Loading...
CR 91-142 Non-Domesticated Animal Ordinance\ S Y O o P K ` �5 June 27, 1991 AMENDING THE NON - DOMESTICATED ANIMAL ORDINANCE Proposed Action Council Rpt 91 -142 Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Move that the Hopkins City Council not approve Ordinance #91 -691 for first reading. This action will not amend Section 940 in the Hopkins City Code to grandfather all existing non - domesticated animals, allowing them to remain within the City. Ov rview On June 4, 1991 the Hopkins City Council passed Ord. #91 -679 which prohibited anyone from keeping a non - domesticated or farm animal within the City. This ordinance has been published. The Council voted at its June 18 meeting to direct staff to draft another ordinance which would grandfather all existing non - domesticated animals so as to allow them to remain within the Staff supports the original ordinance. The City of Hopkins is no place for wild animals and existing animals should not be grandfathered. Primary Issues to Consider • What are the provisions of this ordinance? • What are some of the implications of grandfathering these animals? • Are there any other steps that the City could take? Supporting Information • Analysis of Issues • Alternatives • Ordinance #91 -691 • Letters regarding this issue Steve Mielke City Manager T Council Report #91 -142 Page 2 Analysis of Issues: o What are the provisions of this ordinance? Ordinance #91 -691 allows any non - domesticated or farm animal which was acquired prior to July 3, 1991 to remain in Hopkins if the owner registers such animal with the City Clerk within 30 days of the effective date of Ord. #91 -691. The owner must maintain the animal is a safe and sanitary manner. Should the animal ever escape from the control of the owner or be found to be kept in an unsanitary or inhumane condition, the animal would no longer be considered grandfathered and would have to be removed from the City. o What are some of the implications of grandfathering these animals? It is not possible to know what, if any, animals may currently be in the City. The Council, therefore, will not know what it is that they are grandfathering. An owner of a grandfathered animal would be free to move to another part of the City with the animal. o Are there any other steps that -the City could take? The City could require additional insurance on the part of owner of such animals. The City of Afton, while it does not grandfather any animals, does have a provision for granting permits.for individuals temporarily have such animals. Afton requires these individuals to have public liability insurance of at least $100,000. The City could require periodic inspections to determine that the animals are being kept in a safe and sanitary manner. The City, however, lacks the expertise to handle such inspections. Alt rnatives 1) Move that the Hopkins City Council not approve Ordinance #91- 691 This will result in no change to the original ordinance. Owners of existing animals would have until October 1, 1991 to remove these animals from the City. 2) Move that the Hopkins City Council approve Ordinance #91 -691 for first reading. This action will begin the process of amending Section 940 of the Hopkins City code to grandfather all existing non - domesticated and farm animals. ® Council Report #91 -142 Page 3 3) Move that the Hopkins City Council continue the first reading of Ordinance #91 -691 and direct staff to make changes to the proposed ordinance. This action will postpone consideration, of the grandfather amendment to allow for any additions or modifications suggested by the Council. Staff recommends Alternative #1. • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 91 -691 AW ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 940 OF THE HOPKINS CITY CODE IN REGARD TO EXISTING NON — DOMESTICATED ANIMALS WITHIN THE CITY OF HOPKINS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Hopkins as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 940.06 of the Hopkins City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and a new Section 940.06 is added to read as follows: 940.06. Existing animals Subdivision, 1. Registration Anyone keeping or maintaining any non - domesticated or farm animal prior to July 3, 1991 has thirty days from the time that this ordinance is adopted to register such animals with the City Clerk. Anyone wishing to register their animal(s) shall submit written documentation demonstrating that the