‚Č° Menu

Minneapolis Animal “Care” and Control (MACC) Overzealous in Deeming Dogs Dangerous

Recent changes to the Minneapolis law concerning “dangerous” dogs were broad and sweeping, and allowed the Minneapolis Animal Control (MACC) to declare nearly any dog dangerous or potentially dangerous, even if the dog had never bitten or injured a person or another animal. The City of Minneapolis failed to notify dog owners about the proposed changes. As a result, when the Minneapolis City Council held a hearing on the proposed chances, no one appeared to speak for or against the new wording.

Read the full article here: http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/ViewArticle?OpenForm&Photo=811D42EA971ACE6886257914007D740D

I personally had an encounter with an animal control officer who was escorted by two Minneapolis police officers. The animal control officer was very rude and condescending, lecturing me about my dog because of its breed. The dog has never harmed anything or anyone. The situation was very Kafkaesque in the fact that when I asked the police why they were there, they refused to speak and also refused to give me their contact information, keeping their hands on their pistols while scowling at me. After the lecture, the animal control officer issued a gigantic fine and assured me that my dog would be deemed dangerous due to its breed and confined to a 3-foot leash and muzzle when outside. I think that something needs to change and that the misleading name of the department, “Minneapolis¬†Animal Care and Control” hardly reflects the reality of the animal gestapos. Stand up and fight the inhumane practices of the MACC by writing them, protesting, and civil litigation.


Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

{ 7 comments… add one }

  • Donna Watkins March 21, 2012, 1:01 pm

    I am confused- did the situation described in the blog entry happen to YOU or Mike Fry? The article you link to does not have any of the same text in it and as far as I know, breed specific punishment is not legal in Mpls. Could you please clarify these facts?

  • admin March 21, 2012, 1:35 pm

    The situation described in the blog entry on this site happened to me. I posted it to give a vague overview of a recent experience that caught me out of the blue. I found an article that gave me some insight into why that experience occurred and linked to that article (the article in the Animal Ark blog) to add some additional outside information for context. Despite the city code not allowing breed-specific discrimination, it is happening in practice, at least in my experience. I can’t vouch for any other situations and can only post the facts as they pertain to my experience.

  • Pit Owner March 22, 2012, 7:53 am

    If an animal control officer backed up by two Minneapolis police officer’s were out to visit you at your home it wasn’t solely because you own a pit bull. Minneapolis Animal Care and Control does not target specific breeds. It’s logical to me that if 9 out of 10 dogs on the north side are pit bulls, it quite possibly has something to do with the percentages being declared. You may well have a case as to the “sweeping” language in Minneapolis code, but I don’t buy the breed specific accusation you’re making.

  • Donna Watkins March 22, 2012, 10:11 am

    Did the A/C officer say “Dogs of this breed are considered dangerous by the city of Mpls whether they have done something or not” or was it more to the effect of “due to this dogs breed, the likelihood that he will be declared dangerous is greater”?

  • Donna Watkins March 22, 2012, 10:12 am

    Also, why did A/C show up to visit with you at all? had anything happened? Is your dog now registered as a dangerous dog?

  • Jenny Edgerton June 14, 2012, 5:16 am

    Hi- I recently found your post. We have started a group to work on MACC policies. Please come over and we (I) would love to get your story and hear your point of view.

  • admin June 14, 2012, 12:34 pm

    It was actually my daughter’s dog. Animal Control showed up because the dog escaped our yard, when she was playing off-leash with my child, and went into my neighbor’s yard. The dog did not harm anyone, but my neighbor was frightened that the dog was in her yard and so she called animal control and the police. I take responsibility for the mishap and the dog leaving our fenced yard due to the gate being left open, but the response seemed very harsh for a one oft incident that resulted in no injury to anyone, save the nerves of my neighbor being frightened (which I did apologize to her for immediately). I am not sure if they did deem her a dangerous dog since I gave her to my extended family who lives in the country in northern Minnesota so that the dog could have more space and to avoid further expenses in citations. We still visit the dog and she is doing well.

Leave a Comment