This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of mandate by which appellant sought the return of six American pit bull terriers. The majority opinion concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s conclusion that these are “dangerous animals” within the definition of the San Mateo County animal control ordinance. While I disagree with that holding, I believe the trial court’s decision should be upheld on the alternative grounds that appellant was properly denied ownership and control of these dogs. He therefore has no standing to contest the department of health services’ further finding that they are dangerous animals. (See People v. Kings Point Corp. (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 544, 549 [233 Cal.Rptr. 227].)
The ordinance provides that any animal kept under conditions constituting a violation of the animal control ordinance may be impounded. Following a hearing, the owner’s rights to ownership and control of the animal may be lost. In addition, the animal may be declared to be dangerous. Thus, the hearing held in this case resulted in two independent findings: that these animals were dangerous; and, that appellant lost all rights of ownership and control of them. Appellant recognized the independence of these two findings in his petition for a writ of mandate where he stated, “The hearing officer found that petitioner would lose all rights of ownership and control of said animals. Furthermore, the hearing officer found the animals can be declared dangerous animals . . .” (Italics added.) If there is sufficient evidence to support either finding, the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed. (See 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 259, p. 266.)
The evidence in support of the hearing officer’s finding that appellant should lose ownership and control of these animals was overwhelming. A police detective testified at the hearing that appellant was a known dogfighter against whom criminal charges were pending. A videotape reviewed by the hearing officer showed a dogfighting ring constructed inside appellant’s garage. It also depicted appellant encouraging two dogs in that ring to fight. Appellant admitted that the animals he seeks to recover were bred from fighting stock. When seized, the mother had multiple, severe lacerations of recent origin and scars evidencing approximately 75 to 100 wounds all over her body. Although appellant has never possessed these animals since their birth, the evidence is sufficient to support the hearing officer’s conclusion that he kept the dam, and therefore her puppies, in conditions violative of the animal control laws.
*1535Since appellant has not established that the hearing officer abused his discretion when he ordered the loss of appellant’s rights of ownership and control, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court denying a writ of mandate.
Appellant’s assignment of rights in these animals cannot alter the validity of the trial court’s judgment. Since appellant did not have possession of the animals when he “assigned” them, all he assigned was a potential cause of action for the conversion of personal property. The assignment of such a “chose in action” merely transfers the interest of the assignor. (Civ. Code, § 954.) Prior to the hearing to determine whether appellant should be deprived ownership and possession of these animals, he was accused of violating Penal Code section 597.5 (dogfighting). Those charges clearly jeopardized his rights to ownership and control of these animals under the ordinance. Indeed, before the hearing on his petition for a writ of mandate, appellant was convicted of these charges and, as a condition of his probation, prohibited from owning any dogs. Since the assignee “stands in the shoes” of the assignor and is subject to any judgment rendered against him, appellant’s assignee has no greater rights to these animals than he does. (See Civ. Code, § 1459, Code Civ. Proc., §§ 338 and 385; 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Contracts, § 948, p. 844.)
In sum, I would affirm the trial court on the grounds that neither appellant, nor his assignee, has an ownership interest in these animals. It therefore follows that they have no right to their possession and no standing to contest the department of health services’ findings.
The ordinance defines a “dangerous animal” as one that demonstrates any of the following behavior; attacks another animal without provocation; or, creates a danger or constitutes a menace to the public’s health and safety due to its training or the inherent nature of the animal. In the view of the majority, only the “inherent nature” test of the ordinance could be applicable here. I believe that the majority applies too limited a test and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the hearing officer’s finding that these animals are dangerous within the meaning of the ordinance either because of their demonstrated behavior or their training.
Appellant admitted that the animals had been bred from fighting stock, the dam had multiple, severe lacerations of recent origin, and evidence of approximately 75 to 100 wounds all over her body. The manager of animal shelter services, the manager of animal control services, and the shelter service’s staff veterinarian observed these animals and testified that they “have dangerous propensities including extremely aggressive behavior *1536requiring the puppies to be housed separately so they would not injure each other.” The hearing officer, who was the district supervisor of the office of environmental health, personally observed the animals. He “noted that their behavior was consistent with the testimony” of the two managers and the veterinarian. The evidence is therefore sufficient to support the hearing officer’s finding that these animals are “dangerous” within the meaning of the ordinance, hot only because of their inherent nature, but also due to their demonstrated behavior of attacking without provocation. (See Northon v. Schultz (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 488, 490 [279 P.2d 103] [evidence that an excitable dog in the habit of jumping on people, which was kept in the basement as much as possible for that reason, dashed against the legs of appellant at the first opportunity is sufficient to support a finding that the dog had a trait which made him dangerous to the safety of others].) In addition, the evidence that these animals were raised in a humane society shelter, with little or no human socialization, would support the hearing officer’s finding that they are dangerous within the meaning of the statute because of their training, or in this case, the lack thereof. (See Talizin v. Oak Creek Riding Club (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 429, 434-435 [1 Cal.Rptr. 514, 80 A.L.R.2d 878] [failure to provide training to prevent a horse from jumping out of the show ring and into an area where spectators could be injured supported a finding that the horse had a vicious propensity].)
My fundamental disagreement with the majority, however, concerns their holding that the evidence does not support the finding that these animals are by their “inherent nature” dangerous. The majority rejects the assumption that, because of their breeding, these animals are a menace to public safety. The majority hold that the subjects of heredity and genetics require an expert’s opinion. Any layman, upon encountering a six-month-old puppy he knew to have been bred from fighting stock—that exhibited “dangerous propensities including extremely aggressive behavior”—would immediately recognize that animal as a menace to his health and safety. I submit no expert’s opinion is required (see Miller v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1973) 8 Cal.3d 689, 702 [106 Cal.Rptr. 1, 505 P.2d 193]); however, even if expert testimony were required, a doctor of veterinary medicine testified. The other witnesses were the manager of the Animal Shelter Service and the manager of Animal Control Services. We may assume from their positions that each had considerable experience with animals and that their background would be known to their departmental supervisor, who was the hearing officer in this case.
The finding that these animals are dangerous does not compel their destruction. They can be released to anyone with a “dangerous animal permit” who agrees with the humane society as to the conditions under which *1537they will be kept. Although this possibility may be remote, the public deserves at least this much protection from 6 three-year-old, aggressive and untrained dogs, of a breed recognized for its unusual strength and tenacity.