Ordinances on Disposing Animals in City Custody

While not a pleasant thing to think (or read) about, there may come a time when your city has to dispose of an animal in its custody. Cities generally do have the authority to dispose of animals in their custody as long as they follow the process spelled out by law, rule, or ordinance adopted pursuant to a law. See Minn. Stat. § 35.71; 7 U.S.C. § 2158.

There is no one-size-fits-all process for disposal of animals. The holding period and process depends on the circumstances. The minimum holding requirement is generally 5 days or more, but notice and hearing requirements could potentially extend the holding period. There are several sections in state law that govern disposal of animals. While some statutes are very detailed, this entry will only focus on the basics and point you in the right direction. The League’s memo “Animal Regulation in Cities,” which will be coming out this month, covers each situation in more detail.

Because there are several sections of law that cover disposition of animals, it is a good idea to periodically review any ordinances the city has relating to the disposition of animals to ensure they comply with the current state laws. It is also important to make sure that city practices are in-line with state law and city ordinances. Improper disposition of an animal can result in liability for the city. (See e.g. Soucek v. Banham, 524 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. Ct. Ap. 1994); Molenaar v. United Cattle Co., 553 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. Ct. Ap. 1996).)

The statutory process for disposing of unclaimed animals is the most general and covers many situations for which there is not a more specific law. (See Minn. Stat. § 35.71) Unclaimed animals must be held for at least five regular business days so they may be claimed by their owner. The city can, by ordinance, require a longer holding period. While the law does not provide notice and hearing requirements, it would be prudent for the city to notify owners or others with an interest in the animal that the animal has been seized and is being held. There should also be some process for the owner to reclaim the animal. Certain institutions are authorized to take unclaimed animals at the end of the holding period.

If no one claims the animal during the holding period and all of the statutory and due process requirements have been met, the city may dispose of the animal. State law does not dictate how animals should be destroyed, but it does prohibit the use of a decompression chamber and unjustifiably administering poison or noxious drugs or substances. (See Minn. Stat. § 343.37 and Minn. Stat. § 343.27)

There are many organizations that make recommendations or have guidelines on euthanizing animals. While these are not binding on cities (and, indeed, are not written for cities), they may provide helpful information for cities in making decisions on how animals will be destroyed. Two examples are “Statement on Euthanasia Methods for Animals in Shelters,” Humane Society of the United States (March 31, 2009); “AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia,” American Veterinary Medical Association (June 2007).

As mentioned above, there are laws that are specific to animals taken into custody under certain circumstances. Here are a few other situations where statutes or rules discuss disposition of animals:

• Dangerous dogs. While there are many timelines that must be followed when dealing with a dangerous dog, the general rule is that a dangerous dog that has been confiscated must be held for 7 days to allow the owner to reclaim the dog and meet other requirements. If the dog is not reclaimed within seven days, it may be disposed of in the same manner as unclaimed animals. There are also detailed notice and procedural requirements provided for by law. Keep in mind that there are many nuances and requirements that must be met when dealing with dangerous dogs so the seven day holding period may vary. (See Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50-.565)

• Animal cruelty. An animal that is taken into custody under certain animal cruelty provisions must be held for 10 days. The law outlines notice, hearing, and procedural requirements that must be followed. If after all of the procedures outlined in the law are followed, the city may dispose of the animal. (Minn. Stat. § 343.235.)

• Abandoned animals. If the city is in possession of an animal and turns it over to a vet, boarding facility, or commercial facility, and the owner does not claim the animal from that facility within 10 days, the law provides a process for the facility to dispose of the animal. (Minn. Stat. § 346.37)

• Rabies. There are many provisions for disposing of an animal that has been exposed to rabies, has rabies, or has bitten a person. (Minnesota Rules 1705.1090-.1210)

• Emergencies. There are some situations where an animal may be killed immediately. These situations are relatively rare and killing animals immediately should generally be avoided. The city attorney can talk with animal control officers to help them understand the situations where an animal be immediately killed. (See e.g. Minn. Stats. § 347.17 and § 347.03)

Conclusion:

State law and rules provide several different procedures for disposing of animals in city custody. It is a good idea to make sure that the city ordinances and practices comply with all of the different provisions to ensure that the city is lawfully disposing of animals.

About Guest Author Alexis Stangl:

Alexis is a research staff attorney at the League and one of her areas of interest is in animal control and regulation issues. If you have questions, please contact Alexis at 651-281-1227 or astangl@lmc.org. Also, keep a lookout for the League’s new animal regulation memo that will be introduced this winter!

Picture provided by: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=10105&picture=single-wooden-cross

City Ordinances on Feeding Wild Animals

Some nuisances are easy to spot – they are as large as the rusting car in the neighbor’s front yard. Some nuisances are a little harder to define and their far-reaching effects more difficult to explain. A nuisance of this type that cities often struggle with is the feeding of wild animals or strays.

