CR 95-180 Animal Ordinance
.
October 13, 1995
~
Council Report 95-180
ANIMAL ORDINANCE
Pronosed Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Move that the Hopkins City Council adopt
Ordinance number 95-773 for second reading and order the ordinance published.
Adoption of this motion will complete the process of amending Section 925 of the Hopkins City Code.
Overview
The City Council approved Ordinance number 95-773 for first reading on August 1, 1995. Since that time the
ordinance has been modified as described below. In addition a number of questions have been raised
regarding animal control.
· Would any other cities be interested in providing animal control services to Hopkins?
· Has the fact that other cities practice some sort of cat control, resulted in more calls about cats, fewer
calls about cats or no change?
e · Is there any way in which the City can reduce the possible liability of individuals who capture cats on
their property?
These questions are addressed on page two of this report. Staff does not believe that the information that has
been gathered during the process of answering these questions warrants any additional changes to the
ordinance. Staff, therefore, is recommending that the City Council adopt the animal ordinance as written.
Primary Issues to Consider
· What changes are proposed in the animal control ordinance?
· What changes have been made since the first reading?
SUDDorting Information
· Ordinance number 95-773
· October 11, 1995 memorandum from Wynn Curtiss
· September 15, 1995 memorandum from Wynn Curtiss
./
'.2 / /'/
c< .~~/ LL
{
e Jamk{'~enellie
. ,'City Clerk
I
v
.
Council Report #95-122
Page 2
Analvsis of the Issues:
· Would any other cities be interested in providing animal control services to Hopkins?
The City of Edina has indicated that it may be interested in joint animal control. However, there have
not been any substantive discussions yet. Staff cannot recommend any change in the proposed
ordinance based upon the possibility of sharing selVices with Edina.
· Has the fact that other cities practice some sort of cat control, resulted in more calls about cats, fewer
calls about cats or no change?
Generally there has been no discernible change in the number of calls. One city reported that calls
actually increased since the city began cat control.
· Is there any way in which the City can reduce the possible liability of individuals who capture cats on
their property?
Attached is a memorandum from Wynn Curtiss which says that it is not possible to completely
eliminate liability. Mr. Curtiss does say that a city ordinance controlling cats could possibly reduce
this liability. Such an ordinance, however, would also raise expectations of the city taking actions to
control cats. Given the current resources that are available, staff does not recommend adopting such
an ordinance.
. · What changes are proposed in the animal control ordinance?
The definition of the tenn "under restraint" is clarified as is the term t!running at larget!, The need for
rabies vaccination is expressly stated in the ordinance. Multiple year dog licenses are authorized.
Animal owners are made responsible for cleaning up after their animals, Vicious and dangerous
animals are separated from animals that are a nuisance, The definition of what constitutes a nuisance
animal is expanded. The term "poundmaster" is replaced by "animal control officer" and it is made
clear that this person or persons can be an employee of the city or a person or firm that the city
contracts with.
· What changes have been made since the first reading?
The section dealing with nuisance enforcement has been modified to address the concerns of the police
department and city attorney's office, Section 925.39, Subd. 2 sets out the procedures for making a
complaint regarding a nuisance dog. The ability of the police department to respond to these
complaints will depend on available resources.
Alternatives:
1. Approve Ordinance #95-773 for second reading and order published. This will amend Section 925 of
the Hopkins City Code.
2. Do not approve Ordinance #95-773 for second reading. Council could direct staff to make additional
changes to the ordinance prior to approving it for second reading.
. Recommendation:
Staff recommends Alternative # 1.
e
It
.
CITY OF HOPKINS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ORDINANCE NO. 95-773
.AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 925
OF THE HOPKINS CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Hopkins does hereby ordain:
SECTION
Section
to read
1. That the
925, Dogs, in
as follows:
Hopkins City Code is amended
its entirety and adding a new
by deleting
Section 925
Section 925 - Domestic Animals
925.00 Adoption by reference. Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 346 and 347,
as they pertain to domestic dogs and cats, are adopted by reference and are as
much a part of this code as if fully set forth herein. Any violation of the
statutes herein adopted by reference is a violation of this code.
