KRS CHAPTER 258 ? ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION

 

KRS CHAPTER 258 – ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION
KRS 258.010 thru KRS 258.990  
Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets to be Vaccinated Against Rabies – Tags For Dogs, Cats and Ferret Owners – Mass Immunization Clinics – Quarantine in Case of Rabies Epidemic – Physicians to Report Persons Bitten by Dogs – Rabies Law – Quarantine of Animals Suspected of Having Rabies – Animal Control Advisory Board –  Animal Control and Care Fund – Dog Licensing Program by County or City –  Destruction of Dog Lacking Rabies Tag – Authority to Kill or Seize Dog – Powers of Animal Control Officer – Vicious Dog Not to Run at Large –  Confinement and Control of Female Dog when in Heat – Care and Control of Dog – Destruction of Dog Running at Large at Night – Persons with Assistance Dogs Not To Be Denied Accommodations – Use of Gunshot as Euthanasia – Penalties
 
Updated 11/23/10 (2010) gb
 
 
 
As used in KRS 258.005 to 258.087, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Dog" means any canine three (3) months of age or older for which there exists a United States Department of Agriculture approved rabies vaccine;
(2) "Owner" means any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog, cat, or ferret in Kentucky;
(3) "Veterinarian" means a licensed practitioner of veterinary medicine;
(4) "Qualified person" means a person granted a permit by the secretary for health and family services to vaccinate his own dog against rabies;
(5) "Vaccination" means the administration by a veterinarian or other qualified person of rabies vaccine approved by and administered in accordance with administrative regulations promulgated by the secretary for health and family services;
(6) "Cat" means any feline three (3) months of age or older for which there exists a United States Department of Agriculture approved rabies vaccine;
(7) "Animal control officer" means an individual who is employed or appointed by, or has contracted with:
(a) A city, county, urban-county, charter county, or consolidated local government to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of the Kentucky Revised Statutes relating to cruelty, mistreatment, or torture of animals, and local animal control ordinances; or
(b) An entity that has contracted with a city, county, urban-county, charter county, or consolidated local government to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of the Kentucky Revised Statutes relating to cruelty, mistreatment, or torture of animals, and local animal control ordinances;
(8) "Ferret" means any musteline three (3) months of age or older for which there exists a United States Department of Agriculture approved rabies vaccine; and
(9) "Quarantine" means the confinement of an animal for observation of clinical signs of illness indicating rabies infection, and the prevention of escape or contact with any person or other animal.
Effective: June 20, 2005
History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 568, effective June 20, 2005. – Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 2, effective July 13, 2004. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 514, effective July 15, 1998. — Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 37, sec. 1, effective June 17, 1978. — Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 74, Art. VI, sec. 107(1). — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 1, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
 
distribution of certificates — Tags for dogs — Requirements for compliance by
qualified persons — Cat and ferret owners — Feral cats.
(1) Every owner shall have his dog, cat, or ferret initially vaccinated against rabies by the age of four (4) months and revaccinated at the expiration of the immunization period as certified by the veterinarian. The veterinarian who vaccinates a dog, cat, or ferret shall issue to the owner a vaccination certificate on a form approved by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. The vaccination certificate shall be prepared and issued in duplicate, one (1) copy to be retained by the issuing veterinarian and one (1) copy to be given to the owner of the dog, cat, or ferret vaccinated. Each certificate shall bear the name and address of the veterinarian who issued it. The veterinarian shall also furnish each dog owner with a rabies tag bearing a serial number corresponding to the vaccination certificate with the year of immunization. The tag shall be affixed to a collar or harness furnished by the owner and shall be worn by the dog for which the tag was issued. No one except the owner or his duly authorized agent shall remove the tag.
(2) Every qualified person who vaccinates his own dog shall comply with the vaccination certificate and tag requirement provisions of subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Every owner of a cat or ferret shall show proof of a valid rabies vaccination upon request of an animal control officer or peace officer.
(4) Any person with feral cats on his premises shall make a reasonable effort to capture or vaccinate the cats.
Effective: June 20, 2005
History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 569, effective June 20, 2005. – Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 3, effective July 13, 2004. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 515, effective July 15, 1998. — Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 37, sec. 2, effective June 17, 1978. — Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 74, Art. VI, sec. 107(1). — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 2, effective June 17, 1954.
 
ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
Bluegrass Boarding v. Jefferson Fiscal Ct., 26 S.W.3d 801 (Ky. App., 2000)
  Appellants next argue that the ordinance violates equal protection, because it treats Jefferson County kennel owners differently than similarly situated kennel owners in other Kentucky counties. KRS 67.083(3)(a) gives the fiscal court of a county the power to enact ordinances and regulations dealing with animal control. KRS 258.015 requires dogs to be vaccinated against rabies, and KRS 258.087 states that "[a]ny city legislative body or fiscal court may, by the adoption of an appropriate ordinance or resolution, provide for more stringent regulation of rabies control in dogs, cats, or other animals than set forth in this chapter."
        Having previously determined that the ordinance does not unduly infringe upon pet and kennel owners’ right to privacy, and because Jefferson County pet and kennel owners are not a suspect class, the ordinance is reviewed under a rational basis analysis, which requires only that the classification rationally further a legitimate state interest. Commonwealth v. Howard, Ky., 969 S.W.2d 700 (1998); Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976). KRS 258.087 gives the Jefferson County Fiscal Court the power to enact more stringent rabies prevention measures than those of other counties. As stated previously, a rabies vaccination appears to be a requirement for obtaining a pet license in Jefferson County. Therefore, it follows that Jefferson County’s ordinance requiring kennel owners to provide license applications to unlicensed pet owners and to provide the names and home addresses of pet owners to Animal Control is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of rabies prevention. As such, we determine that the ordinance does not violate equal protection.
 
