1999-05-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• validity of such an ordinance is questionable. Second, a study conducted in San Mateo after the enactment of the ordinance indicates that the ordinance has not had the desired result." In fact, there was an initial increase in the number of unwanted pets and a corresponding decrease in the number of pets adopted. Thus, the ordinance had the effect of actually increasing the number of animals subjected to euthanasia." Should a city want to enact a breeding moratorium ordinance, it has been suggested that the most effective solution would be to direct mandatory spaying and neutering to humane organizations and shelters which facilitate the adoption of pets. Requiring these organizations to insist upon spaying or neutering prior to adoption, would substantially eliminate pet over- population and strays. D. Dangerous dogs As stated earlier, Minnesota state law prohibits ordinances that prohibit the ownership of a specific breed of dog; for example, an ordinance that prohibits the ownership of a pit bull. Rather, a municipality may declare a particular dog as a dangerous dog based on certain identifiable characteristics that make that particular dog dangerous. Whether a dog's particular behavior falls within the applicable classification requires that the municipality show that an individual dog is dangerous under the criteria set out in the statute. Specifically, the city must show: the dog has 1) without provocation inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being or another domestic animal; or 2) been found potentially dangerous (inflicts bites without provocation, chases without provocation, or has a known propensity to attack unprovoked) and the dog subsequently endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. Once a dog has been declared to be a dangerous dog, the owner must register the dog with the county and meet other statutory requirements. Although it appears under the statute that the county should take over control of dangerous dogs, a municipality should consider providing for the control of a dangerous dog under its animal control ordinance. The county may not have an animal control officer or the municipality may find that it can better control such animals under its own ordinances. Furthermore, the state legislature recently passed an act transferring the responsibility of registering dangerous dogs from Dakota County to the municipalities located in that county. Anoka County just introduced a bill hoping for a similar result. Thus, there may be a trend in this area to shift responsibility to the municipalities. As for potentially dangerous dogs, Minnesota statutes do not impose any limitations on dogs that fall into this category. A municipality, however, may establish limitations and restrictions for owners of dogs deemed to be potentially dangerous under the statute. It has been suggested that a municipality must provide the dog's owner with the opportunity to reclassify a dog designated as dangerous to non - dangerous after a demonstration of reform." However, there is no statutory or case law requiring a municipality to reclassify the dog. G.' l'CLCll . 17 %.4 9911CICLIII OTZBOCAUMLILII CD II' PO 62 CWYn„u lurye.f M! . cU Cuu 019N