Upon initial review, the case was sent back to the trial court for entry of new orders. The Appeals Court seemed to indicate that Fur-Ever Wild may only possess one wolf on the property. An exception is made for any 'temporary" animals that Respondent Storlie may be responsible for in his capacity as an animal control officer. Further, it appears the court approved limiting any horticultural sales to only those products produced on the property. "[T]o the extent that they legally possessed exotic animals under the townships ordinance, the exhibition of such animals is...legal" "The district court found that Petter possessed one wolf before the ordinance's enactment...possession of any exotic animal other than one wolf does not qualify for this exception." "Storlie may possess these animals only to the extent that such [temporary] possession is associated with his duties as an animal control officer." Of interest in the FACTS section of the opinion by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals, "Petter noted that the number of animals fluctuated during the year because of breeding and pelting seasons." The next steps in this lengthy process are yet to be determined. ### Original Post: We will translate this language when we have our attorneys read the ruling. In the meantime, you can read the full opinion below. http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Court%20of%20Appeals/Holiday%20Opinions/OPa170020-090517.pdf HOOTEN, Judge Appellant township challenges the decision of the district court invaliding its exotic animal ordinance, Eureka, Minn. Ordinance Code (EOC) 3, Chapter 7, Section 3 (2017), on the basis that it conflicts with state law. In their related appeal, respondents challenge the district court’s order: (1) barring respondents from conducting exhibitions and sales relating to their possession of exotic animals; (2) determining that respondent Daniel Storlie is not an animal control officer within the meaning of an exception to the ordinance; and (3) limiting respondents’ horticultural sales to only products produced on the property. We reverse the invalidation of the township’s exotic animal ordinance and reverse the injunction prohibiting respondents from having exotic animal exhibitions and related retail sales on their property. But we affirm the district court’s order limiting respondents’ horticultural sales to only products produced on the property. Relative to respondents’ possession of exotic animals, we affirm the district court’s application of the grandfathered ownership exception to the exotic animal ordinance, but we reverse the district court’s decision that Storlie is not an animal control officer within the meaning of that exception to the ordinance and hold that he may possess exotic animals in conjunction with his work. We therefore remand to the district court for the issuance of an order enjoining respondents from possessing exotic animals except those identified within the exceptions to the township’s exotic animal ordinance and from exhibiting exotic animals except as allowed under the township’s legal, nonconforming use provision.