Colfax authorizes payment to Dunn County Humane Society for cats and citations to owner
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
COLFAX — It all started when Colfax Police Chief William Anderson became aware of a village resident who had four or five cats that had not been licensed by the village.
Police Chief Anderson told the Colfax Village Board at the April 22 meeting that he had told the woman she was required to register her cats.
The woman said she could not get to a veterinary clinic for a few weeks but that she would take care of making sure the cats had vaccinations and were registered, the police chief said.
After a few weeks, the woman called 9-1-1 and said she could not handle the cats anymore because she had 30 of them in her apartment, he said.
The police chief contacted the woman, who said she had contacted the Dunn County Humane Society because she wanted to surrender the cats.
If DCHS did not take the cats, the woman said she would turn them loose outside and let them fend for themselves rather than keeping them in her one-bedroom apartment, he said.
Police Chief Anderson contacted the Dunn County Humane Society, and a representative for DCHS told him that they could not take in that many animals at one time.
The next day, DCHS contacted Police Chief Anderson and said a representative wanted to do a site visit in Colfax and asked the police chief to be there.
As it turned out, the woman had five adult cats and 10 kittens in her apartment, Police Chief Anderson said.
The next week, DCHS contacted the police chief and said the humane society could take the cats and that there would be a cost per cat to the village.
Police Chief Anderson said he told DCHS that he would contact the village administrator and also that he “did not know how it had become a village problem.”
DCHS letter
DCHS subsequently sent a letter to the village dated April 18 stating that the woman could not pay the surrender fee and asking the village for financial assistance in paying the fee.
As readers will recall, the Colfax Village Board declined to contract with the Dunn County Humane Society for 2024 in the amount of $2,254.
In Dunn County, the majority of the townships have contracted with DCHS, along with the City of Menomonie and five of the seven villages. The only two villages that do not contract with DCHS are Colfax and Ridgeland.
According to the letter from DCHS, “While we sympathize with her situation and truly do want to help give these cats a chance at a new life, we are unfortunately already over budget this year. DCHS has had a 50 percent increase in the number of animals at the shelter this year, two severe animal abuse court cases, and 4-6 pet surrender requests every day from folks all over Western Wisconsin.”
DCHS usually charges $50 per pet to surrender animals but proposed a reduced rate for the Village of Colfax that included $35 for the onsite visit, a $35 transport fee for picking up the cats, and $20 per adult cat and $5 per kitten, for a total of $220.
Readers should note that cost of spay or neuter surgery and vaccinations for each cat is about $500 if the owner elects to have bloodwork done to evaluate liver and kidney function, which helps to determine if the cat will survive anesthesia, along with testing for feline leukemia.
Stray dog
Police Chief Anderson noted that one of the other officers at the Colfax Police Department had come in contact with a stray dog.
The officer did not realize Colfax had not contracted with DCHS and had taken the dog to the humane society’s facility in Menomonie.
The police chief subsequently had to make a trip back to Menomonie to pick up the dog, and the village kept the dog and fed it and cared for it for a week or so until the owner was located.
Rand Bates, director of public works, sounded rather perturbed that the village had to take care of the dog until the owner claimed it.
Options
One option is that the village could pay for the surrender of the animals “if we don’t want them released in the village,” said Lynn Niggemann, village administrator-clerk-treasurer.
Another option is that the village could try to find homes for the cats and kittens, she said.
The third option is for the village to do nothing since it is the woman’s problem and not the village’s problem, Niggemann said.
Section 7-1-7 of the village ordinances does not include a provision allowing a law enforcement officer or animal control officer to take unwanted animals from the owner with the intention of finding homes for them.
According to the ordinance, “a law enforcement or animal control officer may impound any dog, cat, or other animal, which habitually pursues any vehicle upon any street, alley, or highway of this village, assaults or attacks any person, is at large within the village, habitually, barks, cries or howls, kills, wounds, or worries any domestic animal, or is infected with rabies. In order for an animal to be impounded, the impounding officer must see, or hear the violation of this section or have in his or her possession, the signed the statement of a complaining witness made under oath, alleging the facts regarding the violation, and containing an agreement to reimburse the village for any damage it sustains for improper or illegal seizure.”
