Ypsilanti Township officials to weigh 'backyard breeders' ordinance Tuesday
The Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees will consider the first reading of an ordinance designed to try to curb “backyard breeding” at residential homes in the township.
The new ordinance, which will be read at tonight's regular board meeting at 7 p.m., would require residents to obtain a permit to breed their dogs. Breeders would have to fill out an application with the township and pay a fee. Township building officials would then inspect the home where the dogs are being bred to ensure the property is up to code.
Photo by Photos8.com
No dogs could be sold before they are 8 weeks old, and anyone advertising the sale of puppies to the public must display their permit number on the sign.
Breeding pit bulls wouldn't be allowed.
The ordinance would not affect commercial breeders or kennels, and anyone caught violating the ordinance would face misdemeanor charges, up to a $500 fine and up to 90 days in jail.
The ordinance is part of a larger effort to address issues caused by overpopulation of dogs - particularly vicious dogs - in the township.
Last year, the board approved a controversial ordinance that required pit bull owners to have their dogs fixed and also stepped up efforts to get dogs licensed.
The Humane Society fixed 150 dogs in the first quarter of 2011, which is halfway to its goal of 300 for the year. Pit bull owners can take their dogs to the HSHV to get the surgery done for free through 2011.
The township licensed 1,742 dogs in 2010 and already has licensed approximately 1,500 in 2011.
Comments
ypsigirl
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
I can agree with this ordinance. There us someone in my neighborhood who moved in with pit bulls. The female is now pregnant and now another female us also pregnant. I thought the were supposed to register these dogs and have them neutered. Now God only knows how many dogs will be in that yard. Shelters and recures are overrun with animals up for adoption. Careless breeding only adds to that number.
Wilford John Presler IV
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 2:30 a.m.
When the government outlaws puppies only the outlaws will have puppies@! Attn cat lovers ...yer kitties are next ... ;}
C. S. Gass
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 9:12 p.m.
Twenty plus years in law enforcement and the only dog that has ever bit me was a Beagle. And I've met plenty of Pit Bulls, and no, I didn't shoot them. Pit Bulls are not 'assault dogs', quit trying to make them so. Rottweilers are actually very good with most children, especially those that are NOT pulling it's ears, poking it in the eyes, etc. Keep on topic, the debate is about regulating breeding. Euthanizing (KILLING, let's just say it) the puppies is only a solution to those for whom killing solves most problems. The only way I would be for the citing of the owners were if ALL dogs were confiscated and those that were of a decent disposition adopted out. And of course the owners would be prohibited from owning dogs in the future. I don't want to think that my pen on paper = death to animals. I know there are many officers who feel the same. We are only human. Do not burdon us with this lodestone of conscience. Education is the key, as always, not more laws. Although forced sterilization could be helpful in this situation. The draconian, top down, decree like, way this is being handled is typical.
JS
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.
seriously? If you breed a dog and sell the litter, doesn't that equate to running a business out of your home? And aren't there regulations that apply in that situation? Also, For all the people who seem to think that pit bulls have no predisposition to violence.... Seriously? Having a crummy, macho idiot owner a lot of the time probably doesn't help the situation or the dog's temperament, but come on. Find me some stats that prove pit bulls are no more likely to attack humans than beagles and I'll shush up. And this comment isn't directed at loving families with small children that choose to keep pit bulls, but I question the judgment of anyone who, knowing the reputation of pit bulls, still decide it's a good idea to let one curl up with their 5 year old. Pit bulls have a long breeding history of catching large animals with their jaws, not to mention a long fighting history. You really don't think any of that seeps into their genes? You can love a dog all you want, but it's still a dog, not to mention one with a huge negative stigma and reputation. The rep might be wrong in the case of your sweet, innocent, loving pit bull, but ya never know. Personally, I think potential owners need to sign a waver in order to own a pit bull that holds them legally liable for their dog's actions, regardless of the circumstances. Lastly, I'm sick of the stories every so often about some parent who's kid was mauled by the family pit bull. If they didn't put their child in harms way by owning a dog with a long documented history of aggression and a propensity for violence, then the situation wouldn't exist. Feel free to debate this, but it's a hard argument to intelligently disagree with...
debling
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 12:12 p.m.
Routinely I pick up the paper and hear horror stories of vicious "beagles", "poodles" and "labs" tearing apart small children that annoyed them by walking on the sidewalk. Or was I dreaming it? Not. Some dog owners would like to convince the public that it is not the breed but the how the dog is raised that determines their behavior. Nice try. We all understand that certain dogs are bred to be powerful, aggressive, protectors. That's why owners who have Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, Dobermans, Presa Canarios etc have them. Don't try to fool us. That's also why we routinely hear about these specific vicious breeds mauling or killing children. What do you expect from those dogs? They are bred for that and have no business living in communities where children live. As for holding owners responsible for their dogs, it is a bit pointless to scold an owner after his dog mauls a child. Owners of so called "vicious" dogs should be required to undergo special training and have their dogs tested every year for aggressive behavior. If the dog fails, he is gone.
Barb's Mom
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 12:34 p.m.
My daughter owned a pure bred Rottweiler that weighted over 100 pounds. It was the gentlest dog. When we came over, all it did is come up and lean on us and want to be petted. It never barked. She got it as an adult dog from a rescue so we don't even know how it was treated as a puppy. She had 2 other dogs in her house and the rottweiler was the calmest of the 3 dogs she had. I own a Golden Retriever/Rottweiler mix that is 4 years old and she is the most loving dog I have ever seen. It is NOT THE BREED, it is HOW YOU TREAT THEM!!! Any dog can become vicious if it is not treated correctly
Barb's Mom
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:56 p.m.
