National Dog Press "FREEDOM" Magazine - "Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity." BOYCOTT CHINA Skinning Dogs ALIVE for Fur!

Are YOU a Loving Animal Rescue or No Kill Animal Shelter or the SCAM of an Animal Rights Activist Agenda (VIDEO)

 

Are YOU a Loving Animal Rescue or No Kill Animal Shelter or the product of the SCAM of an Animal Rights Activist Agenda (VIDEO)

When Police or Animal Control Come Knocking On Your Door; What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know

When Police or Animal Control Come Knocking On Your Door; What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know

By NationalDogPress.us and AnimalsClubFreedom.us

 

24 June 2012

Dog owners and ethical breeders are increasingly being targeted. Disgruntled neighbors may retaliate against dog owners and may other reasons drive complaints, and anti-dog enforcement action, which many times may be conducted illegally.

The following text outlines methods of inquiry and enforcement which may be used by local officials in attempts to enforce ordinances in your community and suggested techniques of response. These techniques are entirely legal and based upon the rights of citizens as stated by the U.S. Constitution.

No breeder wants to have Animal Control come knocking on the door...but if they do, it will help if you know what your options are.

Remember, Animal Control is law enforcement. They are bound by the same Constitution as any other government agency. To protect yourself, you need to know your rights. These vary slightly one jurisdiction to another, but some general principles apply. One rule applies everywhere: never physically resist an officer.

When Animal Control is At Your Door:

Do not let them in, no matter how much they ask. Animal Control generally cannot enter your home without a warrant, or your permission. While regular police can enter in emergency situations when human life is at risk (i.e. they hear gunshots and a scream inside), there are few, if any, situations in which Animal Control can enter your home without a warrant. Simply tell them they may not come in.

 - If you let them in, anything they find in "plain sight" can be used against you. In some circumstances Animal Control officers, unable to find a legitimate reason to make an arrest, have reported building or zoning violations. This may include caging you attached to a wall without a building permit, that extra outlet in the puppy room, having more pets than allowed by zoning, even extension cords in violation of fire codes! No matter how clean your kennel, if they want to find a violation, they will. 

 - Do not talk to them from an open doorway. Step outside and close (and lock if possible) the door behind you. This is necessary because:

A) Anything they see through the open door is "plain sight" and may be the basis for an arrest, or probable cause for a search warrant.

B) If they make an arrest or even feel threatened they are usually permitted to search for weapons in your immediate area. Do you keep a baseball bat inside the door for your protection? Even if you don't, once they step inside to look, they are in your home and may continue to search.

C) It is hard not to be intimidated by someone in authority. Some animal control is even done by local police, who carry guns. It is easy for them to get "in your face", causing you to back up into the home. Once you go in, it will be interpreted as an invitation to follow.

 - If they claim to have a warrant, demand to see it. In general, a search warrant must be signed by a judge. A warrant to search your home for dogs does not include an inventory of your jewellery box. A warrant to search your kennel in the garage or in the barn does not include a search of your home.

 - In some locations dog owners may have obtained special "breeder permits" that stipulate that Animal Control has your permission to enter at any time. If you have signed such a permit they still cannot enter against your wishes, since you can revoke the permission at any time. However, if you refuse permission it may allow them to cancel your breeder permit, so you have to weigh the consequences.

- Warning - anyone in lawful possession of the premises may be able to give permission for a search. Make sure your roommate, babysitter, dog-sitter, housekeeper and other know that they should not let animal control into your home or on your property (i.e. backyard, garage, etc.).

How to Handle Questions:

Don't answer any questions beyond identifying yourself for the officer. Anything you say to the officer in your defence cannot be used in court (hearsay). Anything you say that is harmful to you will be used in court (confessions are not considered hearsay). You cannot win, except by remaining silent.

 - Be polite but firm. Do not argue, bad-mouth, curse, threaten or try to intimidate the officer.

 - Do not lie to an officer, ever. However, it is NOT a lie to exercise your right to remain silent.

 - Keep your hands in plain sight. People have been shot by police when common objects, such as a wallet, were mistaken for a gun.

 - Do not touch the officer in any way. Do not physically resist an officer, no matter how unlawful his or her actions.

 - Don't try to tell your side of the story, it cannot help.

 - Do not threaten the officer that you plan to file a complaint for their actions.

- If the questioning persists, demand to speak to a lawyer first.  Repeat as necessary.

