[accmemberdiscussion] YES....it could happen to you
- From: Djsdosido@xxxxxxx
- To: accmemberdiscussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:42:20 EST
IT COULD HAPPEN
TO
YOU
>
By D. Jay Hyman
>
> In Pennsylvania, two well-known and widely
respected members of the dog fancy were charged with animal cruelty; one
was
coerced into surrendering some of her dogs to the local dog warden; in
Maryland,
two dogs were seized from their owner's kennel yard, and she was charged
with
animal cruelty while she was at a dog show; and again, in Pennsylvania,
the
owner of a pack of hunting Basset hounds was charged with twenty-two
counts of
animal cruelty.
>
> What do these incidents have in
common? The charges were unfounded; none of the individuals involved
was found guilty of cruelty! And in each case, the charges were filed by
overzealous animal control officers who, as a matter of principle, oppose
breeders and in at least one case, were former employees of the Humane
Society
of the United States.
>
> These are not isolated
incidents. Similar incidents are occurring all over the country.
Breeders and exhibitors need to recognize that they could be next; and
must be
aware of their rights under the law. Each of the individuals in these
cases incurred thousands of dollars in legal expenses, and it could
happen to you.
>
> Mimi Winkler (Bichon Frise) and James
Deppen (Neapolitan Mastiffs), both long-time members of the fancy and AKC
judges, had a hobby breeding kennel in Pennsylvania. In December 2009 the
local
Dog Warden (the Warden) visited their kennel, as he had semi-annually for
the
previous five years. He found no violations. He returned in April 2010
with two other wardens when Ms. Winkler was alone and claimed there were
numerous violationsâ, for example, that some of the Bichon Frises had mats
in
their hair. The Warden told Ms. Winkler that she could avoid criminal
prosecution only by surrendering her dogs. Unaware that state law
gave her 72 hours to correct any problems, she tearfully allowed the
Warden to
take her beloved dogs. The wardens also alleged that some of the
Neapolitan
Mastiffs owned by Mr. Deppen needed veterinary care for eye problems,
apparently
because they did not know that exposed haws are normal for the breed--and
left a
notice to have them examined by a vet. Interestingly, the Warden did
not want to seize the Neos, just the small dogs!
>
> In June
2010 Pennsylvania filed dozens of charges under the animal cruelty section
of
Pennsylvania law: specifically, depriving the dogs of adequate veterinary
care;
there were no allegations or charges that the dogs were ill-treated,
abused or
neglected. In July the Warden filed an additional five charges against
Winkler and four against Deppen. Thus there were at least 60 charges
against
Winkler and Deppen.
>
> Mimi Winkler has bred Bichon Frises
for more than twenty years; she has won National Specialties, won
multiple
Bests in Show and Group wins at all breed shows, including owner-handled
wins at Westminster Kennel Club. Dogs she bred have won at the Garden and
Eukanuba. Her dogs have been exported and shown to wins in Sweden and
Japan. Winkler was President of Longshore-Southport Kennel Club for 4
years, and
president of the Nonsporting Group of the Garden State for six years.
>
> Jim Deppen is one of the pioneers of Neapolitan Mastiffs
in the U.S., at the forefront of the introduction and admission of the
breed to
AKC registration. He has always been regarded as a knowledgeable and
respected
handler, breeder and judge. In his career he bred or handled top-ranked
Neos, Shar-Pei, Havanese, Mastiffs and Newfoundlands. He has Best of
Breed
wins at National Specialties and Westminster.
>
> The charges
against Winkler and Deppen were widely reported in the dog press and
elsewhere,
sometimes accurately, sometimes not. Sadly, many members of the dog fancy
immediately concluded that they were guilty as charged and publicly
attacked
them. The AKC put both parties on referral (for registration purposes)
pending the outcome of the case.
>
> Prior to this incident,
Winkler was one of the most highly regarded breeders in the country.
Deeply embarrassed, she withdrew from her judging assignments and even
stopped
going to dog shows. Deppen, equally well-regarded, also withdrew from
judging
assignments, and stopped going to dog shows.
>
> Winkler and
Deppen hired Patrick Reilly, a prominent and respected criminal attorney
with
Gross McGinley LLP, a large firm in Allentown, PA. A trial by an elected
Magistrate Judge was scheduled.
