New rules for ‘dangerous’ pets

by Dennis Geisinger

Proposed changes to the Minneapolis city code will make it more difficult for residents to harbor pets that the law defines as dangerous to the public.
In April of this year a dangerous animals ordinance work group was convened by city regulatory services in response to the near fatal dog attack on Minneapolis resident, Paula Ybarra. She was hospitalized in critical condition for several weeks in March after being bitten by her neighbor’s dogs, an American bulldog and a pit bull. Ybarra’s throat and vocal cords were torn during the attack.
After reviewing other cities’ efforts and identifying where Minneapolis ordinances could be strengthened, the work group which included members of the City Council Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee as well as its chair, Don Samuels (DFL-Ward 5) City Animal Care and Control staff and members of the community made recommendations.

Amendments proposed at a City Hall meeting on Nov. 14 include expanded pet licensing requirements and increased fines and restrictions on future pet ownership for people who have owned a pet that has been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous or are convicted felons.

“We were trying to address those who don’t comply with the law,” “said Dan Niziolek, manager of City Animal Care and Control. “It’s one the biggest changes being proposed,” Niziolek said.

“That’s what we’re trying to get at,” said Samuels. “The whole issue of compliance.”

According to Niziolek, many people are leaving pets confiscated by the City in the care of the City because they don’t want to deal with the more restrictive rules for keeping a dangerous animal or because of the punitive fees imposed. Consequently, City Animal Control has been forced to destroy 53 dogs this year compared with only one in 2006. One hundred and fifty dogs have been declared by the City as potentially dangerous and 21 as dangerous this year.
New language has also been recommended to allow City Animal Control staff to consider five key factors in determining if an animal is dangerous or potentially dangerous: a pet that unprovoked (1) requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily harm; (2) bites a person on public or private property, causing an injury; (3) inflicts injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner or custodian of the attacking animal; (4) engages in any behavior that constitutes a physical threat of bodily harm to a person or domestic animal; or (5) has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.

The proposed changes broaden the definition of dangerous and potentially dangerous pets described in the current city statute, an ordinance that relies on less stringent state law.

“There is a big fear factor about dangerous pets in the community,” said Samuels. “Certainly, the dog bites that have occurred happened in spite of our best efforts,” Samuels said.

The City’s best efforts in pet control are now set to include new licensing requirements for dogs or cats over 4 months of age, refusal of leash park permits for animals declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, making it a misdemeanor crime to harbor, hide or conceal a dog found to be potentially dangerous or dangerous and outlawing the possession of products or treatments that enhance a dogs ability to inflict harm.

Administrative fines for licensing pets declared as dangerous or potentially dangerous will be increased from $25 to $200 and the amount of liability insurance required to be kept by the owner of such animals will be increased from $50,000 to $300,000.

According to Niziolek, the City’s Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee will vote on proposed changes to the city animal ordinances on Dec. 12. If approved, the amendments will be put before the full City Council for a vote before the end of the year..