 

Gathering the Facts:

Get the name and badge number of each officer involved. If he/she does not volunteer this information, ask.

- Ask the name of the agency they represent. Different agencies have different enforcement responsibilities.

- Ask why they are there. Request the factual basis of the complaint and the identity of the complainant.

- If they have other people with them (Humane Society, press, etc.) get the names and organizations for all present.

- Note the names (and addresses) of any witnesses to the encounter.

- If you are physically injured by an officer, you should take photographs of the injuries immediately, but do not forego proper medical treatment first.

- Write down all of the information, as well as the date and time of the incident immediately, while details are fresh in your mind.

- If you rights are violated, file a complaint with the appropriate body.

If You Are Arrested:

 Remain silent. Answer no questions until you have consulted with a lawyer.

- Don't "explain" anything. You will have time for explanations after you have talked to a lawyer.

- Within a reasonable time they must allow you to make a phone call to get a lawyer or arrange bail. They are not allowed to listen to your phone call to your attorney, but they may "monitor" the rooms for "your protection". Do not say anything you do not want them to overhear; save that until after you are out on bail.

Telephone Inquiries or Threats:

You may receive telephone inquiries concerning the number of dogs you own and whether any dogs or puppies are for sale. Other questions may also be asked.

Your response should be to inquire "Are you interested in a puppy?". If the answer is "yes", ask that person for his/her name, address and phone number. Suggest that you or a responsible breeder will contact that person at a more convenient time for you.

If the answer is friendly and genuinely inquisitive, invite the person to look at your puppies.

If the question asked is "What is the price of each puppy?", simply say that puppies of this type are being sold for between "X" and "Y" dollars. Never say that you are selling them.

If the question asked is "Are these your puppies?", you should ask, "Why do you want to know?".

If you conversation indicates that the person is representing the county clerk's office or allegedly representing an official body, ask the caller for:

• Full name, title and phone number

• Agency's full name and full address

• Their supervisor's full name and phone number

• Nature of the inquiry (what it is about)

• Why the inquiry is being made

• How your name and phone number were obtained

• Ask that all future questions from that agency be submitted in writing

  
  

Preventative Measures:

Always keep you kennel clean and take good care of your animals.

- Consider a P.O. Box or other address for business cards and advertisements. Keep descriptions of your location general (i.e. Southern California, rather than the name of the city where you live). The internet can provide anonymity for initial contacts. You can even buy a "remote prefix" to get a number from a nearby community forwarded to your phone or to a voice mail. Avoid local newspaper classifieds, they are often monitored.

- Screen any potential puppy buyers carefully. Always be alert that they may be Animal Control or even Animal Rights working under cover.

- Don't allow strangers into your home until you have screened them.

- Be fair and honest in all of your dealings, and be on good terms with your neighbors. Most animal control contacts are complaint-driven. Some complaints may arise as harassment by people with unrelated grievances against you. It may be a disgruntled dog buyer or a cranky neighbor who doesn't like you parking in front of his house.

- Anything about you that can be observed in "plain sight" from the street or sidewalk can become probably cause for a warrant. Even areas on your property open to visitors can be dangerous. Be aware of which areas of your home are visible from the outside and plan accordingly.

- If you are confronted by Animal Control and turn them away, assume they will be back. Use the time available to make sure everything is clean and presentable. If you are over the limit on the number of pets, find friends who can provide temporary shelter for your dogs.

- Whatever you do, stay calm and keep your wits about you.

- Just say "no", no matter what threats or promises of leniency they make.

- When in doubt, say nothing and speak to a lawyer afterwards.

### 

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)
 
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."


PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK:

Click Here to 'DONATE' to Protect Pet Owners with Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom Nat. Org. Inc.  


Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.
 
Copyright © 2006-2012,  Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress.us News, All Rights Reserved

 

Before animal control authorities remove your dogs from private property, demand “due process”

Our Sexy Staff (In Costume) of the National Dog Press

 

Before animal control authorities remove your dogs from private property, demand “due process”

Due process is ‘not’ provided to dog owners in animal control ordinances before government authorities remove or euthanize their dogs from private property.

  

By Dean A. Ayers

Lead Investigative Reporter

NationalDogPress.us  ©

17 JUNE 12

How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Seizure/Euthanasia Cases?

Despite the fact that animals are still considered property in all legal jurisdictions today, due process, whether rooted in the federal or state constitutions, extends to life, liberty, or property. The more complicated issue, however, is how much process is due?

