The Balaton City Council last Wednesday officially deemed a pit bull that in June attacked and injured another dog in Balaton as “potentially dangerous.”
Upon request from the council Travis Erickson, the owner of a wire-haired pointed griffon dog, sent a hand-written letter to the council on Nov. 17, testifying that his dog was attacked by a silver-colored pit bull on 3rd St. The dog, Erickson wrote, “came down the street, paused across the intersection and then charged at my dog and began to attack him. This attack caused injuries to my dog.”
Erickson went on to say he has seen the dog loose and in his yard multiple times and that his kids are afraid to play with their dogs outside or “even let the dogs out to go to the bathroom. It seems the owner just does not pay attention to or properly leash or tie the dog.”
According the Minnesota Statute 347.50, a “potentially dangerous” dog is one that without provocation inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; chases a person, including someone on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public property other than the dog owner’s property in an apparent attitude of attack; or has a known propensity or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.
Proof of a rabies vaccination must also be provided; the State of Minnesota does not define legal requirements for immunization of dogs. In Minnesota, the rabies vaccination requirement for pets is left to the discretion of individual municipalities or counties. However, the owner or custodian of a dog that does not have an appropriate rabies vaccination and that bites or otherwise exposes a person to the rabies virus can be slapped with a petty misdemeanor under Minnesota law.
The main difference between the “potentially dangerous dog” and “dangerous dog” classifications is a dog can be marked the latter if it kills another domestic animal, without provocation, off the owner’s property and has already been labeled potentially dangerous.
“We have everything to deem it a potentially dangerous dog,” council member Tracy McCloud said. “It has not, in our knowledge, killed anything, or a person. If we deem it potentially dangerous, they have to microchip it, but that doesn’t help nothing. I think we should implement some security so that dog isn’t running loose anymore.”
Council member Greg Erickson agreed that while the “potentially dangerous” tag is put on the dog, it must be enclosed.
The owner of either kind of dog is mandated to have a microchip implanted in the dog, and the name of the microchip manufacturer and ID number must be provided to the animal control authority; the dog’s owner is responsible for all costs related to the procedure. The owner also must provide a proper enclosure for the dog. If outside the enclosure, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a chain or leash under the physical restraint of a responsible person. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the dog from exiting. The dog owner must also post a warning on the premises.
The owner of a dangerous dog is also required carry a $300,000 insurance policy.
A person in violation of these laws is guilty of a misdemeanor; a second violation will result in a gross misdemeanor.
The dog owner in question has 14 business days after receiving the certified letter marking the dog as “potentially dangerous,” to comply, otherwise he/she can be cited and fined. The council has the authority to change the classification to “dangerous dog” if another instance occurs.