925.01. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For purposes of this section the
terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. "Pound" means premises designated by the council for the
purpose of caring for animals impounded pursuant to this section.
Subd. 3. "Owner" means a person who owns, keeps or harbors any animal
as defined in 925.01, Subd. 11.
Subd. 4. The term "under restraint" means on a leash of not more than
six (6) feet in length and in the custody of a person of sufficient age to
adequately control the dog; in a vehicle, or on the owner's property.
Subd.5. "Veterinary hospital" means an establishment maintained and
operated by a licensed veterinarian for the diagnosis of and care of animals.
Subd. 6. "Dog at large" or "running at large" means a dog not on the
owner's premises and not under restraint.
Subd. 7.
"Tag" means the license tag required under this section.
Subd. 8. "Bodily Harm" means physical pain or injury, illness or any
impairment of physical condition.
Subd. 9.
a temporary but
substantial loss
or which causes
"Substantial Bodily Harm" means bodily injury which involves
substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but
or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ,
a fracture of any bodily member.
Subd. 10. "Great Bodily Harm" means bodily injury which creates a high
probability of death, or which caused serious permanent disfigurement, or
which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily member or organ, or other serious bodily injury.
Subd. 11. "Animal" means any warm blooded manunal, inclusive
not limited to dogs and cats, as well as any reptiles or birds. For
of this ordinance, when the spe':lfic animal type is not described,
dog, the term animal shall apply to all forms of animals as described
For the purposes of this section "Animal" does not include any of the
defined in Section 940 of the Hopkins City Code.
of, but
purposes
such as
herein.
animals
It
925,03. License required. No person may own, keep, harbor or have custody
of a dog over six months of age without first obtaining a license therefore
from the clerk. A dog with a valid license from some other jurisdiction may
be kept in the city temporarily for a period not exceeding three months.
925.04
current rabies
all times.
Rabies Vaccination. All dogs over six months of age must have
vaccination. Dogs must wear their current vaccination tags at
925.05. Nonresident dog owners. A person who is not a resident of the
city may keep an unlicensed domestic doq in the city for a period of not to
exceed 30 days. The dog must be under restraint.
925.07. License expiration, Dog licenses expire on December 31st of the
year ln which issued except for multiple year dog licenses,
Q25.09. Applications. Subdivision 1, Annual Licenses. Applications for dog
licenses may be made durlnq the 3r1 d~y period prior to the conunencement of the
licensing year and thereafter dt any time during such year, and must be made
lil not later than 30 days tram January 1st of every year, (iil and not later
than 30 days from the date of the acquisition of a dog, and (iii) not later
than 30 days from the date of the moving of a dog into the city. A separdte
application must be made fOL eacll dog, The application shall state, among
other things, the date that th"" dog first arrived in the city, the dog's
color, name and breed, the name and address of the dog t s owner, current
vaccina tion number, and such other information as may from time to time be
required by the clerk.
.
Subd. :2. Two or Three Year Licenses. Owners whose dog or dogs have
recei ved rabies vaC'::lUd tions \'-,hlCh are effective for more than one year may
apply for a two yeAr or three year license, depending on the type of rabies
vaccination. When making appllcatioll for a multi-year license, the owner must
submit all the information required for an annual license as well as
documentation indicating that the dog has received a rabies vaccination which
is effective through December 31 of the year the license explres. These
licenses may only be issued for dogs that have been spayed or neutered.
925.11. Fees. Appli,::ations for dog licenses must be accompanied by the
fee set by Clty council resolution.
Q2"'. 13, Li.::ense conditions. A dog license may be issued upon a showing by
the applicant that the applicant lS prepared to comply with all the rules,
regulations and requirements for the humane care of the owners' dogs and with
the provisions of this section and other applicable state and local laws.