The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh

-the private interest affected by the official action

-the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,

-the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and

-the government interest involved.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

Due process requires the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Thus, when individuals can show they will suffer irreparable harm from a post-deprivation hearing, courts has recognized that a pre-deprivation hearing is necessary. In the case of orders to euthanize pets, many courts have considered the loss to the pet owner as irreparable. Rabon v. City of Seattle (Rabon II), 107 Wash.App. 734, 743 (2001) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333).

Before the Hearing: Filing a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction

Dog owners should file a petition for an injunction to delay the killing of the dog until they have had the chance to be heard in court (For an actual example, see Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in the case of Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990), which involved a Pit Bull named “Max” who was impounded and classified as dangerous because he allegedly killed the neighbor’s dog. The Circuit Court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted and enjoined the city from killing or otherwise harming Max. The court ordered the city to release Max and change his dangerous designation to potentially dangerous.)

Overriding the Decision – Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Due process includes more than just going through the motions of a hearing. In fact, even after hearings have been granted, decisions can be challenged as a prejudicial abuse of discretion that is not based on findings of fact or law. (This is what the owners of Boo, a bull mastiff who allegedly bit a child, argued in Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)). In this case, owners should file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a judicial remedy issued by a superior court to compel a government officer to do or forbear from doing a specific act, to delay the euthanasia order until the appeal can be heard. This writ of mandamus applies in any situation in which the euthanasia should be stayed, including scenarios in which an original hearing was never given.

Minimum Standards of Due Process for the Hearing

It is now also clear that hearings must meet certain minimum standards. Informal reviews that animal control agencies frequently provide upon the dog owners request often do not fulfill these requirements, because the decision-maker may not be qualified to render the judgment or may not be impartial if he also made the original decision to euthanize the dog. For example, in Phillips v San Luis Obispo County Dept., 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist., 1986), the owners of Missy, a black lab known to have a bad habit of biting children, contested the city’s decision to euthanize her. The amicus brief filed by Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund pointed out the Municipal Codes at issue did not provide for the Animal Regulation Directors orders to be reviewed by the Chief Sanitarian of the County Health Department or the supervising environmental health officer, the two individuals who presided over the first and second hearings.

Challenges to the Ordinance Itself

In fact, many city ordinances are flawed in that they fail to specify that owners are entitled to hearings before their pets are euthanized. These municipal codes can be challenged as unconstitutional and, even if the city already granted hearings that met minimum due process standards, the decision to euthanize the pet would still have to be overturned. Otherwise, whether dog owners generally would receive due process would be at the whim of the animal control agency, and the city could avoid having to correct its municipal codes simply by voluntarily giving all dog owners a hearing. The court of appeals in Missy’s case agreed, concluding that the ordinances here are unconstitutional for failure to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog.

Most recently, in a landmark case, the court of appeals in Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1, 2006) held that due process required even more than offering owners a hearing, ordering that an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence. This is the same standard of proof imposed on the government when it attempts to temporarily remove a child from the custody of his parents. By instituting a burden of proof on the city, the court was essentially finding that the dog must be presumed innocent until the city can prove otherwise. Previously, there had been no standard of proof, and reviewing courts would only look to see if Animal Control had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus, even the most minimal evidence that a dog should be removed would suffice, and owners would bear the burden of proving their pets innocent. Moreover, the court found that due process attached not only for orders to euthanize an animal, but also for orders of removal outside the county (Peter Mansour had been ordered to remove his dog from the county or turn his dog over to the city to be euthanized after his dog was accused of killing a cat).

Finally, the court held that due process required Mansour to have the ability to subpoena records and witnesses in his defense, and that the Notice and Order of Violation had to specify exactly what code provisions had been violated. Merely issuing a brief and concise description of the conditions for finding the violation is insufficient. Mansour was entitled to know ahead of time exactly what the County needed to prove at the Board hearing. If in fact it could not prove that Maxine violated a code provision that supported the removal order, he [Mansour] was entitled to know that in time to move for a dismissal at the Board level. Source Reference: Animal Legal and Historical Center.

There are some significant problems with animal care, control, and dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions.

