The Minneapolis City Council wants to ban Dumbo.

The council is considering an ordinance that would bar any circus from coming to its city if it has animals.

Critics, such as the Shriners who host and raise money from a big circus each year, argue that a circus without animals is, well, not a circus.

They could, I suppose, have humans fill in ...

“And in this ring, the Amaaazing Zazal will have Bob roll over as he cracks his whip ...”

But that just seems wrong.

Council members favoring the circus-animal ban are, apparently, trying to make a statement against cases of cruelty to animals.

A few years ago we went to a circus at the civic center in Mankato.

I should have known it might be a disappointment. It wasn’t a big name circus like Ringling or Barnum & Bailey. It was something like Fred’s Circus.

I got free tickets. I paid too much.

It was apparently a training grounds circus, a minor league club where performers practiced until they were good enough to work at a real circus. The performers had heart, if not skill. The animals had neither.

The lion wasn’t fierce. He looked like he wanted to cuddle up on the couch with someone, eat Cheetos and watch TV.

The elephant came out with his trainer. He walked in circles OK, but didn’t want to step up on the big drum, bow, stand on his back legs or do anything else any self-respecting circus elephant does.

I’m nice to animals, but I was ready to go out and give the elephant a whoopin’.

I don’t know anyone who wants animals to be mistreated, but it doesn’t seem like banning circuses would be much of a help. I’m sure circus owners are like farmers, ranchers or pet owners: Most care about their animals and treat them well, some are indifferent, and a few are cruel.