Well, imagine paying to board more than 60 dogs for months on end.

That’s the situation Pierce County taxpayers find themselves in as a criminal case against a Graham dog breeder winds its way through the court system.

The public shelled out $94,880 last year to impound Bernadette Vohs’ dozens of dogs pending the outcome of her case. The bill continues to climb at the rate of $10 per dog per day and easily will eclipse $100,000 before all is said and done, county officials said.

The county can seek restitution from Vohs if she loses her case and the dogs, but “the defendant has shown no ability to pay these costs,” deputy prosecutor Tom Moore wrote in a memorandum filed in Superior Court.

Which means taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill.

“It’s a nightmare,” said Lisa Drury, the county’s animal service’s manager, whose budget for 2007 totaled $1.1 million.

The case has so stung the county that animal control officials want to change laws to make it easier to hold pet owners accountable for the costs of impounding their animals, especially if they fight forfeiting their pets.

“It’s not right that the public is paying to care for these animals,” Drury said this week. “If these owners are going to fight to get their dogs back, they should be responsible for their upkeep.”

She said she hopes to forward a draft ordinance to the County Council by the end of the month.

Efforts to reach Vohs for comment were unsuccessful. Her attorney, Charles Johnston of Tacoma, said his client has tried to reclaim her dogs but has been rebuffed by county prosecutors.

“We asked for them back a couple of times, and they wouldn’t give them to us,” Johnston said Wednesday. “They’ve been sitting there running up a big bill for the county.”

Johnston declined to discuss the criminal case against his client, saying plea negotiations are ongoing.

The case against Vohs, 44, began in June 2006 when county sheriff’s deputies received a complaint from a California woman claiming Vohs had defrauded her.

The woman told deputies she made arrangements to buy a Great Dane from Vohs for $400, according to court records. When she arrived at Vohs’ Graham home to pick up the dog, the woman discovered the Great Dane was much older than Vohs had claimed and seemed to be suffering from hip problems, the records state.

When the woman complained, Vohs kicked her off her property, according to an affidavit of probable cause.

A sheriff’s deputy was dispatched to Vohs’ home June 21 to investigate the fraud complaint. He contacted county animal control officers when he discovered a number of dogs on the property, and those officers launched an investigation.

They found 38 dogs on the property, ranging from a 2-pound Yorkshire terrier to a 133-pound Great Dane. Some of the animals were living in shabby conditions and in need of veterinary care, according to court documents.

The animal control officers immediately seized 15 dogs – mostly small breeds – that were living in what appeared to be an unlighted basement amid their own urine and feces, the court documents state.

Six days later, they returned and seized the rest of the dogs, some of which were pregnant and subsequently gave birth to puppies. At one point the county was responsible for more than 60 dogs, according to court documents.

“I can’t even keep count anymore,” Moore said.

All the dogs were impounded at the Humane Society for Tacoma & Pierce County, which is under contract to house dogs seized by the county. Terms of the county’s $540,000 annual contract with the Humane Society call for the agency to hold seized dogs for 15 days before beginning the $10-per-day tally.

Prosecutors eventually charged Vohs with 13 crimes: nine counts of second-degree theft and one count each of first-degree theft, engaging in business without a valid license, second-degree animal cruelty and operating a kennel without a license.

Vohs pleaded not guilty and is to go to trial Wednesday.

In September, deputy prosecutor Moore also filed a motion in Superior Court saying the county intended to permanently seize her animals.

“The defendant has 45 days to request in writing a hearing regarding the forfeiture,” Moore wrote.

Vohs filed her own motion the same day, requesting the return of at least some of the dogs. She argued that the county had inspected her facility annually and found no problems. Her county-issued kennel license expired in February 2007, county records indicate.

“I am stating unequivocally that I always provided my animals with the necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space and medical attention,” she wrote in a sworn affidavit. “I am asking the court to return all my animals that are not the subject of a criminal count and not evidence in my prosecution.”

Johnston filed a sworn affidavit by Denise McVicker, deputy director of the Humane Society, to bolster his client’s argument that giving back the dogs would be an acceptable solution.

McVicker wrote in her affidavit that the Humane Society is a “short-term holding facility” with limited space. The seizure of Vohs’ dogs “created a bind on available space for conducting our normal business,” she wrote.

“For a time we had to limit shelter admissions,” McVicker said.

She also pointed out the rising costs to the county of continuing to impound the dogs, and said she questioned animal control officers about whether the dogs should have been seized at all.

The Humane Society eventually placed the vast majority of the dogs – which McVicker described as generally healthy – into foster homes. But it still has several dogs at its Tacoma shelter – including a Great Dane named Ace and a Saint Bernard named Roca – and continues to bill the county for all the dogs’ upkeep.

McVicker said this week that her agency is billing the county for the upkeep of 51 of Vohs’ dogs.

As many as 15 dogs and puppies have died since the case began, according to court records.

Moore argued against turning any of the dogs back to Vohs, saying in court documents that Vohs hadn’t properly cared for some of the dogs and that she “clearly wants the dogs returned so she can continue to sell them.”

“The defendant, however, is not in a position to possess the dogs,” Moore said in a Sept. 21 memo to Judge Beverly Grant, who is presiding over the case. “She has no kennel license. The defendant’s business license has been revoked, so she cannot legally sell the dogs. To return the dogs would be inviting the defendant to commit further crimes.”

In late December, Grant ordered Vohs to post a $15,000 bond for the care and upkeep of the first 15 dogs seized in the case. Those dogs are subjects of the animal cruelty charge, and current law allows the state to request a bond for animals seized under that statute.

Drury said she wished someone from her office had asked for that bond earlier in the process.

Vohs failed to post the bond by the Dec. 27 deadline, and last week Grant ordered her to permanently forfeit those 15 dogs to the state.

But the judge also ordered those dogs and the remaining animals to remain under the county’s care until Jan. 25, so Johnston and Moore can research whether there’s any mechanism by which the dogs can be sold to help offset the costs incurred by the county.

Johnston said he thinks a sale is possible. He said the county has the authority to sell other things it seizes during criminal cases – such as cars, boats and houses – so why not dogs?

“Most of these dogs are purebred Great Danes. Some of them are worth $500,” Johnston said. “Why don’t you have some kind of sale and recoup?”

Moore said earlier this week that he’s not hopeful.

“I don’t know how we’d do that,” he said.

Drury also said she’s not sure what will happen to the other 50 or so dogs that Vohs hasn’t been ordered to forfeit. Grant could decide at the end of the case to return the dogs to Vohs or order them adopted.

“That’s totally up to the court decision,” Drury said. “We just have to sit here and wait and pay the bill.”

Adam Lynn: 253-597-8644

blogs.thenewstribune.com/crime

Yes, that adds up to $510 a day

The Humane Society for Tacoma & Pierce County is billing Pierce County $10 per day per dog for the care and upkeep of these 51 animals in the case of State vs. Bernadette Vohs.