animal(s) were acquired prior to July 3, 1991. Registered animals are exempt from Sections 940.02 and 940.05. Subd. 2. Conditions An owner of a registered animal(s) must:, a) not sell or transfer the animal(s) to another owner residing within the City of Hopkins; b) not breed the animal or allow it to reproduce; C) keep the animal(s) under restraint at all times; d) at all times exercise proper care and control of the animal(s) to prevent them from becoming a public nuisance; and e) provide the animal(s) 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. Subd. 3. Violations Any owner of a registered animal who violates any section of Subdivision 2 shall forfeit the right to keep non - domesticated animals. Any animal(s) which the owner has shall no longer be considered registered and shall be subject to Sections 940.02 and 940.05. 1 First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Publication: Date Ordinance Takes Effect: • Mayor Attest: City Clerk June ,27, 1991 • City Council City of Hopkins Hopkins, Minnesota Re: Proposed amendment to wild animal ordinance no. 91 -679 Dear Gentlemen: On June 18 the Council voted to consider amending the above referenced ordinance to exempt wild animals currently residing in Hopkins. We would like to express our outrage at your action. We have a great deal of respect for the thoughtful service the members of the Council have given to the City in the past. But on this issue, we think this amendment is very wrong and we hope you reconsider your vote prior to the next council meeting. We do not think you have heard the entire story of the 7th Avenue Cougar. We think the following information will dispel the myth that this Cougar is a safe animal living in a healthy environment. The animal was left unattended in a yard for only a few minutes on a padlocked leash. The Cougar broke thru the padlock, ran thru our neighborhood and approached a nearby home. We quote Colleen Jensen of 133 7th Avenue North: "I am convinced that by stepping between the Cougar and my three year old, I saved my son from physical and emotional harm." The animal is dangerous because as a kitten it was roughhoused by the children it lives with and therefore, it now has imprinted on its memory to play roughly with children. As an adult Cougar, it doesn't know its own strength and becomes irritated around young children. Colleen's nine year old also has scratches on his back from an incident when the boy came too close to the Cougar while it was out of its cage. Because of the adverse effect the Cougar has on her Daycare business, Colleen has asked, and Joe Miller has agreed, to keep the Cougar in the house during the hours the Daycare is operating. Other neighbors have complained to Joe about noise during the evening and early morning hours. Joe has agreed to keep the Cougar in the house during these hours, as well. Now you have a Cougar who will grow to over 200 pounds and six feet, whose favorite toy is a bowling ball living in a bedroom with a wading pool as a litter box for most of the day and night. We do not believe this is fair to the animal. We do not think this breeds a healthy temperament in an animal living within yards of three day care homes. Our fear is not that this is a vicious killer but that it is an animal of great strength who could harm our children. An animal of this size and strength does not belong in Hopkins. The neighborhood has looked to the City to take care of this problem. We have not voiced our opposition earlier because we thought the Cougar would not be allowed to remain. But now as the Cougar grows bigger and the City is preparing to give it a safe haven, we have to express our strong opposition to the amendment to the Wild Animal ordinance. Joe'Miller has given you a mistaken impression of the temperament of this animal and the conditions the animal is living in. Now you have the information to make a thoughtful decision. You were elected to serve the public good of Hopkins and you will be fulfilling your responsibility by voting against the amendment to ordinance 91 -679. Thank you. Sincerely, �/ 7A . • • C�eze� cl-37 7- 2-37 7 1.33 ° -27 Czt I �o 13 7 acA >z 1 4ve . /Vo / �Q AO� F sS-- .zaL, 933 -73 'yz- �3�- � 3 TC7111 z. z B -7 3S-003k 2oq �, `� q 3ls''I�002 IV `735 q 11 _ -'21 • The neighborhood has looked to the City to take care of this problem. We have not voiced our opposition earlier because we thought the Cougar would not be allowed to remain. But now as