Appeals court rules against large dog kennel in Little Falls

(AP) - The Morrison County Board's decision to grant a conditional-use permit for a commercial dog breeding kennel was "arbitrary and capricious" because the board acted with limited information about the debarking of dogs, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel reversed the conditional-use permit for Gary McDuffee's dog kennel and sent the issue back to the county board for reconsideration.

"It's a good day for animals in Minnesota, despite the weather," said Tim Shields, general counsel to the Minnesota Federated Humane Societies, which had asked the Appeals Court to annul the permit allowing McDuffee to operate a 600-dog breeding operation on 40 acres near Little Falls.

The land is zoned as agricultural, but dog kennels are allowed with a conditional use permit.

The proposed kennel has created outcry in the community and among animal advocates because of its size, its possible environmental impact, and McDuffee's intent to debark the adult dogs.

Phone messages left Tuesday with McDuffee and with his attorney were not immediately returned to The Associated Press. But attorney Douglas Anderson told the Star Tribune his client now has 200 dogs at the kennel and none is debarked.

Instead of debarking them, he said, McDuffee has insulated his buildings and will keep the dogs indoors.

In January 2006, the Morrison County Board approved the conditional-use permit, based on a sparsely attended public hearing and information they had received about debarking of dogs, according to the Appeals Court decision.

After granting the permit, the county received a flood of information in opposition to debarking. In a Feb. 7, 2006 letter to McDuffee, the county stated "that since the earlier vote, the county board had learned that surgical debarking is overwhelmingly disfavored within the veterinary community and that many allege it is inhumane."

The county also instituted a moratorium on dog kennels so it could study the issue. McDuffee's permit had already been granted and the moratorium did not apply to him.

MFHS had argued the practice of debarking dogs by removing vocal cord tissue or using shock collars breaks the law because both techniques are cruel and inhumane and that the county acted arbitrarily.

"MFHS properly asserts that the board's decision is arbitrary and subject to reversal where, as here, a governing body failed to consider an important aspect of the problem," the Appeals Court judges wrote in the 23-page decision.

"Further, the February 7, 2006 letter sent to McDuffee indicated that the county board realized that it had not had the benefit of documentation in opposition to the debarking procedure and belatedly made a statement opposing surgical debarking," the judges wrote. "In light of this information, it is apparent that issues of animal welfare must be addressed."

Tim Houle, county administrator, said officials will now determine whether the moratorium would apply to McDuffee, in light of the timing of the Appeals Court decision.

"We had said all along that it would've been very, very beneficial to have had the benefit of all the information supplied to us ... at the time that the board was considering it," Houle said. "The Appeals Court was indicating they were going to give us the chance to take that information into account ... we agree with that."

Shields said if the issue goes before the county board again, "we will scrutinize any action that they are taking."

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)