OAG 1994-018.

• Case Date: April 15, 1994
• Court: Ohio

Ohio Attorney General Opinions 1994. OAG 1994-018. April 15, 1994OPINION NO. 1994-018The Honorable Michael G. SpahrWashington County Prosecuting Attorney 205 Putnam Street Marietta, Ohio 45750Dear Prosecutor Spahr: You have requested an opinion concerning the operation of a pet cemetery within your county. You describe the circumstances in that regard as follows:

Our county has a humane society known as the Humane Society of the Ohio Valley (hereinafter HSOV). Prior to 1984, it operated a facility on land which it owned. It permitted its land to be used as a pet cemetery. In 1984, it leased approximately one and one-half acres from the Washington County Commissioners on which to build a new facility. No mention was made in the lease of using the land as a pet cemetery. However, in late 1985, the County Commissioners apparently gave HSOV verbal permission to use a portion of the leased premises as a pet cemetery. Since that time, approximately 132 dogs and cats have been buried there. Neither the County nor HSOV has complied with the provision of Chapter 961 which was effective August 29, 1986.

Your request thus presents the following questions:

1. May a board of county commissioners operate a pet cemetery on county-owned property?

2. Assuming the board of county commissioners would make the declaration of land use restriction required of the owner of land used or to be used as a pet cemetery by R.C. 961.02, may a county humane society operate a pet cemetery?

3. Since the county humane society has constructed a crematorium for disposing of the remains of dogs which have been lawfully destroyed, may the society permit the public to make use of the crematorium as an alternative to burying the pet's remains in a pet cemetery?

I. Authority of County to Control Animals

Your first question concerns the authority of the board of county commissioners to operate a pet cemetery. You have stated that the pet cemetery would operate as a place where members of the public could bring their deceased pets for burial. It is well settled that a board of county commissioners, as a creature of statute, possesses only those powers that are expressly granted by statute or necessarily implied therefrom. State ex rel. Shriver v. Board of Commissioners, 148 Ohio St. 277, 74 N.E.2d 248 (1947). Thus, whether the board of county commissioners may operate a pet cemetery depends upon whether it has been granted that power by the General Assembly.

A. R.C. Chapter 955

The authority of the county commissioners with respect to domestic animals is set forth in R.C. Chapter 955, which establishes a scheme for the registration and control of dogs within each...