1. They do not reduce the number of neglect, abuse, or dog bite incidents that are legitimate in law. By focusing on the after-effects of the animal complaint of alleged neglect, abuse or a dog bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent future neglect, abuse, animal care, pet owner control, or prevent dog bites. In theory, the risk of animal care and control ordinance punishment is for a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous or the owners to be abusive or neglectful. So the perception is that these animal care and control laws are for ‘other’ dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a dog complaint, incident or dog bite allegedly occurs, that particular dog owner may face additional liability, but his/her friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs. These animal care and control laws ‘do not’ work as a viable solution.

2. The animal laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most animal care, control and dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from “threatening displays” to actual bites to simple care, and control of the dog(s). What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an under socialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are. Additionally, animal care and control laws are intentionally ‘vague’ and ‘interpretive’ by animal control authorities. Thus the facts of alleged animal care and control, is rarely ‘pure’ and never ‘simple.’ And may not even be factually the ‘truth’ except by a personal (opinion) ‘interpretation’ of the animal control authority.

What it comes down to is this.

Dangerous dog laws, and animal care and control laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that that authorities are taking action, even with a simple animal care or control complaint or a dog bite incident.

Unfortunately these animal laws do not provide any protective effects to change animal – owner behavior, merely punishment after the fact. There are many things that a community can do to prevent dog bites, animal neglect, animal abuse, or other care and control issues, including educating dog owners, parents, rural families or farmers, and citizens how to supervise and when to intervene in kid-and-dog, or dog-and-dog, interactions, teaching dog owners how to socialize and train their dogs with methods that encourage friendly behavior and providing some basic animal education about canine body language so the many misunderstandings we have with dogs each day can be reduced in their care and control issues.

Dog owners need to learn how to defend their dogs from ‘rogue’Animal Control Authorities before they are confiscated, seized, and euthanized before you (as the dog owner) can obtain Legal Counsel.

###

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger. Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.us Headline News ©, and AnimalsClubFreedom.us news press services.

 http://www.linkedin.com/in/AnimalsClubFreedom

 

PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK: 

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2012,  Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress.us News, All Rights Reserved

Before animal control authorities remove your dogs from private property, demand “due process”

Before animal control authorities remove your dogs from private property, demand “due process”

Due process is ‘not’ provided to dog owners in animal control ordinances before government authorities remove or euthanize their dogs from private property. 

By Dean A. Ayers

Lead Investigative Reporter

NationalDogPress.us  ©

 

21 Feb 12

How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Seizure/Euthanasia Cases?

Despite the fact that animals are still considered property in all legal jurisdictions today, due process, whether rooted in the federal or state constitutions, extends to life, liberty, or property. The more complicated issue, however, is how much process is due?

The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh

-the private interest affected by the official action

-the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,

-the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and

-the government interest involved.


Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

Due process requires the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Thus, when individuals can show they will suffer irreparable harm from a post-deprivation hearing, courts has recognized that a pre-deprivation hearing is necessary. In the case of orders to euthanize pets, many courts have considered the loss to the pet owner as irreparable. Rabon v. City of Seattle (Rabon II), 107 Wash.App. 734, 743 (2001) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333).


Before the Hearing: Filing a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction

Dog owners should file a petition for an injunction to delay the killing of the dog until they have had the chance to be heard in court (For an actual example, see Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in the case of Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990), which involved a Pit Bull named "Max" who was impounded and classified as dangerous because he allegedly killed the neighbor’s dog. The Circuit Court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted and enjoined the city from killing or otherwise harming Max. The court ordered the city to release Max and change his dangerous designation to potentially dangerous.)


Overriding the Decision - Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Due process includes more than just going through the motions of a hearing. In fact, even after hearings have been granted, decisions can be challenged as a prejudicial abuse of discretion that is not based on findings of fact or law. (This is what the owners of Boo, a bull mastiff who allegedly bit a child, argued in Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)). In this case, owners should file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a judicial remedy issued by a superior court to compel a government officer to do or forbear from doing a specific act, to delay the euthanasia order until the appeal can be heard. This writ of mandamus applies in any situation in which the euthanasia should be stayed, including scenarios in which an original hearing was never given.


Minimum Standards of Due Process for the Hearing

It is now also clear that hearings must meet certain minimum standards. Informal reviews that animal control agencies frequently provide upon the dog owners request often do not fulfill these requirements, because the decision-maker may not be qualified to render the judgment or may not be impartial if he also made the original decision to euthanize the dog. For example, in Phillips v San Luis Obispo County Dept., 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist., 1986), the owners of Missy, a black lab known to have a bad habit of biting children, contested the city’s decision to euthanize her. The amicus brief filed by Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund pointed out the Municipal Codes at issue did not provide for the Animal Regulation Directors orders to be reviewed by the Chief Sanitarian of the County Health Department or the supervising environmental health officer, the two individuals who presided over the first and second hearings.