"The ordinance would not affect commercial breeders or kennels" Why not? Some of the commercial breeders and kennels are just "puppy mills" they are the worst offenders of not caring about the dogs, the more puppies, the more money they get.
free form
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 9:35 p.m.
I question whether the township actually has the resources to enforce this measure but I think it's a good idea. Frankly, I think backyard breeding (of ANY breed) is totally irresponsible, but at the very least the breeders should have to meet health standards and limits.
Kelly
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.
As an animal lover, and someone that has been keeping up on the news and the community I can say without a doubt that this ordinance is way over due. The only problem that I see, that I see tons of comments on is enforcement. Since Ypsilanti does not enforce their license law then how are they going to enforce their breed law? I do hope to attend this meeting tonight. If they have a plan that works, then fantastic. Otherwise it's just more words on paper. Oh and I am a township resident that does have their dog licensed properly.
Kelly
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 2:06 a.m.
I see that it says they went door to door, but I never saw them do it on this side of the township. That and I still know some on the east side that never got fined, and still have unlicensed dogs on their property. I would be curious to see where they went. Thanks for the information.
Tom Perkins
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 10:12 p.m.
There is information on what the township has done to enforce the licensing ordinance here: <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti-township-to-consider-ordinance-addressing-backyard-breeders/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti-township-to-consider-ordinance-addressing-backyard-breeders/</a>
Dog Lover
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 8:12 p.m.
@grye : "The ordinance would not affect commercial breeders or kennels." So if someone wants to breed, they should get a license. Some things the govt needs to be involved in and this is a good one since a large enough percentage of people are not responsible breeders.
Dog Lover
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 7:53 p.m.
You should see the conditions of some of these homes where these dogs are bred. It's only for money, not anything else. Just watch Animal Cops and you'll see how bad it is. If I were the AKC, I'd be applauding it since they should only want the best of the breed being bred. There's oversight for all kinds of animal breeding, why not for our dogs. With the lack of space in shelters, do we really need back-yard breeders?
grye
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 8:04 p.m.
And those should be shut down. But someone if wants to pass along an extremely well behaved and loving pet through puppies, the govt shouldn't be involved.
Steve McKeen
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 7:32 p.m.
I don't have a problem with this proposed breeding ordinance as long as township officials don't begin regulating fighting. That's when they've gone too far.
grye
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 7:04 p.m.
Glad I don't live in Ypsi. If I wanted to breed my lovable golden retreiver, I don't think the city should stick its nose in my business. Just another case of the man keep us down. I disagree with Zeeba. Some breeds may be prone to bad temperaments but there are many breeds that are just lumps of love.
grimmk
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 7:47 p.m.
Yes, chihuahuas are really vicious animals. And I've never met a pitbull that didn't shower me with love. Please take your stereotypes somewhere else. It is the HUMANS that make some breeds of animals have a "bad temperament", not the breed themselves. If you raise them right, teach them discipline and love, the dog will be fine. If you teach them to hurt, attack and kill, then the dog will mean.
Adam
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.
I don't agree with the author's use of the word "viscous" in describing these dogs. Are they all dangerous? Are they all born with an instinctive desire to attack and maim? Seems like a shortsighted, uninformed generalization.
bedrog
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 7:01 p.m.
I dont agree with the 'viscous' label either...unless he means 'sticky' ( and who wants a dog like that?). 'vicious', however, is also something you dont want a dog to be.
Jen Eyer
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.
The typo has been corrected.
Lisa
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.
I disagree with the use of "viscous" too. Are we saying these dogs are thick and sticky?
Ypsi Foolish
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 4:27 p.m.
this is just ONE tentacle spawning from the countries uprising of "acceptable socialism"
cinnabar7071
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 3:53 p.m.
Just another useless law the township will not be able to enforce. I have a dog thats not licensed, why? Because its none of the townships business.
Concerned Citizen
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
Move to another township if you don't like it or come to the board meetings and let your opinion be known. Is your house's electrical wired to 3rd world country standards too. Do you question the ability of the township's citizen representatives to create and enforce ordinances?
Jimmy McNulty
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 10:27 p.m.
Yes, it is their business and it is the law. Being that you scoff at the indignity of having to license your dog, I wonder if you even bother to take it to the vet and have the proper shots administered?
debling
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.
"unless the litter was euthanized"... Are you kidding me? How terrible. If the effort is to reduce the "overpopulation of dogs - particularly viscous dogs", then why not simply put a list of viscous dogs you are not allowed to breed? There is still a high demand for other breeds and I see no reason why free market enterprise cannot be allowed to flourish in Ypsi township.
zeeba
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 5:06 p.m.
Because all breeds are potentially viscious breeds - it depends on how the dog is raised and handled. Any large dog is potentially dangerous - a standard poodle could rip you apart. It used to be that Dobermans were the nasty, aggressive breed that got all the publicity and some people wanted to ban. German shepherds and Rottweilers are often the choice of irresponsible owners who want an aggressive, bad-a** dog. Banning breeds is an excercise in futility. What you need to do is hold owners responsible for their dogs and confiscate animals that are aggressive toward humans.