Finding homes
In addition to not having a provision in the ordinances that would allow the village to take the animals with the intention of finding homes, the village ordinances also do not include any provisions for finding homes for animals under such circumstances.
The ordinance refers to selling the animal if the owner does not reclaim the animal within seven days or disposing of an animal in a proper and humane manner if the owner does not reclaim the animal.
According to Wisconsin state statute 173.17 “a humane officer or law enforcement officer taking custody of an animal on behalf of a political subdivision shall maintain … as appropriate, records for each animal containing the following information: (1) A physical description of the animal. (2) The date that custody was taken of the animal, the date that the animal was delivered into the possession of another person and the identity of the person to whom delivered. (3) The reason for taking custody of the animal. (4) The ultimate disposition of the animal, including the name and address of any person into whose custody the animal was ultimately released.”
According to state statute [173.23 (lm)], the village would also have to make sure the animals are vaccinated, or that assurance of vaccination is given by evidence of prepayment, before releasing the animals to another person.
Since Colfax does not contract for services with DCHS, then Colfax must follow state law in housing stray or abandoned animals, keeping proper records, transferring the possession of the animal to another person, making sure the animals are vaccinated, and making sure the charges for the care, custody and treatment are fully paid or waived.
DCHS contract
Since Colfax did not renew the contract with DCHS for $2,800 “this is cheap,” said Carey Davis, village trustee, referring to the $220 that DCHS requested to take custody of the cats and kittens.
As was noted earlier, the DCHS contract for 2024 with Colfax was in the amount of $2,254.
When a municipality contracts with DCHS, the municipality is contracting for the right of residents in the municipality, or for the municipality, to turn in stray animals to DCHS.
Area residents can surrender their own animals to DCHS, if DCHS has the resources and as are confirmed on a case-by-case basis, regardless of whether the municipality has contracted with DCHS, and the residents will pay the surrender fee.
Finding homes
DCHS says the facility is full, but yet DCHS is willing to take in five adult cats and 10 kittens, said Jeff Prince, village president, who was questioning the humane society’s willingness and ability to take in the cats.
Police Chief Anderson noted that humane societies contact each other to arrange for care of animals for which they do not have enough space.
The police chief also said he had told the woman to go on social media and advertise the cats and kittens but that the woman said she did not know how to do that.
The kittens would go quickly, Niggemann said.
Police Chief Anderson said he had also talked with the landlord about the four or five adult cats the woman had and that the landlord had said pets were not allowed.
When DCHS visited the woman’s apartment, the woman said all of the cats could go except one because there was one she wanted to keep, he said.
Could the village put the cats and kittens on social media for the resident? Davis asked.
Photos would be needed, but the kittens are small and must be with their mothers for a while yet, Niggemann said.
None of the adult cats or the kittens have been to a veterinarian, Police Chief Anderson said.
If kittens look healthy and do not appear to be sick, people will take them, Niggemann said.
The police said he could get pictures of the cats and kittens but that he did not want the responsibility of going with people to pick up a cat or a kitten.
The village would have to keep the kittens and their mothers and take care of them until the kittens are old enough to go to another home, Niggemann said.
Payment
Could the village pay DCHS and then invoice the cat owner? Davis asked.
The village could issue ordinance citations for the four or five adult cats that were not licensed, and the village would get some of that back from Dunn County, Police Chief Anderson said.
The resident would probably have to be put on some kind of payment plan, even if it was $5 per month, he said.
At least the resident would be paying something, commented Margaret Burcham, village trustee.
The citations will amount to several hundred dollars, Police Chief Anderson said.
The Colfax Village Board approved a motion on a vote of one “no” to six “yes” for the village to pay the amount of $185 up front to the Dunn County Humane Society and then invoice the resident to reimburse the village.
Several village board members noted that since the resident is renting an apartment, there is no way to put the amount paid to DCHS on the resident’s property taxes if the amount is not paid to the village.
DCHS had included $35 for the initial visit to the village to assess the situation, but village board members said they did not want to pay for the initial visit and would only agree to pay $185 rather than $220.
Village Trustee Gary Stene voted against the motion.
When one village board member asked how it would be handled if a similar situation occurred in the future, the administrator, the police chief and the village board members agreed that in the case of a rental, the landlord would be put on notice about unlicensed animals, especially if the rentals do not allow pets but residents have been allowed to keep unlicensed pets.