 
 
 
KRS 258.035 Dog, cat, or ferret vaccinated in other state need not be revaccinated.
Any owner who has had his dog, cat, or ferret vaccinated against rabies in another state by the proper authority shall not be required to have the dog, cat, or ferret revaccinated when brought into this state provided the requirements of the state under which the vaccination was made were of a standard not lower than those required in this state, and provided further that the dog wears a tag affixed to its collar or harness bearing the year of the vaccination and the owner of the cat or ferret shows proof of a valid rabies vaccination. One (1) year after the date of the vaccination, the dog, cat, or ferret shall be revaccinated unless provided otherwise by administrative regulations promulgated by the secretary for health and family services. The secretary for health and family services may promulgate administrative regulations governing the matter of reciprocity with other states.
Effective: June 20, 2005
History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 570, effective June 20, 2005. – Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 4, effective July 13, 2004. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 516, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 4, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
(1) A local health department may sponsor mass rabies immunization clinics and shall contract with local veterinarians to administer the rabies vaccine. If the services of veterinarians are not available in the area, the local health department may contract with other veterinarians. A reasonable fee to be charged to the owner of each dog, cat, or ferret shall be determined by the local health department, not to exceed five dollars ($5), to help defray the cost of the clinic.
(2) No owner shall be required to have his dog, cat, or ferret vaccinated at a public clinic if he elects to have his dog, cat, or ferret vaccinated privately by a veterinarian of his choice.
(3) No owner shall be required to have his dog vaccinated at a public clinic if he is a qualified person and elects to vaccinate his dog himself.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 5, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 517, effective July 15, 1998. — Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 260, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1994. — Created 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 37, sec. 4, effective June 17, 1978.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
If a local board of health has reason to believe or has been notified by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services that there is danger that rabies may spread within the county, the board shall publish a notice requiring owners of specified animals in the affected area of the county to confine the animals for any periods that may be necessary to prevent the spread of rabies. If it is deemed advisable in the interest of public health, the local board of health shall order all specified animals in the affected area to be vaccinated against rabies, except animals that have been vaccinated within the past six (6) months under the provisions of KRS 258.005 to 258.087. If the local board fails or neglects to order a vaccination, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services shall do so. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services may aid the local health department in the execution of any emergency vaccinations.
Effective: June 20, 2005
History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 571, effective June 20, 2005. – Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 6, effective July 13, 2004. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 518, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 6, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
animals — Reporting when local health department is closed.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, every physician shall, within twelve (12) hours after his first professional attendance of a person bitten by a dog, cat, ferret, or other animal, report to the local health department the name, age, sex, and precise location of the person so bitten. If a child is bitten and no physician attends, the report shall be made by his parents or guardian. If an adult is bitten and no physician attends, he or the person caring for him shall make the report.
(2) If the local health department is closed when a physician, parent, guardian, or other adult attends to a bitten person, the physician, parent, guardian, or other adult shall report the incident on the next working day of the health department.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 7, effective July 13, 2004. – Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 7, effective June 17, 1954. Note: 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396, sec. 82 would have amended this section effective July 1, 1982. However, 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396 was repealed by 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 146, also effective July 1, 1982.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
The secretary for health and family services may administer the provisions of KRS 258.005 to 258.087 through the local health departments and may promulgate any administrative regulations and employ such personnel as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of KRS 258.005 to 258.087.
Effective: June 20, 2005
History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 572, effective June 20, 2005. – Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 8, effective July 13, 2004. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 519, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 8,
effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
KRS 258.085 Quarantine of animals suspected of having rabies — Destruction of animal in lieu of quarantine — Exceptions — Head of animal suspected of being rabid to be sent to laboratory.
(1)
(a) A health officer or his agent shall have the authority to quarantine for a period not to exceed:
1. One hundred eighty (180) days any animal bitten by another animal known or suspected to have rabies;
2. Ten (10) days any dog, cat, or ferret which has bitten a human being; or
3. Ten (10) days any dog, cat, or ferret which exhibits symptoms of rabies.
(b) In lieu of the quarantines provided in paragraph (a) of this subsection, a health officer or his agent may order an animal to be destroyed and tested for rabies.
(c) If a wild or exotic animal bites a human being or exhibits symptoms of rabies, that animal shall be destroyed and tested for rabies.
(d) Service animals, as defined in KRS 525.010, and service animals in training, that are vaccinated in accordance with KRS 258.015, are under the control of a law enforcement agency, and are acting in the line of duty, shall be exempt from the quarantine described in paragraph (a)2. of this subsection.
(2) If an animal dies with rabies, is suspected of having died with rabies, or is destroyed because of having been suspected of being rabid, the owner, if known, whether the animal had been previously quarantined or not, shall send the head of the animal to a laboratory approved by the secretary for health and family services to be tested for rabies.
(3) (a) The owner of any animal quarantined or tested under this section shall be liable for any expenses incurred as a result of the quarantine or testing.
(b) Any owner who destroys or disposes of an animal that has bitten a human being shall be liable for any rabies postexposure treatment if the animal is destroyed or disposed of in a manner that does not allow for rabies testing or quarantine.
Effective: July 15, 2008
History: Amended 2008 Ky. Acts ch. 52, sec. 1, effective July 15, 2008. — Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 573, effective June 20, 2005. — Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 9, effective July 13, 2004. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 520, effective July 15, 1998. — Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 37, sec. 5, effective June 17, 1978. — Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 74, Art. VI, sec. 107(1). — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 9, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
Any city, county, urban-county, charter county, or consolidated local government may, by the adoption of an appropriate ordinance or resolution, provide for more stringent regulation of rabies control in dogs, cats, ferrets, and other animals than set forth in KRS
258.005 to 258.087.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 10, effective July 13, 2004. — Created
1978 Ky. Acts ch. 37, sec. 6, effective June 17, 1978.
 
ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
Bluegrass Boarding v. Jefferson Fiscal Ct., 26 S.W.3d 801 (Ky. App., 2000)
     Appellants next argue that the ordinance violates equal protection, because it treats Jefferson County kennel owners differently than similarly situated kennel owners in other Kentucky counties. KRS 67.083(3)(a) gives the fiscal court of a county the power to enact ordinances and regulations dealing with animal control. KRS 258.015 requires dogs to be vaccinated against rabies, and KRS 258.087 states that "[a]ny city legislative body or fiscal court may, by the adoption of an appropriate ordinance or resolution, provide for more stringent regulation of rabies control in dogs, cats, or other animals than set forth in this chapter."
        Having previously determined that the ordinance does not unduly infringe upon pet and kennel owners’ right to privacy, and because Jefferson County pet and kennel owners are not a suspect class, the ordinance is reviewed under a rational basis analysis, which requires only that the classification rationally further a legitimate state interest. Commonwealth v. Howard, Ky., 969 S.W.2d 700 (1998); Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976). KRS 258.087 gives the Jefferson County Fiscal Court the power to enact more stringent rabies prevention measures than those of other counties. As stated previously, a rabies vaccination appears to be a requirement for obtaining a pet license in Jefferson County. Therefore, it follows that Jefferson County’s ordinance requiring kennel owners to provide license applications to unlicensed pet owners and to provide the names and home addresses of pet owners to Animal Control is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of rabies prevention. As such, we determine that the ordinance does not violate equal protection.
 