9:::5.15. Tags. The clerk shall issue to the owner of a licensed dog a
metallic or durable plastic tag stamped with an identifyinq number wlth the
year of lssuance and so designed that it may be conveniently fastened to the
dog's colldr or harness, The ta,] must remain fastened and shall be worn by
the dog at all times. The cleLk shall maintain a record of dog licenses.
.
-
e
e
925.17.
shall be
upon the
Tags, lost or mutilated. In the event that a valid license tag
lost or mutilated, the owner must secure a new tag from the clerk
payment of the fee set by city council resolution.
925.19. Tags. If a licensed dog dies and a new dog is secured by the
owner, the unexpired license may be transferred on application of the owner to
the new dog by payment to the clerk of the transfer fee set by city council
resolution. A person purchasing or otherwise acquiring any dog properly
licensed by the city during any year may have such valid license and ownership
of such dog changed to the name of such owner upon the payment of the required
transfer fee accompanied by a proper application therefor.
925.21. Tags, counterfeit and unlawful attaching. It is unlawful to
counterfeit or attempt to counterfeit a dog license tag, or to take from any
dog a tag legally placed upon it by its owner, or to place any unauthorized
tag upon a dog.
925.23.
Tags, refunds.
Dog license fees are not refundable.
925.24. Maximum Number of Dogs and Cats. No person shall keep, harbor or
maintain more than two dogs or four cats over the age of six months within or
upon the property of any individual dwelling unit within the City of Hopkins.
Furthermore the total number of dogs and cats in any individual dwelling unit
shall not exceed four.
925.25.
Duties and responsibilities of owner. A dog owner must:
a) procure a dog license annually for each dog in the owner's
possession or keeping:
b) fasten or attach the proper current dog license to the dog's collar
or harness which shall be worn at all times by the dog;
c) keep owner's dogs under restraint at all times;
d) at all times exercise proper care and control of the owner's dogs to
prevent them from becoming a public nuisance;
e) provide the dogs with sufficient good and wholesome food and water,
proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care when
needed to prevent suffering, and with humane care and treatment;
f)
to the owner's property or any
such a manner that such female dog
other dogs, except for intentional
confine a female dog in heat
veterinary hospi tall clinic, in
cannot come into contact with
breeding purposes; and
g) shall be responsible for cleaning up any feces of the dog and
disposing of such feces in a sanitary manner. The owner of a dog
shall not permit such dog to be on public property or the private
property of another without having in the owner's immediate
possession, a device for the removal of feces.
925.27. Treatment. No person may (i) beat, cruelly ill-treat, torment,
overload, or otherwise abuse a dog, (ii) cause or permit a dog fight or (iiil
abandon a dog.
925.31. Inspection. It is a condition of a dog
of any dog or dogs that humane society officers
police officers, shall be permitted to inspect all
the dogs are kept at any time.
license issued to an owner
and inspectors, includinq
dogs at the premises where
.
925.33. Revocation of dog li~ense. The clerk may revoke a dog license if
the person holding such license falls to comply with this section or
regulations promulgated by tho? health authority or a state or local law
'~overning cruelty to animals or the keeping of animals. A license revocation
is in addition to any penalty against a dog owner arising from a violation of
this section. Any person whose dog license is revoked must, within ten days
after receipt of due notice from the city, humanely dispose of dogs owned,
kept or harbored by such person and no part of the license fee shall be
refunded.
925.35. Animal bites. An animal which bites a person shall be quarantined
for ten days if ordered by the health authority or police department. During
such quarantine, the animal shall be securely confined and kept from contact
with any other animal. The quarantine may be on the premises of the owner it
approved by the city health authority. If the health authority requires other
confinement, the owner shall ~ldce it in a veterinary hospital at the owner's
expense,
925,37. Vicious or Dangerous Animals. Subdivision 1. The Chief of Police
or his or her designee is authorized to order the impoundment and destruction
or other disposition of any animi'll \.-.i'hich is a vicious or dangelous aIlimal ciS
defined in this sUDsection.
