The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)


STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5341

July 31, 1978

COUNTIES:

Operation of a spay and neuter clinic for dogs and cats

DOGS AND CATS:

Operation of a spay and neuter clinic by a county

A county is not authorized to operate a spay and neuter clinic for dogs and cats.

Honorable Richard J. Allen

State Senate

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion on the following three questions:

(1) May a county legally operate a spay and neuter clinic for dogs and cats?

(2) If the answer to the first question is yes, may a county advertise using the words 'low cost' spaying and neutering when these services are in fact available in the private sector for a lower fee than charged by the county?

(3) If the answer to the first question is yes, may a county legally provide spay and neuter services upon animals belonging to out-of-county residents?

A County is a body corporate as provided in Const 1963, art 7, Sec. 1 and has those powers provided by law, although its powers are to be liberally construed. Const 1963, art 7, Sec. 34.

In Youngblood v Jackson County, 28 Mich App 361; 184 NW2d 290 (1970), the Court of Appeals considered the Dog Law of 1919 of the State of Michigan, 1919 PA 339; MCLA 287.261 et seq; MSA 12.511 et seq., within the context of Const 1963, art 3 Sec. 7, and art 7, Sec. 34. The Court there said:

'. . . The ultimate enforcement of the licensing provisions of the dog law lies with the county, but the authority to kill unlicensed dogs must be exercised with some judgment. An element of that judgment is holding a dog for a period after obtaining it before disposing of it. This requires a place for confinement, namely: a pound. The authority to operate a pound may fairly be implied from the obligation placed on the county by the dog law.' (Citations omitted). Youngblood v Jackson County, 28 Mich App at 365; 184 NW2d at 291-292

The authority in Michigan to control dogs, as noted in Youngblood v Jackson County, supra, is provided by the Dog Law of 1919 of the State of Michigan, supra. The title to the Dog Law of 1919 of the State of Michigan indicates that the purpose of the law is:

'. . . [protecting] livestock and poultry from damage by dogs; providing for the licensing of dogs; regulating the keeping of dogs, and authorizing their destruction in certain cases, . . . imposing powers and duties on certain state, county, city and township officers and employees. . . .'

In keeping with its title, the Dog Law of 1919 of the State of Michigan, supra, provides for protection of the public from damage caused by dogs, for the licensing of dogs, for regulation of the keeping of dogs, and for destruction of dogs in certain cases. No provision of the act specifically or impliedly authorizes a county to establish and maintain a spay and neuter clinic and cats are not mentioned in either the title or body of the act. Therefore, this law may not be used as a source of authority by a county to operate a spay and neuter clinic for gods and cats.

It may also be noted that 1969 PA 287; MCLA 287.331 et seq; MSA 12.481(101) et seq, is an act to regulate pet shops, dog pounds and animal shelters. Section 1(a) of 1969 PA 287, supra, defines 'dog pound' as . . . any facility operated by a county, city, village or township to impound and care for animals found in streets or otherwise at large contrary to any ordinance of the county, city, village or township or state law. The same section defines 'animal' as any mammal other than rodents and livestock. Thus, a county is authorized to operate a pound to care for and hold dogs and cats. Again, however, there is nothing in this law, either explicitly or by reasonable implication, which allows a county to operate a neuter service on the animals within its control.

It is therefore my opinion, in response to your first question, that there is no authority for a county to operate a spay and neuter clinic for dogs and cats. This response obviates the necessity of answering questions two and three.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General