. Clemens Savings Bank Bldg.
Mt. Clemens, Michigan
Dear Mr. Blomberg:
Your
request for opinion bearing date of December 29, 1954 and addressed to my
predecessor cites certain provisions of Act No. 339, P.A. 1919 as amended
(&& 287.261 et seq C.L. 1948. && 12.511 et seq., M.S.A.).
The act provides for the
annual licensing of dogs upon payment of the fee prescribed by Sec. 6
(&& 287.266, C.L. 1948, being as amended by Act No. 172, P.A. 1953,
& 12.516, M.S.A. Supp.) The function
of licensing is performed by the respective counties, townships or cities. The act vests certain powers and discretion
in the several county boards of supervisors.
The director of agriculture likewise is vested with powers, particularly
of a supervisory nature.
Sec. 16 of the dog law (& 287.276, C.L. 1948; &
12.526, M.S.A.) imposes the duty upon the supervisor of each township and the
assessor of each city of compiling an annual report to the county treasurer in
which is listed each owner or keeper of any dog subject to license
thereunder. For that service the officer
receives a fee of 20 cents per dog payable from the county treasury. Act No. 79 P.A. 1933, in amending the dog law added the
following proviso to Sec 16 thereof:
“Provided further, That the board of
supervisors of any county may, by resolution appoint for said county for a term
of 1 year a dog warden or dog wardens whose duties and compensation shall be
such as shall be prescribed by said board of supervisors.”
Sec. 10 of the act, &
287.270, C.L. 1948, being as last amended by Act No.172, P.A. 1953 ( &
12.520, M.S.A. Supp.), provides for the issuance of a kennel license upon payment of the fee therefor according to the
schedule therein prescribed in lieu of the fee based upon the number of
individual dog licenses as set forth in Sec. 6, supra.
Sec. 10, as amended,
requires as a condition precedent to the issuance of a kennel license the
inspection of such kennel by the director of agriculture or his authorized
representative and the issuance of his certificate evidencing compliance with
reasonable sanitary requirements. The
director of agriculture is empowered to promulgate regulations with regard
thereto. That section contains the
following proviso:
“Provided, however.
The provisions of this act shall not be effective in the counties of
this state that are operating under the provisions of section 16 of Act No. 79
of the Public Acts of 1933, wherein the board of supervisors have appointed a
county dog warden with certain powers and duties, unless such counties by a
resolution duly adopted by the board of supervisors accept the provisions of
this act.”
Such proviso as
well as the provisions regarding inspection and certification of the kennels
and the promulgation of regulations with regard thereto were added to said
section by Act No. 245, P.A. 1945, which act amended only Sec. 10. Obviously, it was not intended by the above quoted provision to exempt those
counties having a county dog warden from all of the provisions of Act No. 339,
P.A. 1919,. Nor is it reasonable to assume that the
legislature intended to make all of the provisions of Sec. 10 of said act
inoperative in such a county. Since the
adoption of the act in 1919. Sec. 10 has
authorized the issuance of kennel licenses and it is entirely unlikely that the
legislature intended by the 1945 amendment to terminate the authority to issue
such licenses in a county having a county dog warden. However, the 1945 amendment imposed the
requirement of inspection and certification by the director of agriculture as a
condition precedent
to the issurance of a kennel license and authorized the director to adopt
regulations pertaining thereto. The
Attorney General, therefore, interprets the above language , “The
provisions of this act” as referring only to such provisions which were added
to Sec. 10 by the 1945 amendatory act.
As you note, the act does not expressly authorize
the board of supervisors to adopt rules and regulations with respect to dog
kennels. You request opinion as to the
authority of the board of supervisors to promulgate such rules and regulations.
The regulations promulgated by the director of
agriculture based upon the authority of said Sec. 10 with reference to kennel
licenses are effective in all counties
in which the board of supervisors has not appointed a
county dog warden as authorized by Sec. 16 of the act.
In counties wherein a county
dog warden has been appointed, the
board of supervisors has the option of
accepting by resolution the provisions of Sec. 10
Unless the board adopts such a resolution,
inspection and certification of kennels by the director of agriculture or his
authorized representative is not required as a condition to the issuance of
kennel licenses.
By the same token, under
those circumstances regulations of the director of agriculture with respect to
the inspection and certification of kennels would not be applicable.
Regulations adopted by the
director of agriculture by virtue of
other statutory authority would of course be in effect, even in those
counties. See & 287.4 C.L. 1948
& 12.373; M.S.A.
In those counties in which
the board of supervisors has accepted the provisions of Sec. 10 the issuance of
kennel licenses is authorized only upon
inspection and certification by the director of agriculture. The regulations of the director of
agriculture pertaining thereto would, of course, be in effect in such counties.
The Attorney General is of
the opinion that the board of supervisors of the several counties may exercise either of the options above indicated but that that act does not confer upon the board of supervisors the
power to adopted regulations pertaining to dog kennels.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
Thomas M. Kavanagh
Attorney
General
No comments:
Post a Comment