Subd. 2. A vicious animal lS an animal which has caused the death of a
person, or has committed qreat bodily harm as defined under 925.01, Subd. 9 or
10.
e
Subd. 3. Any animal which has bitten a person causing bodily harm, as
defined under Section 925.01, Subd, B, may be deemed a dangerous animal. The
Chief of Police or his designee, after having been advised of the existence of
such an animal, shall proceed In the manner prescribed by this subsection.
Subd. 4. Notice. The owner of any vicious or dangerous animal shall
be notlfied in writing as to the dates, times, places, and persons bitten, and
shall be given ten days to request a hearing before the Chief of Police or his
designee for a determination as to whether the animal is a vicious or
dangerous animal as defined in this subsection. If the owner does not request
a hearing within ten days of the date of said notice, the Chief of Police or
his designee may order the animal taken into custody for destruction in which
case the owner shall immediately make the animal available to be taken into
~ustody. The notice required by this subdivision shall be sufficient if sent
by first class United States Mail to the address of the animal's owner as
listed on the animal's license OL, if the animal is unlicensed, to the address
of the owners residence,
Subd, ."), Hearing. It the owner requests a hearing for determination
as to the dangerous nature of the animal, the hearing shall be held before the
Chief of Police or his designee at a date not more than three weeks after
demand for said hearing. After considering all evidence, the Chief ot Police,
or his designee, shall make ~ determination as to whether or not the animal is
a dangerous or vicious dnimal and the Chief of Police or his designee shall
make such order as he deems rroper. If the Chief of Police or his designee
orders the animal taken into custody for destruction the owner shall
immediately make the animal available to be taken into custody.
e
--
Subd. 6 Dangerous or Vicious Animals at Large. A dangerous or
vicious animal running at large shall be apprehended and if the animal bears
no identification which reasonably reveals it ownership, the animal shall be
impounded. If the animal is claimed, the Chief of Police or his designee
shall proceed as provided in Subdivision 4, provided that an impounded animal
shall not be released to its owner pending an order under Subdivision 4 or
Subdivision 5. If the animal is not claimed it shall be disposed of according
to Section 925.45.
Subd. 7 Additional Requirements. The requirements of this
subsection shall be in addition to those contained elsewhere in this section
and in other applicable state and local laws.
925.39 Nuisance Dogs. Subdivision 1. Dogs that are public nuisances. Any
dog which exhibits any of the following behavior is hereby declared to be a
public nuisance.
a) any dog which shall, by any noise, unreasonably disturb the peace
and quiet of any person in the vicinity. The phrase "unreasonably
disturb the peace and quiet" shall include, but is not limited to,
the creation of any noise by any dog which can be heard by any
person, including the Animal Control Officer or a law enforcement
officer, from a location outside of the building or premises where
the dog is being kept and which noise occurs repeatedly over at
least a five minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of
time between each dog noise during the five minute period.
b) running at large;
.
c) any dog which damages plantings or structures or urinates on private
property without the consent of the owner or possessor of the
property;
d) any dog that defecates on public property or on private property
without the consent of the owner or possessor of the property unless
the person in control of the dog cleans up the feces and disposes of
such in a sanitary manner;
f) any dog that worries, chases, molests, or attacks a domestic animal,
or person upon public or private property, and is not vicious or
dangerous as defined under section 925.37.
g) entering or being present upon public or private property without
the permission of the owner or contrary to city ordinance.
Subd. 2. Enforcement. Any person aggrieved by a dog nuisance may direct
a written complaint to the Hopkins Police Department stating the acts
complained of, the name and address of the owner of the dog, and the name and
address of the complainant. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the police
department shall notify the person owning or keeping the dog of the complaint
and request a response to the allegation within forty-eight hours. If, after
completing its investigation, the Police Department determines the dog to be
nuisance, a charge may be made against the owner or keeper of the dog. Any
person found to have violated the provisions of this section shall be guilty
of a petty misdemeanor.
