(WCCO) — The city of Minneapolis is looking to take more of a “bite” out of people who don’t license their pets.

The fines may double for those who don’t have the licenses.

A city council committee just approved that proposal last night… and the full council will vote next week.

Right now, the fine for not registering a dog or cat is $100, the new fine would be $200.

It’s estimated that 200-thousand cats and dogs are kept in Minneapolis … but only about 11-thousand are licensed.

The big reason for the fine increase is to help pay for the more than 15-thousand animal control calls the city gets each year.

What you think about the increase fines? Are they warranted? Is this enough of an incentive to get people to buy the license?

Have your say right now inside the box.

Comments (33)
  1. Gloria says:

    the bottom line is this – the cities are broke – and they will do everything possible to find more funds. The people who are not working and not stable financially right now will not buy the license. So the people who are working, no matter how much or how little, will end up carrying the burden for all of the city.

  2. Gary says:

    Disgusting. Another tax aimed at the people who can least afford it. This when other suburban cities have eliminated these fees. Glad I don’t live in MPLS. This is not the way to add revenue to the city coffers.

  3. amy says:

    I have lived in MN for over 10 years, and I was not aware that pets needed to be licensed. I asked a few of my coworkers and none of them knew of the law either. I always thought getting a rabies shot meant your pet was licensed. So the best way to get pet owners to pay is to inform them of the law. Most of them would be willing to hand over the $6-10 and avoid a fine.

  4. Kathy says:

    Heavily fine the pet owners who are not responsible owners. I had a problem with the neighbors dogs coming in my yard and attacking my dog. They didn’t get a fine, just a slap on the wrist. This happenned two different times. Maybe a hefty fine would have stopped the second attack.

    1. Shari says:

      You think a dog license would stop dogs from attacking your dog? You are talking about two completely different subjects. All a license does is give government more money to waste

  5. Karla Velez says:

    wow that is a bit expensive, and i agree MN is trying to charge for everything these days and it is just sad how the suburbs have more money and more funds than the city of mpls.

  6. Doggy Mama says:

    Many of the West Mpls suburbs have eliminated the pet license laws because:
    1. It costs too much of the taxpayer’s money to process the paperwrk
    2. Only responsible pet owners are the one’s that license their pets, for the most part.
    The city very rarely gets a complaint about pets that are owned by responsible, unselfish owners.
    The threat of a fine will do NOTHING to make the irresponsible/selfish owners suddenly change into responsible citizens. I can see only more money shelled out by the taxpayers, when the people caught w/out a license bring the city to court for catching them breaking the law.

  7. soapster says:

    The city of Minneapolis and it’s council members can piss off. If my dog were to get lose then it is my responsibility to find my dog. And, should my dog bite someone while on the lose then said victim may very well press charges.

  8. BK says:

    They’ll probably form a new union complete with pensions and benefits for pet license enforcers, and teh cost will exceed the license fees generated.

  9. Janet Douglas says:

    This is not about dogs & cats. It is about this new web site. CBS is not Minnesota and I object to it taking over my favorite station. I guess I will be forced to chose another local station to get my hometown news.

  10. Brian Macht says:

    police officers ticketing normal people instead of doing there real job, just another example of gov. gone wrong. Its all about money its always about money. Leave me alone

  11. Nancy Aleshire says:

    I have always had my dogs licensed, but cats–give me a break. I do not live in Minneapolis, but my cat stays indoors. She is spayed, declawed and has all her shots, but getting Kiki licensed–NO WAY

    Nancy Aleshire
    Brooklyn Park

  12. karen says:

    Frank said, “It makes sense.” i don’t think so! When only 5% are registered does it occur to people that the cost is steep? The goal is to have registered animals, right? Make it much less expensive to license and increase the number licensed. People from all socio-economic levels have pets and in this economy it is more and more difficult to afford their care let alone their license.

  13. Stan says:

    If people choose not to license their dogs then they shouldn’t take them to the off-leash parks. Those fees pay for the maintenance of the parks which we are so fortunate to have in our city. And – they shouldn’t call animal control either. I live in Minneapolis and have paid the fees for years for our dog. The real issue is Minneapolis property taxes.