the Cougar grows bigger and the City is preparing to give it a safe haven, we have to express our strong opposition to the amendment to the Wild Animal ordinance. Joe Miller has given you a mistaken impression of the temperament of this animal and the conditions the animal is living in. Now you have the information to make a thoughtful decision: You were elected to serve the public good of Hopkins and you will be fulfilling your responsibility by voting against the amendment to ordinance 91 -679. Thank you. Sincerely, ,-20q '744t AV-2 ti /0 a o�s 7 ` 4ve� • 1971 • �a� - IjoPkl2g Giu� Crne.v�u (� vN �s� �pwss +W� WraAfe ca„vWMA mfev - ItQe f� cm�c�n77Se P aSS It 64p� wv�&rn o_ n "cHp,MC�Fw1.KV� c��A -wry. �2e e� ate! o 'S+ C unllN 4m�m�aQS I✓�. xN.�. n�Pa� `b � ivf a5 � pM� �e4. ✓K. Nam v��aQ emnhvw.ww� T �`f6- �cv� — Pn�z `��k woJs V,04 • • 4,i,P Z � o2`U, iP�e mJn��W G.o� iri pt Dt v�af�w�s a,A rum • ugv��`It�e. �Ikt J J - , • .7 cw�ww�mtio�w Iura� s�?f1 s I mo, 0,4 h,�- Tw L co �f r�lyw�i z +� AvSz� IS xp am ie im ,ate effects on nine homes 'failed to examine the overall ect on a neighborhood and ex- isting businesses. Why is the City Council even considering ruining the neigh - orhood just to the north of this site? We live on two-lane city streets with sidewalks for children to ride bikes, skate and walk. I don't want to see them having to share their area with delivery trucks, semis, and in- creased traffic, noise and pollution. Why does the council want to ruin a long - established business' like Midnight Market? Shouldn't they be using creative marketing skills to seek new businesses to locate in all the ex- isting empty spaces in down- town Hopkins? pr ec from this attitude of demolish, dispose and build the same thing over again. I agree with Councilmember Bob Anderson that a new grocery store on County Road 3 would be much better and would serve all of Hopkins. Why would Hopkins Honda want to be assessed for street improvements, then be forced to relocate a large part of it's business? Would we destroy more homes and neighborhoods to accommodate them? I hope the mayor and council stop and listen to the people, because I don't know of anyone who feels this is a good location for a project of this size. Karen Legenhausen Hopkins Z oo staff Hopkins Sail-or or - 6/26/91 : Cougars should not be pets To the editor: A story in the May 15 Hopkins Sailor, "Hopkins man keeps cougar — Samson — as pet," ay have left readers with the ortunate impression that ougars make safe pets. The Minnesota's Zoo's professional staff recommend against private ownership of cougars as pets or companion animals. Cougars, regardless of origin, are emphatically not domesticated animals. Domestication of wild animals is a lengthy process spanning many generations, with selec- tion for specific traits. The breeding of captive cougars is not done selectively for desire - able domestic traits. Although bottle- rearing will increase a cougar's tolerance of humans, it will not appreciably alter the in- stinctive behavior patterns of the animal. Captive cougars are all poten- tially dangerous, especially to small children. Because captive animals have lost their fear of humans, they can be even more dangerous than wild cougars. We are aware of several cases in -which so -called tame or domestic cougars have injured or killed small children. Secure caging is essential to prevent such an incident; an adult cougar on a collar and leash is capable of attack at any time. Pet cougars are freguently surgically, disfigured to reduce but not eliminate their danger. Specifically, claws and /or canine teeth are removed ( the cat described in the story had its claws removed). This common practice of surgical disarma- ment is inconsistent with the claims of cougar fans that the animals are safe; people do not routinely extract canine teeth from dogs or domestic cats. While it is true that some cap- tive cougars never injure peo- ple, and some domestic dogs do, we are confident that a statisti- cally valid comparison of the public risks posed by cougars and dogs would reveal a much - higher risk factor for cougars. Cougars are wild, carnivorous animals, and are not suitable as pets or companion animals. Mike DonCarlos Curator, Minnesota Trail Minnesota Zoo More letters pages 6A & 7A Disc golf tourney Lori Suess of Minneapolis took'her best shot at the rust hole in the dis= of the Hopkins Raspberry Festival sporting events. (Photo by Craig The following