 
 
As used in KRS 258.095 to 258.500, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Department" means the Department of Agriculture;
(2) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Agriculture;
(3) "Board" means the Animal Control Advisory Board created by KRS 258.117;
(4) "Dog" means any domestic canine, six (6) months of age or older;
(5) "Owner," when applied to the proprietorship of a dog, includes every person having a right of property in the dog and every person who keeps or harbors the dog, or has it in his care, or permits it to remain on or about premises owned or occupied by him;
(6) "Attack" means a dog’s attempt to bite or successful bite of a human being. This definition shall not apply to a dog’s attack of a person who has illegally entered or is trespassing on the dog owner’s property in violation of KRS 511.060, 511.070, 511.080, or 511.090;
(7) "Vicious dog" means any individual dog declared by a court to be a vicious dog;
(8) "Animal control officer" means an individual who is employed or appointed by, or has contracted with:
(a) A city, county, urban-county, charter county, or consolidated local government to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of the Kentucky Revised Statutes relating to cruelty, mistreatment, or torture of animals, and local animal control ordinances; or
(b) An entity that has contracted with a city, county, urban-county, charter county, or consolidated local government to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of the Kentucky Revised Statutes relating to cruelty, mistreatment, or torture of animals, and local animal control ordinances;
(9) "Designated license facility" means any person, facility, or business designated by resolution of the governing body of the county to collect license fees under KRS 258.135;
(10) "Cat" means any domestic feline three (3) months of age or older;
(11) "Ferret" means any domestic musteline three (3) months of age or older;
(12) "Euthanasia" means the act of putting an animal to death in a humane manner by methods specified as acceptable for that species by the most recent report of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia, subject to the requirements provided by KRS 258.505;
(13) "Animal shelter" means any facility used to house or contain animals, operated or maintained by a governmental body, incorporated humane society, animal welfare society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other nonprofit organization;
(14) "Quarantine" means the confinement of an animal for observation of clinical signs of illness indicating rabies infection, and the prevention of escape or contact with any person or other animal;
(15) "Livestock" means poultry; ratites; and cervine, bovine, ovine, porcine, caprine, or equine animals that are privately owned and raised in a confined area for breeding stock, food, fiber, or other products; and
(16) "Poultry" means chickens, ducks, turkeys, or other domestic fowl.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 11, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 179, sec. 1, effective July 14, 2000. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 440, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 12, effective June 17, 1954.
 
ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
Benningfield v. Zinsmeister, No. 2008-CA-001979-MR (Ky. App. 9/11/2009) (Ky. App., 2009)
     The applicable statute for the case sub judice is Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 258.235(4), which states: "any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that damage." On appeal, Benningfield argues that the Zinsmeisters are "owners" of the dog, pursuant to KRS 258.095, and are therefore subject to strict liability. KRS 258.095(5) states, in pertinent part:
        `Owner,’ when applied to the proprietorship of a dog, includes every person having a right of property in the dog and every person who keeps or harbors the dog, or has it in his care, or permits it to remain on or about premises owned or occupied by him[.]
        KRS 285.095(5). Benningfield argues that the statute extends liability to landlords, specifically in this case, because the Zinsmeisters were aware of the presence of the dog and allowed it to remain on the premises. We do not agree. A panel of this Court previously held that a duty of care could not be extended to a landlord without proof that the landlord knew of their tenant’s dog and its dangerous propensities. Ireland v. Raymond, 796 S.W.2d 870 (Ky. App. 1990) (emphasis in original). In support of its decision, the Court in Ireland stated:
        the injuries were not received on the leased premises, and there is nothing to indicate that the landlords had any control of the area where the injuries were received. It would be unthinkable to extend the liability of a landlord to include any area to which a tenant’s dog might roam. Kentucky cases cannot be stretched to cover such a situation.
        Id. at 871.
        Benningfield argues that Ireland should be overturned in light of the plain meaning of KRS 258.095(5). However, it is the opinion of this Court that to do so would create a slippery slope of liability which the legislature did not intend. To apply the plain meaning suggested by Benningfield would create a society in which property owners would no longer allow dogs on public and private property, for fear of being sued. Benningfield points to the fact that the Zinsmeisters testified that they were aware of the dog and that they had requested its removal. However, their personal preference for the removal of the dog from their rental property does not make them liable for its damages. In summation, while we agree with Benningfield’s assertion that dog owners are the best parties to be held liable for the injuries and damages caused by their dogs, we do not agree that the definition of "owner" should be extended to include landlords, unless the elements of Ireland are also met.
 
Fetchko v. Morgan, No. 2007-CA-000547-MR (Ky. App. 6/27/2008) (Ky. App., 2008)
    Edmunds cross-appeals, claiming that the circuit court erred in rejecting the application of the Firefighter’s Rule. Kay Morgan also cross-appeals, alleging that: (1) she is not an owner of the dog pursuant to KRS 258.095; and (2) Fetchko’s claim is barred by the Firefighter’s Rule.
     In the present case, the circuit court found that on the day Bandit bit Fetchko, K. Morgan had been "asked by Ms. Edmunds to be at the Edmunds/Morgan residence to meet the animal control officer and release the dog into [his] possession. Ms. Morgan accepted care of the dog and, therefore, may be deemed an `owner’ of the dog on the day Mr. Fetchko was injured." Therefore, the court reasoned that, taking "the record in the light most favorable to Mr. Fetchko," the circuit court could not "conclude that Ms. Morgan [was] not an `owner’ of the dog."
  Fetchko next alleges that the facts of Jordan, 81 S.W.3d at 523, upon which the circuit court relied in finding that Fetchko assumed the risk, are distinguishable from the present case. Edmunds and K. Morgan assert, in their cross-appeals, that Jordan is applicable and that Fetchko assumed the risk of the dog bite.
        Jordan was a dog groomer who had just finished grooming a dog and was carrying the dog when it bit her face. Jordan, 81 S.W.3d at 523. This Court held that, under the statutory definition of "owner" provided in KRS 258.095(5), Jordan qualified as an "owner" of the dog because she had custody of the dog at the time she was bitten. See id. at 524. This Court then concluded "that when Jordan accepted the dog for grooming, she assumed the risk of being bitten by the dog." Id. Therefore, the Court stated that summary judgment had properly been granted against Jordan. See id. at 525.
        Jordan is distinguishable from the present case because Fetchko never accepted custody of Bandit. Rather, Fetchko attested that he was getting out of his truck because K. Morgan motioned for him to come over to her. At that point Bandit bit him. No evidence was presented to show that Fetchko had taken custody or control of Bandit. Therefore, Jordan is distinguishable and, consequently, its holding concerning the assumption of the risk is inapplicable to the present case.
     In her appellate brief, K. Morgan contends that the circuit court "determined that Mr. Fetchko, as an Animal Control Officer acting within the scope of his duty, was a statutory owner of the dog." However, her claim is misplaced. First, the circuit court never found that Fetchko was an "owner" of the dog pursuant to KRS 258.095(5). Second, as previously mentioned, Fetchko attested that he had just climbed out of his truck when Bandit bit him, and no evidence was presented to create an issue of fact that Fetchko had taken custody of the dog. Therefore, K. Morgan’s assertion that Fetchko was an "owner" of Bandit lacks all merit.
        E. CONCLUSION
        Accordingly, the Jefferson Circuit Court’s opinion is affirmed on the issue of K. Morgan’s ownership of Bandit but reversed on all remaining issues. This case is therefore remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
 
