CR 91-096 Non-Domesticated Animal Ordiance
.
, 1 y 0
~!I.~
.' ..<l
K",-.. ~
.y '"
o P K \ ~
.
April 29, 1991
Council Rpt 91-96
NON-DOMESTICATED ANIMAL ORDINANCE
Proposed Action
staff recommends that the Council approve the following motions:
that the Hopkins city council approve Ordinance #91-679 for
reading.
Move
first
This action will begin the process of establishing section 940 in the
Hopkins city Code which will prohibit the keeping of non-domesticated
animals as pets within the city including wild animals which are
currently kept as pets in the city.
overview
e
currently the City of Hopkins has no ordinance controlling the kind of
animals which may be kept as pets. This can result is a situation
where individuals may have for pets potentially dangerous animals,
such as lions and bears, or animals which may cause a nuisance, such
as pigs or chickens.
There is currently a cougar in the city. The existence of this animal
has caused several people to contact the city in order to express
their concern and inquire as to whether this was legal.
Staff is recommending approval of Ord. #91-679.
ordinance is necessary to prevent dangerous or
associated with keeping wild animals as pets.
staff believes this
nuisance problems
Primary Issues to Consider
o Does the state of Minnesota control the keeping of such
animals?
o Are wild animals dangerous when kept as pets?
o Do other cities have ordinances which regulate non-
domesticated animals?
o Is such an ordinance necessary in Hopkins?
o Should the ordinance, if adopted, be retroactive?
o How will the ordinance be enforced?
supporting Information
.
o
o
o
Analysis of Issues
Alternatives
Ordinance #91-679
.' /-//
-~/_ ;/: t'
/:/
{ / . -- ~ "---- - '- ~
:=6tiles A. Genellie/
./ ,
~/ lty Clerk
e
e
.
,
council Report #91-96
Page 2
Analvsis of Issues:
o Does the state of Minnesota control the keeping of such animals?
The state of Minnesota does not require any sort of permit or license
to keep most of the animals which are covered by this ordinance. A
cougar, for example, can be kept as a pet without any state permit as
long as it was purchased from a game farm and not taken in the wild.
o Are wild animals dangerous when kept as pets?
I spoke with several individuals who work with the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). It was their opinion that it was not
possible to state whether a particular animal was dangerous. It
depended on how the animal was raised and how it was kept. They did
point out, however, that there was no way these animals could ever be
considered domesticated in the way that dogs and cats are. These are
wild animals.
Several legislators have attempted to
controlling the keeping of such animals.
prompted by such incidents as the following:
pass state legislation
This legislation was
o One individual had his bear escape from the garage in which
it was being kept. Upon recapture the individual was forced
to build a cage in his back yard to house the bear. He then
also moved his African lion out his garage.
o There are three recorded attacks on children by hybrid
wolves. One of the children died and the others were
seriously injured.
o A young boy was clawed when he visited his neighbor's
apartment where a cougar was being kept.
o Is such an ordinance necessary ln Hopkins?
The city has not experienced any problems with anyone keeping, as
pets, any of the animals named in the ordinance. However, the size
and density of Hopkins makes it difficult to keep such animals without
affecting other residents.
o Do other cities have such ordinances?
A few of the cities which have similar ordinances include Afton,
Bloomington, Golden Valley, Plymouth, and st. Louis Park. I attempted
to discover the reasons as to why these cities adopted such
ordinances. In several cases no one could remember. Plymouth,
however, adopted its ordinance because one individual was breeding
cougars, timber wolves and other wild animals in a residential area.
.
'.
.
council Report #91-96
Page 3
o Should the ordinance, if adopted, be retroactive?
This question can be argued both ways. The only known animal which
would be affected by this ordinance is the cougar. The animal is
declawed and usually kept in a cage. It does not seem to pose a
danger to other residents.
However, if there is a reason to pass such an ordinance, should it not
apply to any animals currently being kept? If such animals are
declared to be potentially dangerous or nuisances, which this
ordinance does, then this should apply to any non-domesticated animal
currently being kept in the city.
o How will the ordinance be enforced?
If the owner of a non-domesticated animal refuses to remove it from
the city, the proposed ordinance authorizes the city to impound the
animal. Who would impound such an animal will likely have to be dealt
with on a case by case basis. The police department cannot be
expected to deal with bears or alligators. Experts will likely have
to be brought in to deal with the animal.
Alternatives
1) Move that the Hopkins city council approve Ordinance #91-679
for first readinq.
This action will begin the process of amending the city code
to prohibit keeping non-domesticated animals as pets.