  14. karen says:

    wrong email previously provided

    Frank said, “It makes sense.” i don’t think so! When only 5% are registered does it occur to people that the cost is steep? The goal is to have registered animals, right? Make it much less expensive to license and increase the number licensed. People from all socio-economic levels have pets and in this economy it is more and more difficult to afford their care let alone their license.

    1. megan says:

      Totally wrong and ridiculous! Just another way for the city to get money from the people. Pets are part of many peoples families….including families that have lost their jobs in this economy. The cost for vet bills and vaccinations is enough. Do you think that making people license their pets is gong to make then vaccinate…if they havent already done so?? No, they are either going to vaccinate, or not, and making people pay more fee’s, that have NOTHING at all to do with pets, is a big mistake. This state is getting out of control!!!

  15. Larry says:

    Just another instance of “Big Brother” attempting to control or restrict every aspect of one’s existence. Register this, register that– fees, fees, fees. When will the sleeping sheep tire of being sheared while they sleep? Foreign citizens are revolting in their streets, while we worry about creating a “wave” that could jeopardize what we’ve worked for… Talkin’ ’bout dat house– U still got one? Lets just all keep wandering aimlessly, while the government continues to run for the fortunate few, at the expense of many… BAAAAAAAA-BAAAAAA!!!!

  16. Pat Brusky says:

    In this economy it’s hard enough for some people to afford to keep their pets. This can only put pressure on owners to give up their pet to the Humane Society where it will sit in a cage or more than likely be put down.

    1. Mark from MNtaxwaste says:

      Well said sir

  17. Larry says:

    I done knew I’n shoulda turnnede dat dere dog in ven he done bit dat guys leg off. Darn no good dog…. Iffin ida registeeered dat dumb dog & theyda done had his numbar, heeda stopped forn he bit thru dat guys leg…

    Von itty bitti lil’ fee, alls kept me from turning dat dog inta autorities. Hes a goin’ in now– dat dog iz vun dog-gone dog. Badd dog. Stay. donne bite I say. he no lisin. Dis dog iz doggone.

  18. Mark from MNtaxwaste says:

    It just blows my mind when I read this kinda stuff, more taxes. This has nothing to do with pets, it’s another way to get OUR MONEY! Did they not learn anything from the last election? OUR government might think we will forget, but just ask Pres Obama, and Pelosi. We will not forget, and we will remind them AGAIN in the next election.

  19. Mark from MNtaxwaste says:

    If any of the rest of you readers learn, or know of any wasted tax dollars, such as this. Please email us and let us know mark@mntaxwaste.com

  20. dlsorg says:

    This is a ridiculous, back***wards way to try to “help fund” Animal Control! IF the licenses were LESS expensive then MORE pets would be licensed thereby making it less work for Animal Control to deal with all the Lost Pets! There is a “Pet Crisis” going on right now, more than ever before, with many people barely able to just to keep their pets fed and vaccinated. How can Mpls possibly think this is supposed to help the problem?!! So oblivious!!!

  21. mike says:

    Owning a pet isn’t a nessesity. If a person doesn’t have the means to properly care for it then don’t have one. Then there is no reason to license it. Just a comment about cats. Nancy , you seem to be a responsible cat owner, but how about all the cats that aren’t taken care of and spend time doing their thing in the back yard like hunting birds, mating and having more damm cats. Pet owners that can’t be responsible shouldn’t have pets. Period.

  22. Mary says:

    Once again, it’s all about getting money out of the poor taxpayers. It’s not fair for everyone to have to license their pet. Many of us pay to have chips put in our pets. That should eliminate the need for a license. How does Minneapolis know how many pets are licensed or not? A Census? Give me a break !