>
> Numerous issues were
raised at Trial:
>
>
1. Were the
seized dogs "suffering" from anything more serious than matted coats?
There was
no evidence that any dog had sores, lesions, parasites or other damage
under the
matted coats. Winkler and Deppen's veterinarian testified that in years
of
examination he had never found unusual health problems with their
dogs.
>
>
2 Did
the photographs of the dogs shown at trial include every dog, or just a
few in
different poses? Were they even Winkler's dogs? There was evidence
that the alleged chip numbers did not belong to any of Winkler's live
dogs, but
rather of dogs that had died. There were no allegations that any specific
dog
was mistreated.
>
>
3. Were the
photographs of the premises, fencing, walls, and runs actually taken at
the
Winkler/Deppen kennel? The former owner of the property, herself an AKC
judge,
testified that at least some were not.
>
>
4. Did that
fact that all three wardens were previously employed by HSUS have anything
to do
with these charges being brought?
>
>
5. Were the
charges motivated by sexual harassment as charged by Winkler? At least two
other
women (in unrelated matters) also alleged that they had been harassed by
the
Warden. Was this retaliation for Ms. Winkler's refusal of his
advances?
>
>
6. Were the
seized Bichon Frise dogs placed and an adoption fee charged without any
need for
correction to the so-called
problems?
>
>
> The Magistrate Judge was not an attorney. Such Magistrates
typically deal with violations of the Motor Vehicle Code, and minor
instances of
animal cruelty, they do not normally preside over extensive trials. This
trial lasted three days; there were about twenty witnesses from both
sides.
>
> The Magistrate Judge dismissed all but 11 of the 60
charges, but found Winkler guilty of five charges including animal
cruelty. Deppen was found guilty of four charges of animal cruelty; and
both were found guilty of operating a kennel without a license.
>
> Under Pennsylvania law, findings by a Magistrate are not
final; Winkler and Deppen were automatically entitled to appeal and have a
brand
new trial in the municipal Court. Upon the filing of the appeal, the
Magistrate's ruling is voided. The law provides that the defendants are
considered innocent and that the Commonwealth must prove the guilt of the
accused parties. Normal rules of evidence apply.
>
>
Before the new trial could occur, the prosecutor offered to drop the
cruelty
charges against both Winkler and Deppen if they would plead guilty to
operating
without a license. Usually, such plea bargains are offered if the
prosecutor believes that there is not enough evidence of wrongdoing for a
conviction. Pennsylvania has a program called Accelerated Rehabilitative
Dispositionâ, essentially probation before judgment. The defendants are
given a period of time, in this case 60 days, to correct the problems, and
if no
other violation occurs, the charges are dismissed and the record expunged
(erased). There will be no record of any kind that Winkler or Deppen was
ever
charged with cruelty.
>
> Attorney Pat
Reilly, who represented Winkler and Deppen, stated to me that the
Pennsylvania
Trooper who filed the animal cruelty charges was pleased with the result.
She apparently believed that she was brought into the case by the Warden,
who
failed to disclose all the facts. The prosecutor who handled the case
acknowledged that he had learned that Winkler and Deppen were not animal
abusers. Reilly stated one of the photos is not even from Mimi and Jim's
kennel. The photos show urine and feces to a minimal degree, consistent
with a
kennel that is cleaned daily. The other charges are so de minimis [minor]
as to
be ludicrous.
>
> In the Maryland case, local animal control
officers seized two large dogs from the owner's kennel run, apparently
because
they had received a report that the dogs were outside in the rain. The
weather was clear and no rain was forecast when the owner left in the
morning;
in any event, both dogs had access to two large igloo-type dog houses.
One
of the officers, who has publicly stated that all dogs should be spayed or
neutered, took the position that the igloos did not comply with the local
ordinance requirements for shelters. He seized both dogs and took them to
the local pound, and charged the owner with cruelty.
>
> The
owner immediately engaged legal counsel; nonetheless, she was required to
replace the shelters before the dogs were returned to her. Her attorney
notified the county attorney that she intended to vigorously defend
herself, and
subpoenaed official documents. The charges were ultimately dropped
completely, and the local ordinance was amended to make it clear that
igloo-type
shelters complied with the law. She incurred legal expenses and costs to
replace the shelters and her dogs spent 3 days in the shelter. The owner
visited daily and on each visit had to insist that someone mop up standing
urine
and scoop feces in the run.