Challenges to the Ordinance Itself

In fact, many city ordinances are flawed in that they fail to specify that owners are entitled to hearings before their pets are euthanized. These municipal codes can be challenged as unconstitutional and, even if the city already granted hearings that met minimum due process standards, the decision to euthanize the pet would still have to be overturned. Otherwise, whether dog owners generally would receive due process would be at the whim of the animal control agency, and the city could avoid having to correct its municipal codes simply by voluntarily giving all dog owners a hearing. The court of appeals in Missy's case agreed, concluding that the ordinances here are unconstitutional for failure to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog.

Most recently, in a landmark case, the court of appeals in Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1, 2006) held that due process required even more than offering owners a hearing, ordering that an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence. This is the same standard of proof imposed on the government when it attempts to temporarily remove a child from the custody of his parents. By instituting a burden of proof on the city, the court was essentially finding that the dog must be presumed innocent until the city can prove otherwise. Previously, there had been no standard of proof, and reviewing courts would only look to see if Animal Control had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus, even the most minimal evidence that a dog should be removed would suffice, and owners would bear the burden of proving their pets innocent. Moreover, the court found that due process attached not only for orders to euthanize an animal, but also for orders of removal outside the county (Peter Mansour had been ordered to remove his dog from the county or turn his dog over to the city to be euthanized after his dog was accused of killing a cat).

Finally, the court held that due process required Mansour to have the ability to subpoena records and witnesses in his defense, and that the Notice and Order of Violation had to specify exactly what code provisions had been violated. Merely issuing a brief and concise description of the conditions for finding the violation is insufficient. Mansour was entitled to know ahead of time exactly what the County needed to prove at the Board hearing. If in fact it could not prove that Maxine violated a code provision that supported the removal order, he [Mansour] was entitled to know that in time to move for a dismissal at the Board level. Source Reference: Animal Legal and Historical Center.


There are some significant problems with animal care, control, and dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions.

1. They do not reduce the number of neglect, abuse, or dog bite incidents that are legitimate in law. By focusing on the after-effects of the animal complaint of alleged neglect, abuse or a dog bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent future neglect, abuse, animal care, pet owner control, or prevent dog bites. In theory, the risk of animal care and control ordinance punishment is for a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous or the owners to be abusive or neglectful. So the perception is that these animal care and control laws are for 'other' dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a dog complaint, incident or dog bite allegedly occurs, that particular dog owner may face additional liability, but his/her friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs. These animal care and control laws 'do not' work as a viable solution.

2. The animal laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most animal care, control and dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from "threatening displays" to actual bites to simple care, and control of the dog(s). What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an under socialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are. Additionally, animal care and control laws are intentionally 'vague' and 'interpretive' by animal control authorities. Thus the facts of alleged animal care and control, is rarely 'pure' and never 'simple.' And may not even be factually the 'truth' except by a personal (opinion) 'interpretation' of the animal control authority.


What it comes down to is this.

Dangerous dog laws, and animal care and control laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that that authorities are taking action, even with a simple animal care or control complaint or a dog bite incident.

Unfortunately these animal laws do not provide any protective effects to change animal - owner behavior, merely punishment after the fact. There are many things that a community can do to prevent dog bites, animal neglect, animal abuse, or other care and control issues, including educating dog owners, parents, rural families or farmers, and citizens how to supervise and when to intervene in kid-and-dog, or dog-and-dog, interactions, teaching dog owners how to socialize and train their dogs with methods that encourage friendly behavior and providing some basic animal education about canine body language so the many misunderstandings we have with dogs each day can be reduced in their care and control issues.


Dog owners need to learn how to defend their dogs from ‘rogue’ Animal Control Authorities before they are confiscated, seized, and euthanized before you (as the dog owner) can obtain Legal Counsel.

 

###

 

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger. Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.us Headline News ©, and AnimalsClubFreedom.us news press services.

 http://www.linkedin.com/in/AnimalsClubFreedom

PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925


Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.
 
Copyright © 2006-2012,  Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress.us News, All Rights Reserved