.
~j25. 41, Animal Control affic""r. Subdivision 1. Appointment. The city
appoint such person, persons, or firms as the city may deem necessary
adviSdble as Animdl CantLol OfficeL. Such appointees shall work under
supervision ot the Hopkins police department and shall be responsible for
enforcement of this Section.
may
and
the
the
.
Subd. 2. Duties. Animal Centrol Officers are authorized to enforce
the provisions of this Section and other related ordinances and statutes
pertaining to animal control, including the issuance of citations.
Subd. 3. Unlawful A<:::ts. It shall be unlawful for any unauthorized
person to break into a pound, or attempt to do so, or to take or set free any
animal taken by the Animal Control Officer in the enforcement of this Section,
or in any way interfere with, hinder, or molest, such Officer in the discharge
of his or her duty under this Section.
925.43. Pound.
contracting with an
shall be confined any
officers of the city.
adjacent city.
The manager or his designee shall establish a pound by
animal shelter, pet hospital, or other firm, in which
animals taken up by the Animal Control Officer or other
The pound may be within the city limits or within an
925.45 Impounding. Subdivision 1. In addition to any penalties for the
violation of this section or any regulation thereunder, an unlicensed dog or a
dog at large may be taken by the police, the Animal Control Officer, or the
Humane Society of Hennepin County and impounded in the designated pound and
there confined in a humane mannpr. Imrounded dogs shall be kept for not less
than five days unless reclaimed by thelr owners. If by a license tag or other
means the owner of any impounded d09 can be identified, the Animal Control
Officer, the clerk or deputy shall make a reasonable attempt to notify the
owner by telephone or mail ot the impoundment. Dogs not claimed by their
owners within five days of such notice, if such dog lS wearing a proper dog
license, or within five days after impoundment if the owner of such dog cannot
be identified, shall be humanely Jisposed of by an agency delegated so to do
by the city.
e
Subd. 2. The Hopkins Pollce Department or Animal Control Officer may
impound any animal involved in a violation of this Ordinance, or animals that
constitute a present or potential danger to human beings or other animals, at
the designated pound or other appropriate boarding facility.
925.47. Impoundment, when l18t required. If a dog is found at large and
its owner can be identified and located, the dog need not be impounded, but
may instead be returned and taken to the owner. In such case the officer
returninq the dog may proceed aqainst the owner for violation of this section.
925.49. Reclaiming animals. An owner reclaiming an impounded animal shall
pay to the clerk an impounding fee and a daily boarding fee for each day the
animal has been impounded in the amount set by city council resolution. The
reclamation shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any criminal proceedings
against the owner for the violation or this section. Animals may be reclaimed
durin9 normal city business hours.
925.51. Penalties. Violation of any of the provisions of this section is
a misdemeanor and edcll Jay the violatlon continues is a separate violation. A
dog license issued to a person convicted of a violation of subsection g25.27
is dutomatically revoked on conviction arId a new dog license may not be issued
to that person tor a period of onp year from the date of conviction,
.
-
.
.
SECTION 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be twenty
days after publication.
First Reading: August 1, 1995
Second Reading: October 17, 1995
Date of Ppblication: October 25, 1995
Effective Date of Ordinance: November 15, 1995
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney Signature
Date
.
.
-
c
o F
HOP K
N S
T Y
MEMO
Date: October 11, 1995
To: James Genellie
From: Wynn Curtiss
Re: Civil Liability For Disposal Of Stray Cats
This memo deals with the question of whether the City of Hopkins
can, by ordinance or other action, limit or restrict the liability
of private citizens who capture and dispose of stray cats which
wander on their property. Reference should be made to my September
15, 1995, memo which dealt with related issues.