Jordan v. Lusby, 81 S.W.3d 523 (Ky. App., 2002)
      Kathy Jordan appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Kevin Lusby in her action against Lusby for an injury she received from Lusby’s dog. Jordan, who is a dog groomer, accepted Lusby’s dog, a Chow, for grooming and had finished grooming the dog and was carrying it out of the room when it bit her once on the face. Jordan, filing this action against Lusby in Jefferson Circuit Court, claimed that Lusby was strictly liable under Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 258.275. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Lusby because of the statutory definition of the word "owner" as found in KRS 258.095, discussed infra, and because Jordan assumed the risk of being bitten by virtue of her profession as a dog groomer. Jordan appeals to this Court, arguing that the court below improperly granted summary judgment because the question of whether she was an "owner" under the statute was a jury question. We disagree, and affirm the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
       The applicable statute defines an "owner" of a dog as "every person having a right of property in the dog and every person who keeps or harbors the dog, or has it in his care, or permits it to remain on or about premises owned by him." KRS 258.095(5). The statute was designed to expand liability to those parties who keep dogs, such as kennel owners, veterinarians, and other persons who keep dogs owned by others in their care, as well as any person who keeps a dog owned by another on their property. "Owner" in this case does not simply mean a person with a property interest in the dog, for reasons of public policy.
 
Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky. App., 2006)
 On appeal, Bess and Poe argue (1) that the ordinance is inconsistent with KRS Chapter 258 and specifically with the definition of "vicious dog" contained in KRS 258.095; (2) that it impermissibly allows the forfeiture of property without compensation; (3) that it denies dog owners procedural due process; and (4) that it impedes the right of nonresident owners of pit bull terriers to travel through Bracken County.
 Bess and Poe argue that by defining all pit bull terriers as being "inherently vicious," the ordinance is inconsistent with KRS 258.095(7), which defines a "vicious dog" as being "any individual dog declared by a court to be a vicious dog." They also argue that the ordinance conflicts with KRS 258.235, under which the district court possesses jurisdiction to hear complaints concerning dogs that have attacked people. Upon finding that the person charged is the owner or keeper of the dog, and that the dog viciously and without cause attacked a human while off the owner’s or keeper’s premises, the court shall order that the dog be securely confined or destroyed. KRS 258.235(5)(a). In addition, the court may impose the penalties authorized by KRS 258.990(3)(b), which include the imposition of a fine of $50 to $200, and/or confinement in the county jail for 10 to 60 days.
  KRS 258.365 provides in part:
        Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit or limit the right of any governing body to pass or enforce any ordinance with respect to the regulation of dogs or other animals, the provisions of which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.
        In reviewing the two methods for dealing with vicious dogs, the General Assembly has created a "dog specific" procedure involving a general process which could apply to any dog, once that dog has attacked a person off the premises of the owner or keeper. By contrast, the Bracken County Fiscal Court has enacted an ordinance which is "breed specific," declaring all members of that breed to be inherently vicious, and banning their presence in the county. The statutory procedure is reactive, whereas the ordinance procedure is proactive, but both enactments seek to reduce the risk of humans being injured by dogs. In our view, the proactive ordinance is supplemental to, rather than inconsistent with, the statute since it does not limit the statute’s application but instead provides a more comprehensive plan of protection.
    The ordinance on its face states that "[a]nimals meeting the definition . . . [of a pit bull terrier] shall be forfeited and euthanized unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Said animals shall be held pending disposition by the District Court." Ordinance § 53.92. Clearly, the ordinance contemplates a hearing before the Bracken District Court with notice to the owner or keeper prior to the disposition of any impounded dog. As the owner or keeper therefore would have the opportunity to appear before the court, and to present evidence and defenses to the action, procedural due process would be afforded.
  In any event, the ordinance in question equally affects all owners or keepers of pit bull terriers, regardless of whether they are residents or nonresidents. The constitutional right to travel does not require that when traveling to another jurisdiction, a person must be given benefits which are superior to those enjoyed by the jurisdiction’s own residents simply because the traveler enjoyed those benefits in another place. Califano v. Gautier Torres, 435 U.S. 1, 4, 98 S.Ct. 906, 908, 55 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978). Moreover, the right to travel does not destroy the independent power of each state to enact statutes which are uniformly applicable to all of its residents. See 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 690 (2006). Furthermore, the right to travel is not contravened by a state’s enactment and enforcement of reasonable regulations to promote safety. Id. We therefore conclude that the ordinance clearly does not infringe on the constitutional right to travel.
 
 
 
