DOGGIE DEFENDERS

So who are we? We are attorneys in private practice that love dogs and all dog-related things! In this day and age of owners and dogs facing increasing scrutiny on different fronts, we feel it is important for owners to have counsel who can not only defend them, but for the attorneys to have knowledge and experience in the canine area as well, in order to best represent clients.

Shown at left is   baby staff                 mix,pondering the Kory Nelson (aka the Exterminator in Colorado) theory of why       bulls are allegedly more "dangerous" and     that BSL is "justified"...

It is our personal goal to eradicate beliefs and laws   claiming BSL is legitimate--it is NOT, and it never will be. When court day arrives, we shall see who is right.

***UPDATE MARCH 2006

A complaint   has been filed in   Sacramento, CA by   national dog   advocacy group American Canine Foundation,   to overturn SB861---in addition, the same group will be intervening into the lawsuit filed in San Francisco, CA which is mostly challenging the same law as to service animals. We do not believe the plaintiff has adequately protected the rights of DOG OWNERS and our group is considered to be an expert in the area of canine legislation involving breed issues.

FLASH! on 03/03/06, the Sixth Circuit   Appellate Court, Ohio, issued a published, precedential decision finding the BSL law of Toledo to be UNconstitutional on not one, BUT THREE separate grounds!   This case was brought to task by the American Canine Foundation, over a span of three, long years, and represents a very MAJOR victory for all dog owners across the nation.

You can see the decision as reported by the AKC at akc.org. ***The state of Ohio has appealed/is trying to obtain a "stay" to stop the new law finding their BSL unconstitutional. We are filing our Response to the case this week. If the state of Ohio rules that the case should be heard, the appeal will be at the Ohio Supreme Court.

The MEDIA is responsible for many people believing whatever is put in front of them, whether it is factually true or not!! New legislation recently submitted to the governor, in California, signed by governor   and implemented in January 2006,   allows counties to enact laws which may affect ONLY certain "specified" breeds of dog, as to the altering (spay/neutering) and breeding of such dogs. There is no known exemption   written into the law (many laws exempt show dogs, working dogs, service dogs, therapy dogs.) Therefore, it would seem that if actually implemented, the entire line of that particular "breed", whether it be German Shepherds, Rotties, Pitbulls, Chows, etc.--could be eliminated in California.

Several Bay area counties have already implemented their own ordinances, but only one challenge filed by another   Plaintiff (Chako) is in San Francisco Federal Court. According to reliable sources,  The Plaintiff is a corporation and its lead person is Dawn Capp.  Ms. Capp led the failed referendum to overturn sb861, Ms. Capp requested $1,000 fee breeder permits, and Ms. Capp supports the American Dog Owners Association, which has lost nearly every  constitutional challenge  it ever filed, against BSL. Further, reliable sources implicate the same person for setting up anonymous web pages attempting to discredit, misrepresent, and cause doubt as to the ability of ACF to represent cases appropriately---yet, ACF is the only group in the United States which has helped achieve the only known precedential, published case involving a finding at the Appellate Court Level, where BSL was found UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  It is our belief that Ms. Capp seeks to discredit those who have actually obtained success as compared to her failure in failing to stop BSL, despite her attempted press coverage of the subject.

If you doubt this, google ADOA and look for any cases they have from the 1980's through the 1990's.

In 1991, the ADOA gave expert testimony by Robert High that pitbull dogs

WERE DANGEROUS AND NOT ALLOWED into the  AKC.

That case has been used extensively to further BSL across the country. Furthermore, ADOA took in nearly $1,000,000 of donations and kept asserting the same  no-merit,  constitutional argument, over and over, losing and losing and losing each constitutional challenge. What kind of attorney does that???

One that obviously doesn't want to WIN. Or said another way, one that seemed intent on LOSING.

In the next few weeks, Federal litigation will commence against DENVER, CO to challenge their laws. Kory Nelson has killed over 1,000 dogs since last year, and he adamantly will keep going until we take him down.     We are not fanatics, we are litigation people, and we know what we want to do.   For some reason, people do not like hearing the truth about  PETA,  and the   alleged overpopulation situation.   In 2001, HSUS themselves admitted that there is no technical   overpopulation due to the euthanasia having dropped by 2/3 from 21m to 3.9m, and when accounting for the discrepancies in the shelter records, it is likely to even be lower than estimated. Spay and neuter only addresses numbers, not temperament.