AS stated previously, a private citizen may capture a stray cat
which wanders on his property. The obligation of a private citizen
who captures a stray cat - and the potential liability - probably
depends on whether the private citizen knows who owns the stray
cat. If the private citizen knows who owns the stray cat and takes
no action to provide notice to the owner and the cat is
subsequently disposed of, either by being destroyed or placed with
another party, the eat's owner arguably has a civil claim for the
value of the stray cat. If the private citizen has no knowledge of
the ownership of the stray cat, the citizen may dispose of the cat
without incurring liability to the cat's owner.
The City could by ordinance require a private citizen to provide
notice in those situations in which ownership is unknown. For
example, the City could require private citizens who capture stray
cats to provide notice of the capture to the City Clerk or the
Police Department. Failure to provide such notice could then be
deemed a violation of the private citizen's duty to the cat's owner
and could be the basis for the owner to seek compensation.
c:\file\hopkins\jg
1
1010 First Street South HOpkinS, Minnesota 55343
Phone: 612-935-8474 Fa~,: 612-935-1834
An Equal OppOI1U~lty ErnployRr
Conversely, the City could take action to relieve private citizens
from liability. However, to do so probably would require passage ~
of an ordinance making it illegal for cats to freely wander through
the City or requiring cats to be licensed. A private citizen
capturing a cat which is in violation of such an ordinance could
then be authorized by the ordinance to dispose of the cat without
providing notice to the owner.
Despite the existence of such an ordinance, however, I do not
believe it would be an absolute ban to a civil claim for
compensation. For example, if the private citizen actually knew
who owned the stray cat, and despite such ownership disposed of the
cat in reliance upon the ordinance, I foresee a civil claim
notwithstanding the ordinance's waiver of notice. Thus, the hoped
for protection from liability is unlikely to deter an unhappy cat
owner from bringing suit.
The City's ability and authority to limit liability for private
citizens who capture and dispose of stray cats probably is limited
unless the City decides to require licensure of cats or prohibits
cats from wandering freely. Absent such provisions, the City has
no apparent authority to waive the common law notice requirements
which obligate a private citizen to provide notice to the owner of ~
a stray cat that the private citizen has in fact taken possession
of that cat.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact
me.
WC
cc: Jerre Miller
"
e
c:\file\hopkins\jg
2
.
c
T Y
o F
HOP K
N S
MEMO
Date: September 15, 1995
To: James Genellie
From: Wynn Curtiss
Re: Capture And Disposal Of Stray Cats
.
This memo deals with the following issues: 1) Under what
circumstances, if any, can private homeowners trap stray cats on
their own property; 2) What obligations, if any, does a private
homeowner have with regard to disposal of stray cats captured on
their property; 3) What obligation does the City have, if any, to
capture stray cats; 4) What obligation does the City have, if any,
to accept responsibility for stray cats captured by private
citizens, and; 5) What obligations or liabilities does the City
have with regard to the capture of stray cats.
1) Under what circumstances. if any, can private homeowners trap
stray cats on their own property?
No State law prohibits private citizens from capturing domestic
cats which wander on to private property. A private citizen may
capture a cat which wanders on to the citizen's private property.
No specific State statute or regulation sets forth the permissible
methods for capturing stray cats. However, the Department Of
Natural Resources' Regulations restrict the use of certain types of
leg traps and wire snare traps. Other than those restrictions,
however, private citizens are permitted to use both live traps and
other types of traps to capture unregulated animals (i.e. non-small
game, such as mink) which wander on to their property.
The City, therefore, does not need to take any action to allow
private citizens to trap stray cats on their property. However,
the City may wish to pass an ordinance regarding the use of traps
~ other than live traps. Specifically, the City may wish to pass an
c:\file\hopkins\jg
1
1010 First Street SOUHl l-il"'pkIIIS. Minn8sota 55343
Phone.612.935-8474 Cd);. 61~!9:]5 1834
An [qual Opportur:,.y EfT1~'!J!,er
ordinance which prohibits any type of leg trap or snare trap and
limit the type of permitted traps to live traps. Such an ordinance ~
could be justified by the City's authority to enact ordinances for
the health and safety of the public, since such types of traps in
an urban setting may catch children that wander on to citizents
property.