 
administrative regulations — Membership.
(1) The Animal Control Advisory Board is hereby created for the purposes of evaluating applications for and reviewing disbursements from the animal control and care fund, creating training programs, and other duties relating to animal control and care in the counties of the Commonwealth. The Animal Control Advisory Board shall promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.
(2) The advisory board shall be attached to the Kentucky Department of Agriculture for administrative purposes.
(3) The advisory board shall be composed of the following members appointed by the Governor as specified:
(a) Two (2) members selected from a list of three (3) submitted by the Kentucky Animal Control Association;
(b) Two (2) members selected from a list of three (3) submitted by the Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association;
(c) Two (2) members selected from a list of three (3) submitted by the Kentucky Farm Bureau;
(d) Two (2) members selected from a list of three (3) submitted by the Kentucky Association of Counties;
(e) Two (2) members selected from a list of three (3) submitted by the Kentucky Houndsmen Association; and
(f) Two (2) members selected from a list of three (3) submitted by the Kentucky League of Cities.
(4) Appointed members shall serve for a term of four (4) years. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment for the unexpired portion of the term.
(5) Members of the advisory board shall receive one hundred dollars ($100) per day for attendance at meetings and shall be entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred for travel. No per diem or travel expenses shall be paid except for meetings of the full advisory board.
(6) The advisory board shall elect one (1) of its members to serve as chair for a term of two (2) years.
(7) The advisory board shall meet quarterly or upon the call of the chair.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 12, effective July 13, 2004. – Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 608, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1998.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
requirements.
(1) The "Animal Control and Care Fund" is hereby created as a special fund in the State Treasury. The fund may also receive gifts, grants from public and private sources, state appropriations, and federal funds. Any unalloted or unencumbered balances in this fund shall be invested as provided for in KRS 42.500(9). Income earned from the investments shall be credited to the fund. Any fund balance at the close of the fiscal year shall not lapse but shall be carried forward to the next fiscal year, and moneys in this fund shall be continuously appropriated only for the purposes specified in this section.
(2) Moneys from the fund shall be used by the Animal Control Advisory Board for board expenses, for the creation and support of statewide programs related to animal control and care, and for training animal control officers. "Statewide programs" includes, but is not limited to, the reimbursement of costs for preexposure rabies vaccinations for all animal control and care workers. When determining the distribution of the moneys relating to training, the need of the applicant shall be one (1) of the criteria considered by the board. Based on recommendations of the Animal Control Advisory Board, any moneys not expended under this subsection may be distributed annually as grants to counties with an established animal control and care program meeting the requirements of subsection
(3) of this section or approved plan to establish an animal control and care program under subsection (4) of this section.
(3) As used in this section, "animal control and care program" means a program in which the county:
(a) Employs, appoints, or contracts with an animal control officer, or contracts with an entity that employs, appoints, or contracts with an animal control officer, as required by KRS 258.195, who is a high school graduate and has completed the training requirements set forth by the Animal Control Advisory Board; and
(b) Maintains an animal shelter, enters into an intergovernmental agreement for the establishment of a regional animal shelter, or contracts with an entity authorized to maintain sheltering and animal control services, to provide services that:
1. Segregate male and female animals by species in runs and holding areas;
2. Provide separate runs or holding areas for ill or injured animals. An ill or injured animal shall be treated with proper veterinary care or euthanized;
3. Provide quarantine for dogs and cats presented to the shelter when quarantine by the owner is not feasible or desirable, the cost of quarantine to be borne by the animal owner at the shelter’s regular housing costs and fees. Quarantined dogs and cats shall be held in isolation for observation of symptoms of rabies for a period of ten (10) days from the date the dog or cat bit a person. If the dog or cat dies or is euthanized while in quarantine, it shall be submitted to the local health department for testing for the presence of the rabies virus. The cost of the testing shall be borne by the animal owner or the local health department may bear the cost at its discretion;
4. Provide holding areas with protection from the weather, including heated quarters during cold weather. Holding areas shall be free of debris or standing water; shall provide adequate lighting, ventilation, and sanitary conditions to promote a safe, healthy environment; and shall provide adequate space to allow for normal movement, including standing to full height, sitting, turning, and lying down in a natural position without coming in contact with the top or sides of the enclosure or another animal;
5. Provide runs and cages built of materials which can be readily cleaned and disinfected, including floors made of an impervious material;
6. Provide access to the public for no less than twenty-four (24) hours in one (1) week, with the hours that the facility is open to the public posted in a visible location;
7. Employ euthanasia methods specified as acceptable for that species by the most recent report of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia;
8. Provide potable, uncontaminated water to every animal at all times, and palatable, uncontaminated food daily; and
9. Maintain a record on each animal impounded. Records shall be maintained for a period of two (2) years and shall include:
a. Date impounded;
b. Location found or picked up;
c. Sex of animal and spay or neuter status, if known;
d. Breed or description, and color; and
e. Date reclaimed, adopted, or euthanized.
(4) Counties submitting plans proposing to establish an animal control and care program for approval by the Animal Control Advisory Board shall comply with the requirements of:
(a) Paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section within twelve (12) months of the date the documentation is submitted; and
(b) Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section within twenty-four (24) months of the date the documentation is submitted.
(5) To be eligible for any moneys distributed as grants to counties under subsection (2) of this section, counties shall submit an application to the commissioner, on a form prescribed by the Department of Agriculture, by July 15 of each year. Moneys shall be used for construction, equipment, educational supplies, and other uses or programs approved by the advisory board, but shall not be used to increase wages of animal control officers or other personnel. Counties receiving money from the Department of Agriculture shall comply with the terms of the plan or program. If the terms of the plan or program are not complied with, the county shall refund the money to the Department of Agriculture.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 13, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 179, sec. 2, effective July 14, 2000. — Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 608, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1998.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
(1) The governing body of each county may establish an animal licensing program by ordinance. It shall be the responsibility of each county to administer and enforce its licensing program.
(2) In addition to the licensing program provided in subsection (1) of this section, any city may establish an animal licensing program by ordinance. It shall be the responsibility of the city to administer and enforce its licensing program.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 14, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 179, sec. 3, effective July 14, 2000. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 163, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1998; and ch. 440, sec. 12, effective July 15, 1998. — Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 385, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1990. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 16, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
KRS 258.195 Employment, appointment, or contract with animal control officers —
Establishment and maintenance of animal shelters — Intergovernmental
agreements — Authority of animal control officers.
(1) The governing body of each county shall employ, appoint, or contract with an animal control officer, or shall contract with an entity that employs, appoints, or contracts with an animal control officer, and shall establish and maintain an animal shelter as a means of facilitating and administering KRS 258.095 to 258.500. One (1) or more counties may enter into intergovernmental agreements for the establishment of regional animal shelters, or may contract with entities authorized to maintain sheltering and animal control services. Animal shelters shall meet the standards provided by KRS 258.119(3)(b) within three (3) years after July 13, 2004.Governing bodies may adopt additional standards and ordinances related to public health, safety, enforcement, and the efficient and appropriate operation of their shelters and their animal control programs.
(2) Cities may employ, appoint, or contract with animal control officers, or may contract with an entity that employs, appoints, or contracts with animal control officers, for the enforcement of this chapter and local animal control ordinances within their corporate limits. Cities may enter into agreements with the counties for the enforcement of the county’s animal control ordinances. The agreement shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, setting out the jurisdiction and the duties of the animal control officer respective to the agreement.
(3) Animal control officers shall have the authority to issue uniform citations, local citations, or local notices for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of the Kentucky Revised Statutes relating to cruelty, mistreatment, or torture of animals, and animal control ordinances in their respective jurisdictions.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 15, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 440, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 22, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
(1) No person other than the owner shall tamper with or remove without permission an identification tag, chip, locator, or electronic tracking device from a domesticated animal of any age, including but not limited to a hound or dog used in the sport of hunting.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a person removing an identification tag, chip, locator, or electronic tracking device if the removal is:
(a) Necessary to prevent or treat an injury to the animal;
(b) Done by a law enforcement officer or animal control officer for a legitimate purpose; or
(c) Done with the written permission of the owner of the animal.
(3) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: June 25, 2009
History: Created 2009 Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 1, effective June 25, 2009.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
KRS 258.215 Seizure, impounding, and destruction of dog lacking rabies tag or other identification — Holding period before destruction — Notice to owner —
Reclamation of dog, cat, or ferret — Fees — Quarantine — Exemption of
hunting dog.
(1) Peace officers or animal control officers shall seize and impound any dog which does not bear a valid rabies tag or other legible identification which is found running at large. Any dog which an officer or animal control officer seizes shall be impounded in the designated animal shelter of the county and confined in a humane manner. If, after a reasonable effort, the seizure of an unrestrained dog cannot be made, or the dog presents a hazard to public safety or property or has an injury or physical condition which causes the dog to suffer, the animal control officer or peace officer may immediately destroy the dog by the most reasonable and humane means then available.
(2)
(a) Impounded dogs shall be kept for not less than five (5) days, unless reclaimed by their owners. Dogs not reclaimed and those not placed in suitable new homes may be humanely euthanized after the five (5) day holding period, unless the dog has an injury or physical condition which causes it to suffer. In those cases the animal shelter may immediately euthanize the dog, and if a human being has been bitten by the dog, the dog shall be tested for rabies.
(b) If an owner is identified, the impounding agency shall immediately notify the owner of the impoundment by the most expedient means available.
(c) Any animal shelter, public or private, which takes in stray animals and does not have regular hours for public access, shall post semimonthly either in a local newspaper or the newspaper with the highest circulation in the county, the shelter location, hours of operation, the period that impounded animals shall be held, and a contact number.
(3) Upon reclaiming an impounded dog, cat, or ferret, the owner shall show proof of a valid rabies vaccination. If proof of the vaccination cannot be provided, the owner shall purchase a vaccination voucher from the animal shelter. The voucher shall be valid for ten (10) days from the date of issuance and shall be used in the prescribed time period. The animal shelter shall reimburse the veterinarian for the amount of the voucher upon presentation to the shelter by the administering veterinarian.
(4) The owner of an impounded animal is responsible for all fees associated with the impoundment of the animal. If the owner can be identified, the fees are due even if the owner does not reclaim the animal.
(5) Dogs, cats, or ferrets which have bitten a person shall be maintained in quarantine by the owner for ten (10) days from the date of the bite. Owners who fail to properly quarantine their animals shall be subject to a citation for violation of this subsection and the dog, cat, or ferret shall be removed to the animal shelter for the remainder of the quarantine period. The owner shall be responsible for all associated fees of the quarantine and impoundment.
(6) A hound or other hunting dog which has been released from confinement for hunting purposes shall be deemed to be under reasonable control of its owner or handler while engaged in or returning from hunting, and, if a hunting dog becomes temporarily lost from a pack or wanders from actual control or sight of its owner or handler, the owner or handler shall not be deemed to be in violation of the provisions of this section as a result of the dog’s having become temporarily lost or having wandered from immediate control or sight of the owner or handler.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 16, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 179, sec. 5, effective July 14, 2000. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 440, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 24, effective June 17, 1954.
 
ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
Amon v. Welty, 2002 KY 87 (KYCA, 2002)
    In addition to their damage claim, the Ammons also seek to have this court declare that destruction of impounded dogs by a gunshot to the head is inhumane and, thus, enjoin the Trimble County Dog Warden from using such method. Although KRS 258.215 states that dogs are to be destroyed in a humane manner, it does not provide further directives as to the method of destruction.
   We note that in many rural areas of the Commonwealth, dog pounds established by the fiscal court may be little more than wire enclosures that serve as holding pens until the dogs are either adopted or destroyed. If the latter is their fate, in many counties it is accomplished by gunshot. In counties such as Trimble County the dog warden has neither the expertise nor the instruments to kill the dogs by methods thought by some to be more humane than shooting them. Although the conditions of these pounds and the method of destroying the dogs may be morally offensive to some, it is the legislature’s prerogative, not that of this court, to abolish the practice. Whether dogs should be killed by gunshot is a public policy question to be resolved only by the legislature. We are convinced it is aware of the practice of shooting dogs in many rural areas of the Commonwealth, and since it has not chosen to prohibit it, we conclude that it considers shooting to be a humane method of euthanizing unwanted animals.
   The judgment of the Trimble Circuit Court is affirmed.
 
 
 
KRS 258.225 Peace officers and animal control officers required to perform duties — Interference prohibited.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any peace officer or animal control officer to refuse to perform his duties under the provisions of this chapter.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere with any peace officer, animal control officer, or agent in the enforcement of this chapter.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 17, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 440, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 25, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
KRS 258.235 Authority to kill or seize dog — Return by court to owner of vicious dog –Liability for damage — Proceeding by person attacked by dog — Disposition of
dog after seizure — Powers of animal control officer — Vicious dog not to run at
large.
(1) Any person, without liability, may kill or seize any dog which is observed attacking any person.
(2) Any livestock owner or his agent, without liability, may kill any dog trespassing on that owner’s property and observed in the act of pursuing or wounding his livestock.
(3) Any dog determined to be vicious by a court and allowed to be returned to an owner shall be confined in a locked enclosure at least seven (7) feet high or a locked kennel run with a secured top. The dog may leave the enclosure only to visit the veterinarian or to be turned in to an animal shelter. The dog shall be muzzled if leaving the enclosure for either of these purposes.
(4) Any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that damage.
(5)
(a) Any person who has been attacked by a dog, or anyone acting on behalf of that person, may make a complaint before the district court, charging the owner or keeper of the dog with harboring a vicious dog. A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the person so charged in the same manner and subject to the laws regulating the service of summons in civil actions directing him to appear for a hearing of the complaint at a time fixed in the complaint. If the person fails to appear at the time fixed, or if upon a hearing of the parties and their witnesses, the court finds the person so charged is the owner or keeper of the dog in question, and that the dog has viciously and without cause, attacked a human being when off the premises of the owner or keeper, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in KRS 258.990(3)(b), and the court shall further order the owner or keeper to keep the dog securely confined as provided by subsection (3) of this section, or the court may order the dog to be destroyed.
(b) The animal control officer shall act as an officer of the court for the enforcement of any orders of the court in his jurisdiction pertaining to this subsection.
(6) For his services in the proceedings, a peace officer shall be entitled to the same fees to which he is entitled for performing similar services in civil cases. In all proceedings under this section, the court shall place the costs upon either party as it may determine.
(7) It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any vicious dog, after receiving an order under subsection (5) of this section, to permit the dog to run at large, or to appear in public except as provided in subsection (3) of this section. Any vicious dog found running at large may be killed by any animal control officer or peace officer without liability for damages for the killing.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 18, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 440, sec. 5, effective July 15, 1998. — Amended 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 223, effective January 2, 1978. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 26, effective June 17, 1954.
 
ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
Benningfield v. Zinsmeister, No. 2008-CA-001979-MR (Ky. App. 9/11/2009) (Ky. App., 2009)
     The applicable statute for the case sub judice is Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 258.235(4), which states: "any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that damage." On appeal, Benningfield argues that the Zinsmeisters are "owners" of the dog, pursuant to KRS 258.095, and are therefore subject to strict liability. KRS 258.095(5) states, in pertinent part:
        `Owner,’ when applied to the proprietorship of a dog, includes every person having a right of property in the dog and every person who keeps or harbors the dog, or has it in his care, or permits it to remain on or about premises owned or occupied by him[.]
        KRS 285.095(5). Benningfield argues that the statute extends liability to landlords, specifically in this case, because the Zinsmeisters were aware of the presence of the dog and allowed it to remain on the premises. We do not agree. A panel of this Court previously held that a duty of care could not be extended to a landlord without proof that the landlord knew of their tenant’s dog and its dangerous propensities. Ireland v. Raymond, 796 S.W.2d 870 (Ky. App. 1990) (emphasis in original). In support of its decision, the Court in Ireland stated:
        the injuries were not received on the leased premises, and there is nothing to indicate that the landlords had any control of the area where the injuries were received. It would be unthinkable to extend the liability of a landlord to include any area to which a tenant’s dog might roam. Kentucky cases cannot be stretched to cover such a situation.
 
 
Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky. App., 2006)
 Bess and Poe argue that by defining all pit bull terriers as being "inherently vicious," the ordinance is inconsistent with KRS 258.095(7), which defines a "vicious dog" as being "any individual dog declared by a court to be a vicious dog." They also argue that the ordinance conflicts with KRS 258.235, under which the district court possesses jurisdiction to hear complaints concerning dogs that have attacked people. Upon finding that the person charged is the owner or keeper of the dog, and that the dog viciously and without cause attacked a human while off the owner’s or keeper’s premises, the court shall order that the dog be securely confined or destroyed. KRS 258.235(5)(a). In addition, the court may impose the penalties authorized by KRS 258.990(3)(b), which include the imposition of a fine of $50 to $200, and/or confinement in the county jail for 10 to 60 days.
  Next, Bess and Poe argue that the Bracken County Ordinance denied them one of the basic elements of procedural due process, namely, a meaningful opportunity to be heard as to the viciousness or dangerousness of their dogs.
        We note that a statute carries a strong presumption that it is constitutional. Wynn v. Ibold, Inc., 969 S.W.2d 695 (Ky.1998). When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, it is the appellate court’s responsibility to "draw all reasonable inferences and implications from the act as a whole and thereby if possible sustain the validity of the act." Graham v. Mills, 694 S.W.2d 698, 701 (Ky.1985). This rule of construction is also applicable to local ordinances. See, e.g., City of Erlanger v. KSL Realty Corp., 819 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Ky.1991). The burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of a statute rests upon the party challenging it. Stephens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 894 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Ky.1995).
 
Fetchko v. Morgan, No. 2007-CA-000547-MR (Ky. App. 6/27/2008) (Ky. App., 2008)
 Kentucky Revised Statute 258.095(5) provides: "`Owner,’ when applied to the proprietorship of a dog, includes every person having a right of property in the dog and every person who keeps or harbors the dog, or has it in his care, or permits it to remain on or about premises owned or occupied by him." Further, KRS 258.235(4) provides as follows: "Any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person . . . shall be responsible for that damage."
        In the present case, the circuit court found that on the day Bandit bit Fetchko, K. Morgan had been "asked by Ms. Edmunds to be at the Edmunds/Morgan residence to meet the animal control officer and release the dog into [his] possession. Ms. Morgan accepted care of the dog and, therefore, may be deemed an `owner’ of the dog on the day Mr. Fetchko was injured." Therefore, the court reasoned that, taking "the record in the light most favorable to Mr. Fetchko," the circuit court could not "conclude that Ms. Morgan [was] not an `owner’ of the dog."
 
 
 
 
property — Destruction prohibited.
All dogs that have a valid rabies vaccination and bear identification are hereby declared to be personal property and subjects of larceny. Except as provided in KRS 258.235, it shall be unlawful for any person except a peace officer or animal control officer to destroy, or attempt to destroy, any dog that bears identification.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 19, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 2003 Ky. Acts ch. 181, sec. 3, effective June 24, 2003. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 440, sec. 6, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 27, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
Every female dog in heat shall be confined in a building or secure enclosure in such a manner that the female dog cannot come in contact with a male dog except for a planned breeding.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 20, effective July 13, 2004. – Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 28, effective June 17, 1954.
 
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
(1) An owner shall exercise proper care and control of his dog to prevent the dog from violating any local government nuisance ordinance.
(2) Any peace officer or animal control officer may seize or destroy any dog found running at large between the hours of sunset and sunrise and unaccompanied and not under the control of its owner or handler. A peace officer or animal control officer shall be under a duty to make a fair and reasonable effort to determine whether any dog found at large between sunset and sunrise is a hound or other hunting dog which has become lost temporarily from a pack or wandered from immediate control of its owner, or handler, and if he is reasonably sure that the dog is a hunting dog, then he shall not destroy the dog, unless it is found in the act of pursuing or wounding livestock, or wounding or killing poultry, or attacking human beings.
(3) A hound or hunting dog may be unrestrained when engaged in lawful hunting
activities while on private or public property designated or authorized for that purpose.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 21, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 440, sec. 7, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 29, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
 