incidents were included in the Hopkins Police Department reports for June 2 -16. June 3 — A prowler was reported to police, seen several times in the 700 -block area of 8th Avenue North. June 5 — Property damage — $300 to a pickup truck in the alley behind 1100 block of Hiawatha Avenue. • Theft — $ 295 loss from pickup truck in parking lot on Blake Road North. June 6 — Burglary: $300 loss, two bicycles taken from a garage on 1100 block of North Landmark Trail. June 7 — Police responded to stalled vehicle in ditch; driver attempted to avoid deer in the road near Shady Oak Road and Highway 7, tire blown and vehi- cle veered into ditch. • Surveillance for possible e poser near Hiawatha Avenue. • Theft — $ 2,200 loss in jewel: from house on 100 block of 9? Avenue North. June 8 — Property damag $200 to an auto scratched on 1 block of Lake Street Northea • Phone and power lines we. tangled with string; poll( notified Northern States Powt- • Report of a broken law sprinkler head at Greenfie Apartments, 920 Feld Court. June 9 — $400 damage in a h: and -run accident on the 4 block of VanBuren Aver. North. • Theft — boat motor, estimate of loss; Robinw Lane. • Property damage — $ damage to window on 1200 blot of South Landmark Trail. June 10 — Property dama n broken windows, $200 damage, WU fle PeA.oncdi. _i.eA Pete Qe/Eyeaaon, 1299 Black_ Oak& Cf., Plymouth, An. 55447 (6121 475 -o111 [A ee ApecLa.L nofe-4. heaeLn ort %n 6 n ocAuxeJ1 llnuajud, Az9/� Ln o_c Pit the hena�Lf o� a.0 .CLA - wi.fh the help o� very .opeci_a.L and beauty. uL 'Wnua"adoni" '/2/91 Mayor & Council Members Fete B`r,erson City of Hopkins Re.: Grandfather Clause (excellent), Animal Ordinance - and my brief responses to newspaper articles, letters, etc. Dear Council Members I do not want to dwell on "Sam" specifically or all the other background I personally presented at the other meetings. Instead, I will briefly touch on the subjects above and to clarify my legal presentation (re. Grandfather Clause only) to touch on what may be misunderstandings. • I request that only a 1st reading be approved or 'the matter be continued to your next meeting so that I may answer any questions arising from this letter. Joe Miller may add some commitments to deal specifically with Day Care Center immediate concerns (per a multi- signature letter) and extra special precautions regarding escape & noise concerns. My views on responsibilities of any animal ownership have been made known. We are only asking - via the Grandfather Clause & other existing animal ordinances - to be'treated fairly and without discrimination, with due concern for public safety and nuisance - and without unreasonable "cushioning" of some peoples perceptual and /or paranoic fears because they have little or appropriate experience with "wild" animals. Should neighbor "A" force revocation of neighbor "B's" existing drivers license simply because " A " does not like "B's" driving habits and thus merely perceives "B" to be a dangerous driver on subjective grounds (i.e., "Sam" is obviously no physical threat so long as properly confined, etc.). Amendment itself My sincere congratulations and admiration - it is one of the best I've seen. It is, in my opinion, fair and addresses the important issues. Staff recommendation - I'm concerned, simply on fair and (perhaps only ethical) due process grounds, that staff would make a specific recommendation in lieu of public IN debate on a specific issue previously voted to be considered and which would then follow a normal 2,reading process. "Overview" I definitely agree that, at least, Hopkins should not have any more "wild" animals than the relative few already residing there - even though no animal is a public hazard when properly controlled. People are certainly entitled to their opinions, however formed, but the implied judgement as to "wild" animals total welfare (we think) is best left to those with appropriate experience and have the animals perspective as, their focus - with due regard for public safety. "Issues" ; Existing animals are apparently few, there are apparently no other "wild" complaints indicating problems and registration should identify them. Beyond that, we feel that all existing ordinances -- plus the Grandfather - are sufficient (frith enforcement) to address the future. Insurance is generally covered by Homeowners & Renter's Insurance. Letter of 6/27/91, signed by 7th and 6th Street people A few key observations, specific & additional to previous. 