Problems Associated with Unattended Feeding:

Feeding of wild animals in rural areas is a common practice. However, in urban areas with smaller lots, the activity can quickly become a nuisance that cities wish to regulate. Feed left out for “desirable animals” such as stray (or feral) cats, dogs and deer also may attract the following:

1) Rats;
2) Raccoons;
3) Skunks;
4) Coyotes (who do not attack humans, but may attack small cats and dogs);
5) Bears (on occasion depending on locale).

It is important to note that even “desirable animals” for whom the proffered food is intended may become nuisances in large numbers. Deer can quickly ruin neighboring lawns, trees and gardens. Stray cats who linger nearby for food left outside can quickly multiply.

Attracting wild animals to a neighborhood can create some obvious problems, such as property damage (for example, raccoons tearing apart garbage), increased risk of attack (even wild turkeys may become aggressive during breeding season) and disease (for example, rabies and the roundworm parasites carried by raccoons http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/livingwith_wildlife/raccoons/index.html).

However, some less obvious problems with feeding wild animals can be just as problematic. Feeding can alter normal patterns of movement and congregation among animals. The more food, the denser the congregation of animals looking to eat becomes. This can spread disease among the animals and cause reproduction rates to skyrocket. Becoming too used to humans may make animals more susceptible to harm.

City Authority to Regulate Feedings & Sample Language:

Cities are specifically authorized to regulate the keeping of animals at Minn. Stat. § 412.221 Subd 21. Cities can and have adopted ordinances limiting feeding of wild animals. The City of Coon Rapids was recently in the news for its new ordinance (See http://tinyurl.com/29s39b3)

Here are some sources for sample ordinances from Minnesota cities on feeding wild and stray animals:

• City of Arden Hills, Chapter 4, Section 420.10: http://tinyurl.com/24gb4vt

• City of Madelia, Chapter 9, Section 92.110 http://www.madeliamn.com/Ordinance/26.php#JD_92.080

• Minnesota Basic Code Chapter 9, Section 91.19: http://tinyurl.com/2ew79fz

Some cities merely regulate the feeding of certain types of wild animals such as deer or waterfowl. For example:

Hermantown City Code, Chapter 6, Section 640.06 Feeding Wild Bears Prohibited. No person shall intentionally feed or attempt to feed a wild bear within the city. No person shall place any feed for any wild animal out of doors if a bear has been attracted to the feeding source.

Conclusion:

Often people leaving food out for animals do not understand the far-reaching effects of their actions. Some cities supplement their ordinance provisions with educational materials. For example, the City of Minnetonka posted this online information about wild turkeys: http://www.eminnetonka.com/news.cfm?story_id=WildTurkeys201009. Cities wishing to develop educational efforts about the problems with feeding wild animals may also like to review the DNR’s extensive materials on this subject. The DNR materials offer detailed information on numerous animal types and are available at this link: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/livingwith_wildlife/index.html

Picture provided by: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=3145&picture=doe-on-golf-course

Hot Topic: Urban Chickens & Local Regulation

Urban chickens are a definitely a trend. A simple Google search will clue you into the expanding world of city chickens and the people who love and vocally advocate for them. Faced with more requests from residents, some cities are drafting specific ordinances to address the issue. Alexis Stangl, an LMC attorney colleague, has compiled a sampling of chicken ordinances that may be of assistance. If you are looking to regulate chickens, try these sample ordinances:

• City of Duluth (Chapter 6, Article VII, Sections 6-79, 6-79.1): http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=50009&sid=23

• Fergus Falls, Ordinance No 108, Sixth Series
http://www.ci.fergus-falls.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7BC83A9759-035D-4EAB-A39F-EA24B2F5336D%7D/uploads/%7B64ADBD63-75F8-4D2F-AE1D-FF654096D49C%7D.DOC


• Grand Rapids (Chapter 10, Article III): http://library1.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=13419&doc_action=whatsnew


• Minneapolis (Title 4, Chapter 70): http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=11490&sid=23

Common features of chicken ordinances include:

• Permit requirements;
• Limits on numbers of chickens (either a flat number or a sliding scale based on acreage);
• Limits on districts in the city where they may be located;
• Living conditions for the chickens (coop size, etc);
• Requiring written permission from neighbors;
• Location of coops and runs (usually must be located in rear yard);
• Restrictions on keeping male roosters;
• Minimum acreage requirements for lots where chickens are raised.

However, it is important to note that the most common ordinance provision is to prohibit chickens altogether as farm animals (or strictly limit their presence to agricultural lots). Cities issuing permits for and allowing urban chickens still continue to be a rarity in Minnesota.

An interesting final note from my Google search on urban chickens is that there now appear to be urban chicken “rescue” operations. Like dog rescue operations, these sites indicate that the keeping of chickens can create problems for the animals and public related to neglect or maltreatment. Time limits on permits, requiring permit renewals, procedures for permit revocation and inspections can be drafted into ordinances to help limit these types of problems. State law contains explicit prohibitions at Minn. Stat. § 343.31 (find at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=343.31) on the keeping and use of fighting animals (including chickens). It may be helpful to include a reference to the statute in local ordinance.