>
> Recently, Pack Master Wendy
Willard, of the Murder Hollow Basset Pack in Pennsylvania, was charged
with 22
counts of animal cruelty, and after 14 months and a trial, all 22 counts
were
withdrawn (legal fees probably exceeding $100,000). The basis for many of
the charges was that the dogs had untreated cherry eye, and again, the
wardens
were not aware that the breed has exposed eye haws. Or perhaps there is a
more sinister interpretation, The wardens were aware, but deliberately
misrepresented the facts to try to make a case for
cruelty.
>
> What can we learn from these cases? Most
important, it can happen to you or to any of us. As a first line of
defense, be sure you know what the law is in your state or locality
(generally,
local law cannot require less than state law, but it may be more
stringent). Ask a local attorney to speak to your group about the law. If
an animal control officer or warden asks to go through your kennel, ask
for
identification and determine if he has a warrant or other authorization
before
you consent. Do not allow yourself to be intimidated or threatened, and
above all, do not give up your dogs without first checking with an
attorney. Be polite and non-confrontational Be polite and non-
ground.
>
> Perhaps more importantly, recognize that the
animal rights movement, and especially PETA and HSUS, have embarked on a
campaign to eliminate breeding, and ultimately ownership of dogs in this
country. They are attempting to co-opt state and local animal authorities
to further this agenda by placing their people as animal control officers
and
wardens, enacting laws and regulations that limit the number of dogs you
can
have, and filing baseless charges against reputable dog breeders to
discredit
them and to create situations causing embarrassment and expense. They
often use coercion, intimidation and threats to accomplish the surrender
of the
dogs who are then turned over to "rescue" organizations who typically
rehome
them for a substantial fee and before a determination of guilt or
innocence. Don't let it happen to you!
>
> Sadly,
the dog fancy often believes rumors and jumps to the conclusion that being
charged means being guilty, and condemns other fanciers without having the
facts. If fanciers turn on each other, they further the HSUS agenda.
In the Pennsylvania case, there was a public outcry against two people who
were
ultimately found not guilty of anything except letting their kennel
license
expire.
>
> Have you ever gotten behind on your paperwork and
let a license expire? Did you ever skip cleaning the kennel yard for a
day
or two because you had the stomach flu? Are your older dogs matted, even
though they are clean and healthy? Does your breed have a
characteristic that an ignorant or malicious warden could claim was an
untreated
medical condition? If the answer is yes to even one of these questions,
you could find yourself accused of animal cruelty; charged with crimes; or
threatened and intimidated into giving up your dogs.
>
>
Fortunately, in the U.S. you are always deemed to be innocent until you
are
proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty. Give your fellow
fanciers
the same benefit--learn all the facts before you draw a conclusion. If
there is a court proceeding, wait until it is over before you take any
action or
make any statements.
>
> The American Kennel Club,
commendably, takes the position that everyone is innocent until proven
guilty. Although the standard AKC penalty for any conviction of involving
cruelty to animals is a ten-year suspension, no penalty is imposed until
there
is an actual criminal conviction. I do not disagree that a judge, handler,
or
owner may be put on temporary referral until the charges are proved or
disproved.
>
> In the cases discussed above, all the
cruelty charges were dismissed, however, dogs were seized (and some were
not
returned), the owners spent thousands of dollars to defend themselves
against
baseless charges and suffered the condemnation of a community that should
have
supported them. Never forget--it could be you next
time.
Donna & the Dosido Gang
Remlap, Alabama
Visit me at _www.mydoublenickellife.blogspot.com_
(http://www.doublenickellife.blogspot.com/) and help support the Alabama
Canine Coalition by
shopping/searching through _http://www.goodsearch.com_
(http://www.goodsearch.com/) and _http://www.igive.com_
(http://www.igive.com/)
Every year of dog love is worth seven years of the human stuff. (Michael
Rosen)
Other related posts:
- » [accmemberdiscussion] YES....it could happen to you - Djsdosido