New evidence has come to light  re "fatal attacks" by canines, a high percent of them appear to have been done by former shelter dogs, rescued dogs, and dogs that have been passed from one home to another.   This indicates that some temperament testing may have been done incorrectly, or not at all.
(This does point   to the need for allowing reputable, responsible breeders to give owners access to quality pets.) Mandatory spay and neuter does not curtail "dangerous dogs". Nathan Winograd, of no kill fame, does not endorse "mandatory" spay and neuter.  In many documented cases, mandatory spay/neuter has proven to be ineffective.

The recent proposal being submitted by Los Angeles mayor is  to mandatory spay/neuter all dogs.   It was initially proposed as singling out just BSL dog breeds, then expanded to all dog breeds. When a county is unable to contend with the dog population as a whole, and enforcement is extremely limited, one can only wonder how enforcement of sterilization is going to take place, and what effect sterilization will have on whatever their intentions are..........I personally think it is completely asinine.     A subsidized spay/neuter program  is a better approach. They currently utilize the mobile spay for low income, but it was only recently reintroduced.   It remains to be seen how long this will take to have an appreciable effect.

It should be noted that the "no kill plan" for Los Angeles designed by Ms. Laws has a tenet wherein she advocates to call all pitbull/pitbull types "unadoptable" and suggests that these dogs be categorically singled out as not adoptable and not allowed to enter Los Angeles County after a restriction is passed on "unadoptable" dogs.

I can assure you that we will 100% contest any such regulation which seeks to label the dog as "unadoptable" which is no different than "dangerous."

SB861 is a law which is implemented under the Dangerous Dog Statutes

of the California codes, despite its incongruous and ridiculous wording.

Implementation of SB861-induced "ordinances", will vary from county to county, and will   likely give rise to new legal issues such as how the code will be implemented, who would be responsible for enforcement, how such enforcement can be paid for, how such penalties, if any (for non compliance) are applied, whether there will be due process for contesting such penalties, whether animal control can validly ascertain which exact breed the dog may "look like", and the list goes on. The inherent "implication" is clear; if a specific breed is named, it is believed that the dogs, and the actions of these dogs, must either be curtailed, or the breed eliminated or seriously downsized. (Why else would there be mandatory breeding controls?)

There are many issues facing dog owners today, including being charged with animal abuse on unfounded "facts", being accused of having "too many" animals, allowing an animal to roam at large, being accused of not properly taking care of an animal, allowing a pet to damage another's property, selling a pet without the proper advisement on lemon law pups, failing to adhere to the proper contractual guarantee in the sale of a dog, selling a dog at too young an age, misrepresentation in the health of a dog sold, having a pet seized without proper cause.

In one case we are aware of, animal control seized dogs on the owner's property, then took dog droppings from the garbage and spread them about on the floor inside, and claimed that the owner did not take proper care of the dogs. Acts like this are terrible, but don't think it can't happen ! (For a very interesting legal theory,   Google the "open fields doctrine", often used by animal control, to seize animals on your property.) AT LEFT IS NIKKI WITH BUBBA DURING THE PIT BULL WALK IN SACRAMENTO 2005

In another instance, canine handlers for prisons were suspended from using their trained dogs at work because it was alleged that somehow a handler did something wrong when his dog floored an inmate via the proper method. The handler was suspended from his job and the other canine handlerswere not allowed to use their dogs on the job. The case as to the handler was won on appeal, and the reinstatement of theworking canines are pending. (Union counsel handled the administrative appeal.)

In some instances, animal control authority seems to be focused more on adding to the problem rather than helping to solve them. We have seen animal control officers direct hearings with no procedural safeguards in place for the owners. Sometimes these administrative hearings are called "dog court", and for the unrepresented litigant, poses a serious legal challenge. The adage "How much justice can you AFFORD" is no exception in the dog world!