Ypsilanti Township 'backyard breeder' dog ordinance delayed over concerns with pit bull portion
The Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees tabled the second reading of a “backyard breeders” ordinance while it gathers more information.
The board unanimously approved the first reading in June and it was scheduled for a second reading Tuesday night, but Trustee Mike Martin, who has been active in crafting the ordinance, said prior to the meeting he had concerns over enforceability and wanted to meet with parties who had questions.
Photo by Photos8.com
- Residents would be limited to the whelping of one female dog annually.
- Residents would be required to fill out an application and pay a fee to obtain a permit.
- Dogs wouldn’t be permitted to be sold until they are at least 8 weeks old.
- Residents posting signs advertising puppy sales must display their permit number and provide that number to a buyer upon sale of a puppy.
- Building inspectors must inspect the home where the dogs are being bred to ensure it’s up to code.
- Breeding pit bulls would be banned.
Martin said he wanted to follow up with the American Kennel Club, which opposed some provisions of the ordinance, and another resident with concerns before moving forward.
A primary concern that Martin said he has heard is over the wording of the portion of the ordinance that addresses pit bulls. A ban on breeding them is included, but the township also passed an ordinance in October requiring all pit bulls be sterilized.
Martin said that makes the new pit bull language “redundant” and unnecessary. Township Director of the Office of Community Standards Mike Radzik, who helped develop the ordinance, agreed and said he would recommend that it be eliminated.
Martin also said there were several issues concerning the ordinance’s enforceability.
“What in taxpayer dollars is it going to cost?” he asked. “Is there going to be a process in place where we can go out and enforce it? I don’t want a feel-good ordinance that makes people think something is being accomplished when something isn’t.”
Martin said that was the reason he was the lone “no” vote against the ordinance requiring pit bulls be sterilized.
“I felt it didn’t address the concerns people had with vicious dogs,” he said. “We need to have a mechanism to put in place and it needs to work."
Radzik said after the meeting that enforcement of the new ordinance would be similar to other animal control ordinances.
“Just as with our other existing animal control ordinances, the enforcement arm is the Washtenaw County Sheriff animal control officers, as well as the Humane Society investigators who have been deputized by the sheriff,” he said. “And just as with our other existing ordinances, it would be enforced whenever an alleged violation comes to the attention of law enforcement either in response to a complaint or through proactive investigations.”
He said he doesn’t anticipate significant taxpayer cost for enforcement beyond existing law enforcement resources already in place.
“It is designed to give law enforcement a tool to take action when applicable situations are encountered,” Radzik said.
Several residents who questioned the ordinance during public comment prior to the first reading argued most breeders are responsible and cautioned the township against “punishing the good with the bad”.
Radzik disagreed that a responsible breeder is punished by the new ordinance.
“This is an effort to regulate the practice while keeping the health and welfare of the dogs and owners in mind,” he said.
Radzik said he personally had only received a handful of emails about the ordinance since the first reading was approved, but has been "bombarded" with examples of residents "who breed dogs without regard for the welfare of the animal."
The ordinance is part of a larger effort to address issues associated with vicious dogs, stray dogs, overpopulation and other dog-related problems in the township.
Township residents also must now license dogs. The township licensed 1,742 dogs in 2010 and already has licensed approximately 1,500 in 2011.
Comments
Captain Magnificent
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.
Am I the only one who realizes that if you ban "back yard breeding" that people will just breed dogs in their front yards, their side yards, their basements, their garages, their living rooms, etc? There are literally dozens of places around the house where you can breed dogs. Why be so specific about the location in which the dogs breed?
hazelparkhustla420
Mon, Jul 25, 2011 : 10:32 p.m.
dis law is nothing mo than police trying to come down hard on me and my boyz cuz we want to have badass dogs that scare the crap outta all the haterz who come around. ypsi cops come and get em and we show u how we do things in HP!
