Winona County commissioners vote to bar new commercial dog-breeding permits

The Winona County Board of Commissioners voted on a motion to proceed with an ordinance amendment that would remove commercial dog-breeding kennels as a permitted conditional use, effectively preventing new commercial breeders from obtaining permits in the county.

The vote follows more than three years of public hearings, planning-commission reviews and repeated public comment. The change comes after lengthy testimony at the county board meeting in which dozens of residents, veterinarians, breeders and rescue volunteers spoke for and against a ban. Commissioner Priscilla Olson moved to reject the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt findings supporting the amendment; the motion carried after discussion and a voice vote.

Supporters told the board they had compiled scientific and testimonial evidence they say shows harm to breeding dogs and puppies in large-scale commercial operations. Commissioner Olson cited peer-reviewed studies and testimony presented to the Planning Commission showing “psychological trauma and long-term harm to dogs” that she said can arise from repeated confinement and repeated breeding cycles. Animal-welfare advocates emphasized concerns about enforcement gaps at the federal and state levels and urged the county to act.

Opponents — including local licensed breeders, kennel operators and representatives of breed rescue groups — said many Winona County facilities already meet high standards. Several speakers, including Tim Scharmer and others who described AKC registration, state and USDA inspections, argued that removing permitting would push operations to neighboring counties with fewer standards and would not reduce demand for dogs. “If somebody wants to come into Winona County, follow the rules, build a facility, and provide good animals, why can’t they?” Tim Scharmer told the board.

County staff and counsel walked the board through the procedural record and legal framework. Assistant County Attorney Steve Kranz and planning staff described a long administrative record of public hearings, planning commission findings and interim ordinances dating back to 2016 and emphasized that the county is entitled to adopt zoning measures to protect public interests. Kranz explained that, if enacted, the amendment would not retroactively revoke existing conditional-use permits; conditional-use approvals “run with the land” under state law and would remain in place unless permit conditions were violated.

Board members were divided on policy and consequences. Some commissioners warned that banning new permits would simply move the breeding activity elsewhere; others said county land-use powers and the general welfare standard permitted action to protect companion animals. Commissioner (surname) Begley and others who supported the ban said the change would protect dogs and reflect strong public input: “When I go to bed at night I want to feel as if I have done what I said in the very beginning, which is…protect animal welfare,” Olson said during debate.

The board adopted verbal findings during the meeting and directed staff to prepare formal written findings and the final ordinance language for publication. Counsel said the amendment will take effect after publication in the county’s legal notices; a specific effective date was not available at the meeting and staff said it would be included with the published ordinance. The board also instructed planning staff and county counsel to prepare the formal resolution/ordinance and bring it back for the record.

What happens next: staff will draft the formal ordinance amendments and the written findings discussed at the meeting, publish the legal notice and post an effective date. County counsel said the board’s written findings will be used to support the ordinance if the change is challenged in court.

Context: The issue drew sustained public comment at multiple planning commission hearings and at county board meetings. Public testimony included both longtime licensed breeders who said they already meet strict standards and rescue/advocacy groups who said federal and state oversight is insufficient to prevent harm in some commercial operations.

Votes at a glance: The board approved the motion to adopt findings and proceed with the ordinance amendment by voice vote; the meeting record shows aye and nay responses but no roll-call tally was read into the public minutes.

The board did not alter existing conditional-use permits; staff emphasized that current permits remain valid unless enforcement action finds a violation.