Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf
Here is a short quote from the OCDWA, note the reference to health and safety of the public.
OCDWA Objective
The OCDWA objective is to promote effective, efficient, and humane dog control programs for the health and safety of the public and their companion animals. Improve, promote, and obtain education, training, benefits, equipment, and adequate facilities for Dog Wardens and staff.
It is important to note that I have the highest respect for the OCDWA, the members of that organization, and their objectives but I do not respect the efforts of those who use the organization to further personal agendas.
A short historical note, in 2011 Mr. Kumpf, OCDWA treasurer and member of the executive board, and then OCDWA president Matt Granito fully supported and campaigned for HB 14, a bill written by an out of state animal rights, and breed specific PAC with a sanctuary in Utah. Kumpf and Granito never produced meeting minutes that indicated that the rank and file of the organization supported their position on the bill despite being asked to do so. Members of the organization complained that they had never been given the opportunity to discuss or vote on it. The bill is a nightmare. Here is a link to the Ohio Revised Code procedure set out in HB14 for legal action regarding dangerous dogs. This procedure is a labor intensive nightmare, it protects violent dogs and their owners precisely because it is so difficult to use, it is rarely used.
Having said all that, lets fast forward to recent statements made by Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf on the horrific mauling death of Klonda Richey. “This is a tragic accident and there is nothing foreseeable or doable to prevent a situation like this from happening,” “It doesn’t matter how many times you call, unless we see a violation, we can’t change the law and just write a ticket because somebody doesn’t like this particular dog or that particular neighbor. We have to see a criminal violation.” “Whether we respond to one complaint or 13 complaints or any other number of complaints, unless we find a violation when we arrive that has enforceable component to it, it’s simply a call.”
Per WDTN News " Numerous warnings were left for the dog owners at 35 East Bruce Avenue, but no action was taken. Kumpf says a warning is simply a notice that an officer responded to a complaint. There’s really no follow-up after that unless the owner calls the Animal Resource Center to find out more."
This statement was found on the Montgomery County Animal Resource Center Facebook page
"February 10, 2014 Statement from Animal Resource Center Director Mark Kumpf:
I first want to extend our condolences to the Richey family. Klonda was a member of the Montgomery County family at Children Services for 25 years.
There have been many questions about what happened at 31 Bruce Avenue in Dayton last Friday, February 7, 2014. We cannot comment about the active police investigation, but we can provide background on calls and reports we received concerning dogs at 35 Bruce Avenue.
The Montgomery County Animal Resource Center has received 13 calls concerning 35 Bruce Avenue, ranging from condition checks on dogs to dogs running loose and dogs barking, beginning in December of 2011 and with the final call coming in September of 2013. Animal Care and Control Officers responded to each and every call. In all but two cases, we found no one at home or no one answered the door. In addition, all but one call made to our agency were anonymous.
Under Ohio laws, for a “dog at large,” the officer must witness the dog off the property and not under the owner’s immediate control. It cannot be issued as a citation based on a third party witnessing the event. In each of these calls, our officers did not witness the dogs off the property or not in the control of their owner.
We educate when possible and issue citations when we witness the violation. If no officer witnesses the conduct, the number of complaints does not allow for a citation or other action. When we received a complaint and find no violation, that closes the complaint.
Many have asked why these dogs were not designated as “dangerous dogs.” Here is the criteria for a “dangerous dog:”
- Dangerous dog means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to division of the Ohio Revised Code, has done one of the following:
o Caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any
person;
o Killed another dog;
o Been subject or a third or subsequent violation of division of
section 955.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.
We have no record of either of these dogs biting a person or killing another dog, nor have any citations been issued for a nuisance animal or running at large violation."
Here is a link to Ohio Revised Code regarding the duties of Dog Wardens. I have pulled out a few important passages. I find no reference to any requirement that an officer must actually see a violation in progress in order to act.
955.23 Prohibition against failure of duty by dog warden.
No county dog warden shall willfully fail to perform his duties under section 955.12 of the Revised Code or other duties required of dog wardens.
Per Ohio Revised Code NO COUNTY DOG WARDEN SHALL WILLFULLY FAIL TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES
955.12 Dog wardens.
Except as provided in section 955.121 of Revised Code, a board of county commissioners shall appoint or employ a county dog warden and deputies in such number, for such periods of time, and at such compensation as the board considers necessary to enforce sections 955.01 to 955.27, 955.29 to 955.38, and 955.50 to 955.53 of the Revised Code.
The warden and deputies shall give bond in a sum not less than five hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars, as set by the board, conditioned for the faithful performance of their duties. The bond or bonds may, in the discretion of the board, be individual or blanket bonds. The bonds shall be filed with the county auditor of their respective counties.