2) Move that the Hopkins city council approve Ordinance #91-679
and qrandfather the keepinq of any non-domesticated animals
that are currently in the city.
This action will begin the process of amending the city code
to prohibit keeping non-domesticated animals as pets, but will
not affect any animals currently in the city.
3) Move that the Hopkins city Council not approve Ordinance #91-
679.
.
.
.
.
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 91-679
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE
KEEPING OF NON-DOMESTICATED ANIMALS
WITHIN THE CITY OF HOPKINS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the city of Hopkins as follows:
SECTION 1. That the Hopkins City Code is amended by adding a new
section 940 to read as follows:
Section 940 - Animals
940.01. Definitions. Subdivision 1. Non-Domesticated Animal. A non-
domesticated animal is defined as any wild animal, reptile or fowl, which is not
naturally tame or gentle but is of a wild nature or disposition and which, because of
its size, vicious nature or other characteristics would constitute a danger to human
life or property.
Subd. 2. Farm Animal. A farm animal is defined as an animal which is
normally found on a farm, ranch or stable. Such animals include, but are not limited
to, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, and chickens.
940.02. Prohibited Animals. No person shall keep, maintain or harbor within the
City of Hopkins any of the following animals.
Subd. 1. Any animal or species prohibited by Minnesota or Federal law.
Subd. 2. Any non-domesticated animal or species, including but not limited
to the following:
a) Any skunk, whether captured in the wild, domestically raised, descented
or not descented, vaccinated against rabies or not vaccinated against
rabies.
b)
Any large cat of
leopards, cougars
house cats.
the family Felidae such as lions, tigers, jaguars,
and ocelots, except commonly accepted domesticated
c) Any member of the family Canidae, such as, wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos
and jackals, except domesticated dogs.
d) Any crossbreed such as the crossbreeds between dogs and coyotes or dogs
and wolves but does not include crossbred domesticated animals.
e) Any poisonous pit viper such as a rattlesnake, coral snake, water
moccasin or cobra.
f)
Any raccoon.
g) Any ferret
.
.
.
,
h)
Any other animal which is not listed explicitly above, but which can be
reasonably defined by the terms in Section 940.01 of this ordinance,
including bears and badgers.
Subd. 3.
Any farm animal.
940.03. Selling Prohibited. No person shall offer for sale, within the city
limits, any animal prohibited in Section 940.02 of this ordinance.
940.04.
Exceptions.
Subd. 1. Any persons desiring to keep animals prohibited under Section
940.02 shall obtain a temporary conditional use permit from the City Council. Such a
permit shall be issued for a period not to exceed thirty days and shall specify
further conditions under which such animals shall be kept. Provided, however, that
no such permit shall be issued unless such prohibited animal is brought into the city
for entertainment, exhibition, show or promotional purposes only. Before issuance of
any temporary conditional use permit, the applicant shall provide the City with proof
of insurance including public liability insurance.
Subd. 2. Non-poisonous snakes, birds kept indoors, hamsters, mice, rabbits,
gerbils, white rats, guinea pigs, chinchillas, or lizards, and similar small animals
capable of being maintained continuously in cages are also exempt and do not require
a permit.
Subd. 3. Persons keeping animals for a public zoo as volunteers, teachers or
otherwise, any bona fide research institution or veterinary hospital are exempt from
the permit requirement; provided protective devices adequate to prevent such animals
from escaping or injuring the public are provided,
Subd. 4.
are exempt,
Handicapped persons keeping monkeys trained as household helpers
940.05. Impounding of non-domesticated animals, Any non-domestic animal kept in
violation of this ordinance may be impounded by the city, Unless such impounded
animal is reclaimed and removed from the City, or is issued a permit to allow it to
remain in the City, or unless the owner petitions the District Court for a
determination that the animal is exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, the
animal may be destroyed or sold five (5) days following notice to the owner of such
animal of its impoundment and the provisions of this ordinance.
Any person reclaiming any such impounded animal shall pay the costs of impounding and
keeping the same at the time of its release.
940.06, Existing non-domesticated animals. Anyone keeping or maintaining any
non-domesticated animal at the time this ordinance is adopted has ninety days in
which to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. Extensions beyond ninety days
may be granted for just cause by the City Council, but in no case shall such
extension permanently exempt a person from the requirements of this ordinance,
940.07. Penalty.
misdemeanor.
Violation of any provision of this Subdivision shall be a
.
.
.
..
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Date of Publication:
Date Ordinance Takes Effect:
Attest:
city Clerk
May 7, 1991
May 21, 1991
May 29, 1991
June 18, 1991
Mayor