Braidwood's

As for Sheriff Braidwood’s claim that the county should be charging more.  SHOW ME!

Show me why Shiawassee County cannot do what just about every other county does?

His “Event by Nature” report that is sent to each township from December 2013 thru June 2014 lists animal events.

There were 30 “animal bites”.  They don’t even bother to separate the dog bites from the rest.  Dog bites are kinda wishie-washie.  They could come under the dog law of 1919, as amended, but most are prosecuted under the “Dangerous Animals Act” and should not be funded by dog license fees.

There were 464 “animal complaints”…..most of those are probably dog, but even if they are dog they may or may not be part of what the dog law of 1919, as amended covers.  That law is very limited in its scope.  I would assume animal control responds to these complaints and the animal control budget certainly has enough left over that they don’t need anymore.  These “events” need to be broken down by species and what the complaint is.  Just saying it is a “complaint” does not cover it.  Just kills me.  They have all of that information in their hot little hands and they have the means to break it down and record it right in front of their faces.  Yet they do not.  I very much suspect that most of these complaints would not fall under the dog law of 1919, as amended and therefore would fall under county funding, NOT dog license funding.  Or maybe they do break it down, they just don't make that information available.

There were 16 “barking dog” events.  Those are not under the dog law of 1919, as amended.  Nor is “barking dog” under any other law.  When somebody calls in and complains about a dog barking central dispatch should just tell them there is no law covering that.  Humanity has chosen to live with canines.

Then there were 407 “car deer” events.  I don’t know if animal control responds to those, or other officers.  Either way, that is certainly not part of what dog license fees should be paying for.