  23. Derrek Anthony Rued says:

    ok im only 20, but the way i see it is that if you want a pet the you will pay for the licence. who’s to care if they raise the fine if your pet is licensed? if they raise the amount it takes to get the license and the fine at the same time then the city might notice a rise in unlicensed pets, because of the amount of money it takes to get the pet, care for it ( vet visits, food, place to live, tags, all that to keep the pet living you know) license and other stuff. i think its perfectly fine that they want to raise the fine for non-licensed pets. this is about generating more money for the city, and this is one of the non intrusive ways of doing it. they could want to raise the income tax and then everybody must pay no matter what, but they chose a fine that nobody will have to pay in the first place if they go by the rules.

    1. Mark from MNtaxwaste says:

      Derrek, First go read our Constitution about the rights of citizens and taxes. You might be surprised about what rights we do have re taxes, and how they are imposed on us. Second it sounds like you don’t have a pet and that is fine with me, but you must have something that you care about. Lets say you have a big SUV, and the city says anybody with a SUV must pay an extra $200 a year because of the damage they say it does to the roads. Does that sound right? I would like to read your answer.

  24. richard says:

    Another tax in the land of 10,000 taxes and the dems do a happy dance!! Away with the little people! They pay the taxes and the dumbocrats spend, spend and spend!! And Dayton admits he will raise taxes during the campaign and the Kool-Aid drinkers go for it!! You deserve what you get!!

  25. A Northwoods Naturalist says:

    As a pet owner and advocate for responsible pet ownership, I do believe licensing pets is an absolute necessity. You may not think it necessary, especially for cats, but you cannot absolutely say for certain that your pet will always be under your control. This does not just apply to attacks, but even your animal being on the loose. Animals are unpredictable, especially if stressed, and even the most comfortable house cat may bolt outside if something happens. Fire, flood, storm, etc. There is no worse a feeling than knowing your animal is on the loose, and found or not, may not make it back into your arms. The license insures that if your pet is lost and is recovered, that it’s information will be at the hands of those who may possess it. It makes things easier in getting your pet back into your care. And in the case of an attack, provoked or not, it makes things much easier during the legal process.

    Just because you live in the country doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have your pets licensed. We have 4 cats and 2 dogs, and they are all licensed and have their vaccinations up to date. The 4 cats never leave the home, but I cannot ignore the possibility that something might happen. I want them back as soon as possible, and having the license is a big help. I worked in a couple shelters as well as at an animal control facility, and there was no better feeling than getting the information that an animal found was licensed. Even if it had no collar or tag, it still made it very much easier to track down owners. And it gave the owners a way to prove their animal was in our possession. There were many times that owners could not prove by law that they were the owners of the animal. Regulations are usually for the animal’s well being, but sometimes it can hinder things.

    I understand these are hard times, and everyone deserves to have an animal companion to keep them happy and even safe. But pet ownership is not cheap. You don’t need to get your animal’s claws painted or have gilded rhinestone collars with their names on them, but a license should be a part of the essentials. And if you feel you cannot afford the costs that come with responsible pet ownership, perhaps you should re-think whether or not you have the ability to care for them. You cannot expect to simply get by with just food and occasional shots. You have to have a fallback in case of health problems or legal issues (deposits, attacks, lost pet recovery).

    I do agree the amounts may need to come down a bit on license fees and no license fines, but it should still be there to ensure people do what is necessary to keep their pets safe, as well as others. Education needs to be more available to pet owners so they know that licenses are a very good idea, even having ‘license drives’ to offer less expensive pet licenses.

    Regulations and laws regarding animal welfare and responsibility are still in many cases in their infancy. This is just another issue that people need to discuss openly and send feedback to those who wish to implement it.

  26. help says:

    wcco.com web traffic since website redesign, down by 62% according to alexa. Data for last 7 days,


  27. disappointed says:

    The new site is terrible.

  28. Hiker says:

    The only type of animals I usally notice are those wild ones like RODENTS, RATS, SQUIRRELS, and HARES, etc. So if the council thinks those are pets, they are actually barking up the wrong tree.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

More From WCCO | CBS Minnesota

Good Question
Best Of Minnesota

Watch & Listen LIVE