Per Ohio Revised Code THE WARDEN AND DEPUTIES SHALL GIVE BOND IN A SUM NOT LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS, AS SET BY THE BOARD, CONDITIONED FOR THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES.
Here is more from the same section.
"If a dog warden has reason to believe that a dog is being treated inhumanely on the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer, the warden shall apply to the court of common pleas for the county in which the premises are located for an order to enter the premises, and if necessary, seize the dog. If the court finds probable cause to believe that the dog is being treated inhumanely, it shall issue such an order.
The warden and deputies shall also investigate all claims for damages to animals reported to them under section 955.29 of the Revised Code and assist claimants to fill out the claim form therefor. They shall make weekly reports, in writing, to the board in their respective counties of all dogs seized, impounded, redeemed, and destroyed and of all claims for damage to animals inflicted by dogs.
The wardens and deputies shall have the same police powers as are conferred upon sheriffs and police officers in the performance of their duties as prescribed by sections 955.01 to 955.27, 955.29 to 955.38, and 955.50 to 955.53 of the Revised Code. They shall also have power to summon the assistance of bystanders in performing their duties and may serve writs and other legal processes issued by any court in their respective counties with reference to enforcing those sections. County auditors may deputize the wardens or deputies to issue dog licenses as provided in sections 955.01 and 955.14 of the Revised Code.
Whenever any person files an affidavit in a court of competent jurisdiction that there is a dog running at large that is not kept constantly confined either in a dog kennel registered under this chapter or one licensed under Chapter 956. of the Revised Code or on the premises of an institution or organization of the type described in section 955.16 of the Revised Code or that a dog is kept or harbored in the warden's jurisdiction without being registered as required by law, the court shall immediately order the warden to seize and impound the dog. Thereupon the warden shall immediately seize and impound the dog complained of. The warden shall give immediate notice by certified mail to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog seized and impounded by the warden, if the owner, keeper, or harborer can be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, that the dog has been impounded and that, unless the dog is redeemed within fourteen days of the date of the notice, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law. If the owner, keeper, or harborer cannot be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, the officer shall post a notice in the pound or animal shelter both describing the dog and place where seized and advising the unknown owner that, unless the dog is redeemed within three days, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law."
Per Ohio Revised Code THE WARDENS AND DEPUTIES SHALL HAVE THE SAME POLICE POWERS AS ARE CONFERRED UPON SHERIFFS AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTIONS 955.01 and 955.27.
This part is important and this section deals with both low volume kennels and with companion dogs., per Ohio Revised Code WHENEVER ANY PERSON FILES AN AFFIDAVIT IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION THAT THERE IS A DOG RUNNING AT LARGE THAT IS NOT KEPT CONSTANTLY CONFINED EITHER IN A DOG KENNEL REGISTERED UNDER THIS CHAPTER OR ONE LICENSED UNDER CHAPTER 956.16 OF THE REVISED CODE OR THAT A DOG IS KEPT OR HARBORED IN THE WARDEN'S JURISDICTION WITHOUT BEING REGISTERED AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL IMMEDIATELY ORDER THE WARDEN TO SEIZE AND IMPOUND THE DOG. THE WARDEN SHALL GIVE IMMEDIATE NOTICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER, KEEPER, OR HARBORER OF HE DOG SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED BY THE WARDEN.
Additional material is found in Ohio Revised Code 959.132. Feel free to read the whole thing but here is a section I feel is important.
(4) "Officer" means any law enforcement officer, agent of a county humane society, or other person appointed to act as an animal control officer for a municipal corporation or township in accordance with state law, an ordinance, or a resolution.
(B) An officer may seize and cause to be impounded at an impounding agency a companion animal that the officer has probable cause to believe is the subject of an offense. No officer or impounding agency shall impound a companion animal that is the subject of an offense in a shelter owned, operated, or controlled by a board of county commissioners pursuant to Chapter 955. of the Revised Code unless the board, by resolution, authorizes the impoundment of such a companion animal in a shelter owned, operated, or controlled by that board and has executed, in the case when the officer is other than a dog warden or assistant dog warden, a contract specifying the terms and conditions of the impoundment.
(C) The officer shall give written notice of the seizure and impoundment to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the companion animal that was seized and impounded. If the officer is unable to give the notice to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the companion animal, the officer shall post the notice on the door of the residence or in another conspicuous place on the premises at which the companion animal was seized. The notice shall include a statement that a hearing will be held not later than ten days after the notice is provided or at the next available court date to determine whether the officer had probable cause to seize the companion animal and, if applicable, to determine the amount of a bond or cash deposit that is needed to provide for the companion animal's care and keeping for not less than thirty days beginning on the date on which the companion animal was impounded.
