Skip to main content

Request By:

Garry L. Edmondson, Esq.
Shutt Mansion
28 West Fifth Street
Covington, Kentucky 41011

Opinion

Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General

This is in reply to your letter raising questions concerning a county dog pound and the obligations of those persons operating and maintaining that pound.

You represent an entity in Kenton County known as the Community Dog Warden Authority. It was created by several cities in the county under an interlocal agreement for the purposes of picking up unlicensed dogs and enforcing the ordinances of the participating cities relative to leash requirements. The Authority desires to deliver all unlicensed dogs it picks up to the county dog pound which was established by the Kenton County Fiscal Court pursuant to KRS 258.195.

The Kenton County Fiscal Court has contracted with a local S.P.C.A. group to provide the dog pound facilities. This S.P.C.A. group and the fiscal court refuse to accept any dogs delivered by the officers of the Community Dog Warden Authority without the payment of housing fees.

Your specific questions are whether the county dog pound must accept unlicensed dogs delivered by the agents of the Community Dog Warden Authority and, if it does have to accept them, may it charge a fee.

As we understand the fact situation you have presented, two sets of dog laws are involved. KRS Chapter 258 deals with the state dog laws. The cities to which your have referred have enacted various ordinances dealing with dogs and have joined together in the enforcement of those ordinances.

KRS Chapter 258 imposes various obligations on the county and on all peace officers in connection with dogs and dog control. KRS 258.195 requires that the fiscal court of each county establish and maintain a dog pound and that the fiscal court of each county employ a dog warden. KRS 258.215 requires peace officers to seize and impound any dog which does not bear a proper license tag or other legible identification which is found running at large. Under KRS 258.225 it shall be unlawful for any peace officer to refuse to perform his duties under the provisions of KRS Chapter 258. These duties are imposed upon city police officers whether or not the city has a dog control ordinance. Furthermore, as stated in OAG 70-492, copy enclosed, the fiscal court may, pursuant to its regulatory powers under KRS 258.195, require the dog warden to pick up dogs that are unlicensed and loose upon the public way. Other than the requirements imposed upon peace officers, cities are not required to enforce the provisions of KRS Chapter 258.

KRS 258.365 does provide that cities may pass and enforce ordinances with respect to the regulation of dogs, the provisions of which are not inconsistent with the provisions of KRS Chapter 258. Apparently the cities in question have enacted leash ordinances and, perhaps, requirements that dogs in those cities obtain licenses from the cities. Not only may cities enact dog control ordinances but they may join together with other cities in joint or cooperative undertakings to handle such matters of common concern. See KRS 65.210 to 65.300, the "Interlocal Cooperation Act," and KRS 79.110 to 79.180 authorizing political subdivisions within the same county to contract for joint governmental services.

Counties may also enact ordinances relative to dog control [KRS 67.083(3)(a)] but whether they do or not, they must fulfill their statutory obligations as set forth in KRS Chapter 258. While cities have the authority to enact dog control measures they cannot impose obligations upon a county which the county does not agree to and which are in excess of the county's duties and obligations under the provisions of KRS Chapter 258.

The county has definite and prescribed obligations under KRS Chapter 258 but they do not include the duty to accept dogs at its pound picked up by municipal dog control authorities, particularly where violations of municipal ordinances are involved. The county must carry out its duties and obligations under KRS Chapter 258 and the cities have the authority to enact and enforce their ordinances relative to dog control. While the cities and the county have the authoirty to enter into a joint or cooperative agreement concerning dog control and the use of the county dog pound, which could include a boarding fee for dogs delivered to the pound by city dog control officers, the cities, in the absence of an agreement with the county, cannot require the county to accept dogs picked up for violations of municipal ordinances. Absent an agreement between the cities and the county relative to dog control, the cities will enforce their ordinances only and the county and all peace officers will enforce the provisions of KRS Chapter 258.

LLM Summary
The decision addresses the obligations of a county dog pound and the Community Dog Warden Authority regarding the acceptance and potential fees for unlicensed dogs. It clarifies the legal framework under KRS Chapter 258, which mandates county responsibilities towards dog control, and discusses the authority of cities to enact and enforce dog control ordinances. The decision explains that counties must fulfill their statutory obligations under KRS Chapter 258, but are not required to accept dogs picked up by municipal authorities for violations of municipal ordinances without an agreement. It also mentions the possibility of cities and counties entering into cooperative agreements concerning dog control.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Type:
Opinion
Lexis Citation:
1982 Ky. AG LEXIS 195
Cites (Untracked):
  • OAG 70-492
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.