1st paragraph "myth" reference seems to imply that the inexperienced are more judgement qualified than the experienced. 2nd paragraph ; It's my understanding that "Sam" only went a few houses doom, Joe was only a couple of minutes behind him and that a yard fence separated the child & "Sam" - hardly a child threatening situation. Although l do not question the honest motivation of their concerns, I do question total accuracy of balance. 3rd ; I have made specific recommendations to Joe. 4th ; Proper confinement / control issue as to valid safety concerns - are some judgements by the inexperienced (still entitled to their opinions). Last, 2nd page ; I'm not convinced that Joe has "misrepresented." As to serving the public, it appears to many of us that the pro numbers exceed the con's. 6/19/92 hand written letter, from Gail Goekel Although she is obviously a concerned person, by her own admission, she is an "Animals Rights Activist Although she may not be, many activists are so radical that it calls into question their sincere, informed interest in total and balanced animal welfare. A couple of comments ; we do not consider "Sam" a "pet" in the popular sense - most responsible "wild" owners share that view - quality natural habitat is in short supply - and other generalized statements clearly not in (general) animals best interests & vrelfare. Letter in Sailor, from Mn. Zoo Entitled "Zoo Staff: Cougars . . . " r �z 3 In general, I agree ;,rith them - with qualifications as I've stated or implied ,1 0 on several occasions. Note also my comments on my conversation with them on their letter & issues specifically. They make unqualified, sweeping general statements which create some unfortunate & untrue impressions (their reason stated herein) - and hang on "pet." I have noted only a few specific responses herein. 2nd paragraph ; Some (temperament) breeding is selectively done - it holds quite true under good ownership - "Sam" comes from several captive bred generations which fits this and he is entering the pronounced mellowing stage. arc ; Proper confinement / control issue. 4th ; Several comments, but will only point out these. Canine teeth are not removed by responsible oimers, except largely for health reasons - claw removal is fairly common in domest'c cats - many dogs and'cats are neutered - apply the same general logic. 5th ; Implication that ost captive cougars do injure people is simply untrue - statistically valid comparison statement defies any reasonable measure of common sense and logic, as well as obvious implications of statistics which are available. I talked to a woman in the Zoo's Communications department and the "author" of the article. Essentially, they agreed with my views - although I got the sense that they would only do so "behind closed doors." Their stated reasons for unqualified "sweeps" included ; they didn't think the paper would print a longer letter , to help avoid radical criticisms without ostensibly giving up their "middle ground" and avoid impressions that wild animal ownership should be relatively unrestricted. on those concepts and a number of others, we were in agreement. Article in Sailor, 6/26/91 f Most of it has already been indirectly addressed - a couple more comments. Joe's comment as to "Sam's" safety is correct, qualified by proper confinement and control. It should be noted that good owners, perhaps unfortunately, often attach different (i.e., qualified) definitions to safety than the general public. The same often happens in using the term "pet." Any cities legislative authority is obviously limited by fundamental Constitutional, realistic legitimacy and due process constraints which cross all cases. Examples are too obvious & numerous to outline here. The last heading below clarifies my previous Grandfather legal presentation - with this paragraph as the "base." Legal Issues The analysis previously made to the Council refers only to a Grandfather Clause - not to the underlying ordinance itself. The issues, in that content, are protection of good faith, existing (pre -fact) property rights - within due process safe guards - influenced by realistic, in- formed public concern judgements and not purely speculative & radical misperceptions or similar opinions (no matter how well intentioned, e.g., "B's" driving). My previous presentation, as further opinioned by a trained legal person, appears to meet the above tests? Will we need further legal rulings on this matter?