2) What obligation does a citizen have with reQard to disDosal of
stray cats caDtured on their DroDerty?
Currently, Minnesota has an archaic statute regarding the
obligations of a private citizen who captures stray animals on
their property. The Minnesota Statutes are remnants of statutes
from the 1800s. Al though these statutes exist, it would be
virtually impossible for a private citizen to meet the requirements
of the statutes. Therefore, although these statutes exist, I do
not believe they are applicable to the situation of urban
homeowners capturing stray cats.
When a private citizen captures a stray cat, the citizen's
obligation probably depends on whether the citizen knows the owner
of the animal. If the citizen knows who the owner is, the law
probably would require the citizen to notify the owner that he .
possesses the stray cat. If the citizen, however, does not know
who the animal's owner is, there likely would be no notice
requirement. If the private citizen notifies the owner, and the
owner reclaims the animal, the private citizen would be required to
relinquish possession of the animal, but could request that the
animal's owner reimburse the citizen for any costs incurred while
in possession of the animal. Should the parties have a dispute
regarding return of the animal or the costs incurred, those matters
would be appropriate for civil Conciliation Court.
Should the private citizen not know who the animal's owner is, the
most likely action would be to turn the animal over to the Hennepin
County Humane Society. The Humane Society is obliged to accept all
stray animals brought to it. The Humane Society would hold the
animal for the period of time required by its regulations. If the
animal is unclaimed in that period of time, the animal would either
be destroyed or offered for adoption, depending of the animal's
condition. A private citizen who turns a stray animal over to the
Humane Society incurs no costs in doing so.
.
c:\file\hopkins\jg
2
.
Should a private citizen capture a stray animal and, despite
knowing the owner, turns it over to the Humane Society or somehow
otherwise disposes of it, the private citizen faces the possibility
of a civil action by the animal r s owner. If the animal is
destroyed or placed with another party, and it can be established
that the private citizen knew the animal's actual owner, that owner
might sue in civil Conciliation Court for the lost value of the
animal.
3. What obliQation does the City have to ca~ture stray cats?
No statute or regulation imposes an obligation on the City to
capture stray cats. Currently, the City has no cat licensing
ordinance or cat leash law to enforce. Presumably, if the City
passed such an ordinance, concurrent with it would go the
obligation to enforce the ordinance, and thus the obligation to
capture the cats. While enforcement of an ordinance is at the
discretion of the enforcement authority, the existence of such an
ordinance is likely to create a public reception that the ordinance
would be enforced. Unless and until the City imposes such an
obligation on itself, however, the City is under no obligation to
actively capture stray cats.
.
4. What oblication does the City have to acce~t cats animals from
~rivate citizens?
Again, no statute imposes an obligation on the City to accept stray
cats which have been captured by private citizens. This rule does
not apply to dogs. A specific statute imposes a requirement on the
City to accept stray dogs captured by private citizens. Unless and
until the City chooses to impose the obligation to accept captured
stray cats from private citizens, it would have no such legal
obligation.
5. What oblications miQht the City have with reQard to the
ca~ture and dis~osal of stray cats?
.
Absent an obligation to capture stray cats or accept captured stray
cats from private citizens, the City is unlikely to have any
liabilities with regard to the capture and disposal of stray cats
by private citizens. Unless and until the City imposes upon itself
some obligation to capture stray cats or accept captured stray cats
from private citizens, no such obligation will exist and thus, the
City is unlikely to have any potential liability.
c:\file\hopkins\jg
3
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact .
me.
we
cc: Jerre Miller
.
.
c:\file\hopkins\jg
4