AN OFFICER MAY SEIZE AND CAUSE TO BE IMPOUNDED AT AN IMPOUNDING AGENCY A COMPANION ANIMAL THAT THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE IS THE SUBJECT OF AN OFFENSE.....
THE OFFICER SHALL GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SEIZURE AND IMPOUNDMENT TO THE OWNER, KEEPER, OR HARBORER OF THE COMPANION ANIMAL THE OFFICER SHAL POST THE NOTICE ON THE DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE OR IN ANOTHER CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE PREMISES AT WHICH THE COMPANION ANIMAL WAS SEIZED. THE NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT A HEARING WILL BE HELD NOT LATER THAN TEN DAYS AFTER THE NOTICE IS PROVIDED OR AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE COURT DATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OFFICER HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEIZE THE COMPANION ANIMAL ....
This is important PUBLIC JUSTICE AND THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY REQUIRE THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE EXAMINED, THERE IS SAID TO BE A PROBABLE CAUSE ...
REPORTS BY WITNESSES, VICTIMS, OR INFORMANTS Klonda Richey reported repeatedly as both a witness and the victim.
What is found in the ORC gives several options for action in cases like Mrs. Richey's. She might have been informed that filing an affidavit in court would bring action. She would not even have to make a special trip, she could have filed the affidavit while she was already in court asking for a civil protection order against her neighbor Andrew Nason. For video of that legal event please click here to see and hear Klonda Richey asking for help from the courts.
What is found in the ORC gives several options for action in cases like Mrs. Richey's. She might have been informed that filing an affidavit in court would bring action. She would not even have to make a special trip, she could have filed the affidavit while she was already in court asking for a civil protection order against her neighbor Andrew Nason. For video of that legal event please click here to see and hear Klonda Richey asking for help from the courts.
Mr. Kumpf dismissively stated that the law does not give him the right to impound dogs just because "someone does't like this particular dog" This is a great deal more than personal dislike, it is about public safety. Simply putting a post-it note on a felon's door and walking away does not constitute doing your job. A strong case can be made for probable cause and Ohio Revised Code gave Montgomery County Animal Control the right and responsibility to act.
I will end this post with a flash back to Dayton Ohio in September of 2013. Neighbors, and the United States Postal Service made complaints for a YEAR before any action was taken. WDTN's l;ink no longer works but this one does and it deals with the same situation.
I will end this post with a flash back to Dayton Ohio in September of 2013. Neighbors, and the United States Postal Service made complaints for a YEAR before any action was taken. WDTN's l;ink no longer works but this one does and it deals with the same situation.
9/27/2013
Dayton Ohio
Thirteen living Great Danes, Labradors, rabbits, and per the video a live chicken were removed from a Dayton home, multiple dead dogs were also found and removed by Dayton Police and Animal Resource Center staff.
Neighbors and United States Postal Service workers have been complaining about this situation for a YEAR. Per the neighbors the dogs had broken out all the windows, they CLIMBED OUT ON THE ROOF AND BARKED AT PASSERSBY, the smell of death has been hanging over this neighborhood in a cloud and this has been going on for a YEAR!
Kumpf managed to look embarrassed on camera while being interviewed on this situation. "There is quite a number of live dogs here this afternoon," said Kumpf. "That is what we are here for. We may have been too late for some of these but we won't be too late for the others. Get them the help and they attention that they need."
Mark Kumpf with surviving puppies.
Per WDTN Neighbors said they are now thankful something has been done.
They just hoped it was sooner.
"It didn't have to come to that," said Smith. "Because we've been calling and the postal service has been calling, all of the neighbors. You can smell it. The whole street just smells."
Charges are still pending as investigators compile their report to present to the prosecutor.
City inspectors condemned the property.
What has Kumpf been doing for the last year? Receiving complaints from neighbors and the USPS regarding dogs parading across the roof of an apparently abandoned home and barking at members of the community for a year? The response to the multiple and very valid complaints from this community is simply too little and too late. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Too little and too late again from the Montgomery County Dog Warden. Kumpf had a job to do and he did not do it. Next time we will take a look at Klonda Richey's actual complaints. We will also take a look at the criminal history of her neighbor Andrew Nason.
The bond posted to insure performance of Kumpf's job should be forfeit. Mr. Kumpf is a liability to the County and a public relations disaster for the Dog Wardens Association. Mr. Kumpf's statements have brought comments that question "if dog wardens can't do anything then why do we even have them?"
