CC PACKET 07142020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 7 of 35 Future Precautions Due to Leash Reactiveness In the event that Hammerheart remains a part of our family, we will be taking precautions regardless of the outcome of this appeal, until his leash reactiveness is substantially decreased from ongoing training as recommended by Ms. Willeke or other Bark Busters associate. These precautions include:  We will continue to primarily walk Hammerheart on less busy residential streets and not sidewalks or parks.  We will continue to walk Hammerheart on a four or six foot leash with his harness.  We will use the basket muzzle we have purchased and are using since the incident on May 28, 2020, in the event we are taking Hammerheart off the premises in an urban area.  We will more strictly restrict whom can walk the dogs and provide additional instructions to walkers.  We and anyone else whom we allow to walk our dogs will walk them separately; Ms. Willeke has instructed us that walking them separately provides for a more controlled walk and better training experience. Additionally, we are building a six foot privacy fence on our property this summer. The six foot fence will be a secure enclosure for both dogs. Bases for Appeal It is our position that the dangerous dog designation is not proper and that the City Council should revoke the designation under state law for the reasons set forth below. The Dangerous Dog Designation is Erroneous as the Incident that Occurred on May 28, 2020, Does Not Meet the Definition of a Dangerous Dog The incident on May 28, 2020, does not satisfy any of the requirements of the definition of dangerous dog and thus the declaration of Hammeheart as a dangerous dog is erroneous. The definition of a potentially dangerous dog is as follows pursuant to Minnesota Statute 347.50, subdivision 2 (emphasis added): Dangerous dog. "Dangerous dog" means any dog that has: (1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; (2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or (3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. The definition of substantial bodily harm is defined as follows by Minnesota Statute 347.50, subdivision 6, and Minnesota Statute 609.02, subdivision 7a: M.S. 609.02, subdivision. 6. 23