4Reason
Sat, Jul 23, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
I think, when millions of dogs nationwide go homeless, are abandoned, or hoarded, we're way past the point where anyone has the "right" to breed any dog in their backyard. Most people who do this have no idea what they're doing, and many breeds suffer genetic syndromes that are a direct result of ignorant human "intervention". One of the potential genetics based problems is temperament and if you have a dog with a defective temperament and add to that a lack of "socialization" and an owner who wants an aggressive dog, or someone who simply does not know how to treat a dog, you have a large problem in the works. I've seen several instances of this in my neighborhood, where a person who wants a "guard dog" keeps a pit bull or a Rottweiler chained in the backyard, and the dogs , who are evolved to be pack animals, get crazy (defective social skills) from the lack of interaction, isolation, heat, restricted life of constant frustration. If one of those dogs gets loose, you have a problem. The dog always gets put down later, but it is the human owner who is the real problem. Ignorance DOES NOT lead to bliss. If we really want to address the dog "problem", we have to have some rules that the humans are bound by, and if they don't follow them, there should be significant consequences. Blaming one breed of dog for bad behavior is not an effective approach. Require "breeders" to get an education about genetics, dog behavior, animal husbandry strategy, and to have adequate time and resources to maintain an animal facility. License and bond them. In other words, "Do it right, or don't do it at all." My experience with pit bulls that have been well treated and trained is that they are great dogs. They have gotten a bad rap because humans make many faulty assumptions about their own competence when dealing with the animal kingdom.
Tom
Thu, Jul 21, 2011 : 10:01 p.m.
Is this Radzik one of those people who is comfortable with setting everyone's human rights aside every time he thinks something "has to be done"?
Ruth Woodcock
Thu, Jul 21, 2011 : 11:35 a.m.
This article is conjured from whole cloth. I have no idea what meeting he/she was in but it wasn't the one I attended in Ypsi Township. I guess this reporter went to the Fox News school of journalism.
Dog Guy
Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 10:09 p.m.
Neville Chamberlain says pit bull terriers are safe for other people's children.
paul wiener
Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 9:23 p.m.
Wide personal experience has shown me that pit bulls are easily among the most loving, intelligent, devoted, and sensitive breeds of dog in existence. Many other breeds are more violent, aggressive and unfriendly. Owners breed pits to be killers and fighters because of their incredible strength, but in all cases it's the owners who are vicious. This is common knpwledge in the dog loves world. Any child would be blessed to have a normal pit bull as his friend and playmate.
Animal Lover
Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.
Nobody should be doing backyard breeding of pitbulls or any other dogs. While many responsible people register with the American Kennel Club, as long as you fill out paperwork and send them your money, you can get AKC papers. I personally don't place any credibility with the AKC. So, Ypsilanti Township, BRAVO and just get it done!
K
Thu, Jul 21, 2011 : 12:41 a.m.
If you are truely an animal lover, you should read the handout that HVHS handed out that I mentioned above. Should be posted on the Ypsilanti Township Board website soon.
Tom Perkins
Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 8:24 p.m.
A change was made to clarify that Trustee Mike Martin's comments were made before the meeting and Mike Radzik's comments were made after the meeting.
K
Thu, Jul 21, 2011 : 12:39 a.m.
Thank you for the clarification. One more comment for the public. Not once at last night's meeting was pit bulls brought up.
K
Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.
I was at both meetings. The reporter who wrote this article was not at the meeting last night. I don't believe Mike Radzik was there, either. Unlike the first meeting in which residents were complaining about their neighbors who breed many litters a year and don't take care of their house or animals and the lack of existing enforcement, the meeting last night had quite a few people who oppose this ordinance the way it is written. Reputable breeders vs. responsible breeders was part of the discussion. Civil rights, irresponsible dog ownership and enforcement of the current dog laws were the main keys to one resident's argument. Trustee Martin conceded that the ordinance had some "issues" that needed to be addressed and that he would be speaking with the American Kennel Club and the residents that spoke up on how to the address the real issues of Ypsilanti Township cruelty and irresponsible dog ownership. I would only hope that Mike Radzik would join the meetings with Trustee Martin so everyone would be able to speak freely and share thoughts. This is a chance for the reputable breeders to educate others about their love for the animals and that they are not breeding to make a buck. The Board said they would post on the website the handout that the Huron Valley Humane Society handed out to a few residents at the first meeting. One resident asked them to do that so the public has a good understanding of the differences between the two.
EyeHeartA2
Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 5:24 p.m.
"He said he doesn't anticipate significant taxpayer cost for enforcement beyond existing law enforcement resources already in place. " Translation: 'This is a "feel good" law, that shows we are "doing something" about the problem, but this is the last "something" we will ever do.'