Attorney C. Chan has spent years working with and researching animal law cases in California, and keeping updated on national cases.


Of particular interest in animal cases, are the rights of defendants who are often charged with elements of alleged "abuse" when in fact
there is no actual abuse. Negligence such as failure to feed or water animals is one thing, but having seen cases where all dogs or puppies
are seized, all horses are seized, rescued cats seized, etc.--- for no reason, other than a permit was required-- is ridiculous.
That is not animal abuse. However, by finding something like smears under one eye, discharge from one eye, ear was dirty, nails on
front paws need trimming, etc, are not animal abuse and do not rise to level of animal abuse generally.


In California, the Penal Code on animal abuse is likely the largest conglomeration of law in the USA. We see activists shutting down and 
outlawing petting zoos, pony rides, animal displays, animal shows, rodeos, circuses and sale of animals, including any puppies that have been obtained from "commercial kennels" which are regulated under APHIS.  APHIS regulated commercial kennels are legal, but to hear the
activists explain it (with emotional tweak and crying)-- a commercial kennel is illegal. Commercials on TV try to portray animals in dog
fights, seizures, and in poor conditions; shows like Animal Planet basically function to portray everyone as an abuser because their animal
was not taken to the vet.


If one goes to the local pound in a fairly large metro area, one will find there are a lot of mixed breed animals, some that are cute, and
some that we know will never get a home. Recently we visited several shelters where the dogs are almost free ($10.00 each) and there
were a few dogs that might make good pets for non-novice owners, but for the most part, upon reading the data that goes with each dog,
many of the dogs had behavioral issues, toy guarding, can't be with children, must have adult home with it all day, not potty trained, and
known overly barking.............


People are blamed in general, for animals ending up in shelters, and basically, let's face it-- people should be blamed for kids that enter
gangs, that commit crimes, and that kill people. But surely many of the animals in shelters were pets that became displaced due to facts
such as divorce, moving, loss of employment, and other financial issues. Most landlords do not rent to pet owners, much less a dog such
as pitbull (generic), mastiff, rottie, chow, etc.  Instead of trying to help people properly train their animals, activists do exactly the opposite
and promulgate the killing of certain breeds (think "pitbull" type), the outlawing of certain breeds, the culling of certain breeds, and blacklisting of breeds.  This only drives the desire underground, without any regulation, and tends to make the situation even worse.
Actual behavior of the animal is what should be counted; knowledge of general breed disposition should be required. Novice owners often
fall prey to animal activist theories such as never buy a puppy, always adopt a stray.  Or, don't breed or buy while animals die in shelters.


The fact is that most people with children should BUY an animal where they have already researched the breed, and the disposition type is
correct for the family home. Training should be required of the animal, with kids being required to learn safety with dogs. A puppy is preferable, but a younger dog may be OK IF the parents know about dogs, and are not novice owners. Novice owners who fail to research training and care prior to buying are likely the worst candidates for proper ownership and will often end up abandoning the pet. It is almost
never recommended that children who have never had a dog, obtain an unknown dog from a shelter.  Without knowing the background of the dog, if it has bitten before/how many times; if it has been used to kids-- temperament testing does NOT always catch every flaw of
every animal.  This is how some animals in shelters end up severely harming owners, or kids, or even killing them.


Although attorney is very familiar with animal rescue and has rescued and placed hundreds of dogs, and traveled to many shelters to pull
animals, a "rescued" animal is not necessarily the best animal for every home. Obtaining a dog in particular, requires some experience in
having handled canines. Most disease is not detected simply by viewing an animal.  Our position is to save the best behaved and to only
save the worse medical cases only where one has the funding in advance for that purpose. Rescue is a numbers game, NOT a medical
donate-to-save-me-because-I-am-a-poor-little-rescue-animal game.  The more animals saved lowers the kill rate. Yet activists USE the
plight of shelter animals to gain emotional propaganda for their own coffers, and to brainwash everyone into thinking that buying or
breeding should be completely illegal. Their brainwashing plan is to convince no one to ever buy a dog, much less a cat, bird or rabbit.
Unhealthy, unfit, untrained, and outright dangerous animals, are often pushed upon the unwary by activists. This should be avoided since
the entire premise here, is to gain an emotional foothold for blame, in order to support the donation cause.  All rescues must gain donations
since if there are no donations, they cannot possibly run the rescue enterprise.

http://www.thedogplace.org/ShowPlace/Ear-Crop-Tail-Docking-History-1_129.asp

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR ARTICLE.........BELOW IS JUST A SMALL PORTION.............

...[E]ar Cropping, Tail Docking, and Animal RightsAs was included in a position paper by the Utah VMA (Resolution 4, reported in JAVMA News, June 15, 2009), “Cosmetic ear cropping and tail docking of dogs has little or no therapeutic basis.” The truth of that statement will sooner or later be universally accepted, whether reluctantly or not, but until it is, I will oppose forced adherence to someone else’s time schedule; compliance should be voluntary.

We should keep the HSUS and PeTa monsters out of our hobbies, homes, and kennels. That will not be easy, as opponents of breed-specific legislation have found: you stomp out one little fire someplace, and half a dozen are lit in other communities.....


The problems with perception re "animal abuse" have risen in monumental proportion that bears no semblance to reasonable reality.
Basically, animal "abuse" is pretty much anything Animal Control says it is, regardless of how the Penal Code is worded. That is because just about any ONE thing to Animal Rights people, can be construed as "abuse"--- such as, one eye of the dog had smears under it...one ear was
dirty.........all paws were muddy...........all fur was muddy.........3 toenails needed clipping........ tail was docked.............