According to the NAIA Trust media release, NAIA Trust now has the help of a Michigan attorney who is involved with UKC and who is a dog person, shows dogs, etc. Supposedly Ms. Sara Chisnell, Esq. will focus on expanding state and federal outreach by promoting reasonable law, policies and regulations to protect animals/people who care for them.
Of course, Ms. Chisnell will be working on the legislation side which will then help animal owners rather than AR non profits which seek to either overreach, overspend, overcompensate, or completely illegalize that which is not illegal to begin with.
The only downside that we see is that she did graduate from the Michigan State University College of law which IS AR leaning..we say this because if you ever read the cases that are posted on the animal law site, they always focus on the bad cases against owners, and when cases come up that are in owners favor, they are not emphasized. In part, one of the key reasons we believe and have seen the taint of AR leaning emphasis is thus admitted to some extent on the site itself:
“While this is not an advocacy site, the expression of opinions in a free and open discussion of all issues is the best path to good policy adoption and implementation.”
“It should be noted that Professor Favre has been advocating increased legal protection for animals for over 25 years, but this does not diminish the goal this Web Center to have all views present and to allow an open debate.”
“None of the materials on this site should be construed as representing an opinion or position of Michigan State University College of Law. The College takes no position on any animal issue, but has adopted this project to provide information to the legal community and society in general. The College does not advocate any political position or political candidate as a result of the existence of this Center.”
We have been reading the site for many years and trust us, it is AR leaning when it comes time to de-emphasizing cases that are good for owners, but then pushing the cases for animals. They then allow their writers to write opinion pieces using such winning cases for animals, but few are done when the cases favor the owners.
Therefore, if you are looking for published cases for owners, or animal owners, don’t depend on that site. If you want cases that punish owners, they will definitely have the cases. Our opinion.
The normal person who knows zero about animal law cases would not notice it, but we noticed it many years ago.
We believe if given an opportunity, they would publish every single winning case that punished an owner and didnt take owners side. For every owner winning case, we don’t even believe they are all listed of course. We are sure of it. Just like ALDF and HSUS. Same stream, just not at that highest level.
Because it is an animal oriented site, not animal OWNER.
As is stated on their site—
“….[t]he focus is on what the law is now
and what the law ought to be.“
Meaning—– what the law ought to be is…
more AR leaning in their opinion, period.
AH HA……Just calling a spade a spade. Ask the Monkey.