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to make any false statement or to conceal any fact required to be disclosed under any of the provisions of this chapter.
Effective: June 17, 1954
History: Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 36, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit or limit the right of any governing body to pass or enforce any ordinance with respect to the regulation of dogs or other animals, the provisions of which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to repeal any of the provisions of the fish and game laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky now in effect, nor any laws relating to the powers and duties of the secretary for health and family services, or any health officer relating to rabid animals or animals affected with any disease, or to prohibit the destroying of any animal in accordance with the provisions of any quarantine regulations, made in accordance with the provisions of any local or state health law.
Effective: June 20, 2005
History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 574, effective June 20, 2005. – Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 22, effective July 13, 2004. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 521, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 39, effective June 17, 1954.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
KRS 258.500 Persons with assistance dogs not to be denied accommodations, transportation, or elevator service — Conditions — Exemption from licensing fees — Denial of emergency medical treatment for assistance dog prohibited.
(1) As used in subsections (1) to (11) of this section, "person" means a "person with a disability" as defined by KRS 210.770. "Person" also includes a trainer of an assistance dog.
(2) If a person is accompanied by an assistance dog, neither the person nor the dog shall be denied admittance to any hotel, motel, restaurant, or eating establishment, nor shall the person be denied full and equal accommodations, facilities, and privileges of all public places of amusement, theater, or resort when accompanied by an assistance dog.
(3) Any person accompanied by an assistance dog shall be entitled to full and equal accommodations on all public transportation, if the dog does not occupy a seat in any public conveyance, nor endanger the public safety.
(4) No person shall be required to pay additional charges or fare for the transportation of any accompanying assistance dog.
(5) No person accompanied by an assistance dog shall be denied admittance and use of any public building, nor denied the use of any elevator operated for public use.
(6) Any person accompanied by an assistance dog may keep the dog in his immediate custody while a tenant in any apartment, or building used as a public lodging.
(7) All trainers accompanied by an assistance dog shall have in their personal possession identification verifying that they are trainers of assistance dogs.
(8) The provisions of this section shall not apply unless the person complies with the legal limitations applicable to nondisabled persons and unless all requirements of KRS 258.015 and 258.135 have been complied with.
(9) Assistance dogs are exempt from all state and local licensing fees.
(10) Licensing authorities shall accept that the dog for which the license is sought is an assistance dog if the person requesting the license is a person with a disability or the trainer of the dog.
(11) Emergency medical treatment shall not be denied to an assistance dog assigned to a person regardless of the person’s ability to pay prior to treatment.
(12) No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with an assistance dog or the dog’s user.
Effective: June 26, 2007
History: Amended 2007 Ky. Acts ch. 48, sec. 1, effective June 26, 2007. — Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 23, effective July 13, 2004. — Amended 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 94, sec. 2, effective July 15, 2002. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 163, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1998. — Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 44, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1990. — Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 44, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1982. — Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 184, sec. 1, effective June 17, 1978. — Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 92, sec. 81. — Created 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 118, secs. 1 to 4.
 
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
Gunshot shall not be used as a routine method of euthanasia in animal shelter settings. This prohibition shall not apply in animal shelter settings if an animal presents a threat to the health or safety of anyone lawfully on the premises of the shelter. The prohibition against gunshot shall also not apply to peace officers or animal control officers outside animal shelter situations if an animal:
(1) Cannot be seized;
(2) Presents a threat to the health or safety of the general public; or
(3) Has an injury or physical condition which causes the animal to suffer.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Created 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 1, effective July 13, 2004.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
 
Penalties
 
(1) Any person who violates KRS 258.015, 258.035, 258.055, 258.065, or 258.085 shall be fined not less than ten dollars ($10) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100). Each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense.
(2) The owner of any dog, cat, or ferret which bites a human being shall be liable to pay all damages for personal injuries resulting from the bite of the dog, cat, or ferret.
(3)
(a) Any person violating or failing or refusing to comply with KRS 258.095 to 258.365, except KRS 258.235(5)(a), shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than five dollars ($5) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100), or be imprisoned in the county jail for not less than five (5) nor more than sixty (60) days, or both.
(b) Any person violating KRS 258.235(5)(a) shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than two hundred dollars ($200), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days, or both.
(4) All fines collected under subsection (3) of this section shall after costs and commissions have been deducted, be paid to the department to be credited to the animal control and care fund.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 24, effective July 13, 2004. – Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 440, sec. 11, effective July 15, 1998. — Amended 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 126, sec. 34. — Recreated 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, secs. 11 and 40. – Repealed 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 41. — Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 68a-8, 68a-9, 68b-20, 68b-33.
 
ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
Board of Ed. of Jefferson County v. Tierney, 280 S.W.2d 201 (Ky., 1955)    
 Prior to June 17, 1954, KRS, Chapter 258 contained the general statutory law on the subject of dogs. We consider pertinent provisions thereof in reaching a solution of the immediate issue. KRS 258.170 provided for the licensing of dogs; KRS 258.270 directed fees to be paid for the licensing of dog kennels; KRS 258.130 authorized the sale or destruction of impounded dogs, and KRS 258.990(3) and (4) provided fines for the violations of the provisions of Chapter 258. KRS 258.320 directed all funds received from licenses, sales of impounded dogs, and fines (after certain costs were deducted) to be paid into the county livestock fund. Under KRS 258.420 the owner of livestock, which were killed or bitten by dogs, could, under certain circumstances, be reimbursed for such loss out of the county livestock fund when proper procedure was invoked. And KRS 258.340(2) provided:   ‘After payment for all loss, damages, compensation and other necessary expenses, any surplus remaining in the county livestock fund at the end of a year shall be paid into the county school fund.’      In 1954 the Legislature passed House Bill 139, being Chapter 119 of the 1954 Acts of the General Assembly, (now recodified in KRS, Chapter 258) and by section 41 expressly repealed sections KRS 258.010 to 258.490 and subsections (1)-(4) of section 258.990. Section 34 of Chapter 119 provides:
‘(1) Any valid claims, or parts thereof, for loss or damage to sheep, horses, mules, cattle, swine or poultry which have accrued under the provisions of KRS 258.010 to 258.490 and KRS 258.990, and any such claims which may accrue prior to July 1, 1954, shall not abate by reason of the repeal of such sections but to the extent that funds are available for the payment thereof, such claims shall be paid out of the available funds, of the proper counties, and for such purpose the provisions of said sections are hereby saved from repeal.
‘(2) Any such claims remaining unpaid out of the available fund of the proper county after December 31, 1955, shall be paid from the Livestock Fund to the extent of available funds as determined by the committee and in the order of their presentation; provided, however, that no such claims presented after December 31, 1956, shall be so paid.’
 
Upchurch v. Clinton County, 330 S.W.2d 428 (Ky., 1959)    
KRS 258.195(1) provides in part that the fiscal court of each county in this state shall on or before July 1, 1954, employ a dog warden, and shall on or before July 1, 1955, establish and conduct a dog pound. Under KRS 258.990(3) a violation of this subsection subjects a fiscal court member to a fine of not less than five nor more than one hundred dollars or to imprisonment from five to sixty days in jail, or he may be both fined and imprisoned.
 
 
 
KRS 258.991 Penalty.
Any person violating KRS 258.500(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (11), or (12) shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred and fifty dollars ($250), nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten (10) nor more than thirty (30) days, or both. No person shall be charged with a violation of KRS 258.500(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (11), or (12) if the requirements of KRS 258.500(7) are not met.
Effective: June 26, 2007
History: Amended 2007 Ky. Acts ch. 48, sec. 2, effective June 26, 2007. — Amended 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 94, sec. 3, effective July 15, 2002. — Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 163, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1998. — Created 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 118, sec. 5.
 
NO ANNOTATION FOR THIS STATUTE:
 
1 reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply