VA -- Staunton -- Jean Cyhanick Trial ends with guilty finding ...

...on several dozen charges including some of the animal cruelty charges. That means that under VA law she'll never again be able to sell a dog.

These cruelty charges stem from dental calculus on many of her (small and toy) dogs' teeth. Recall that Virginia law says that 'emergency veterinary treatment' is defined as:

>> ... veterinary treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition,
>> alleviate suffering, prevent further disease transmission, or
>> prevent further disease progression.

The prosecutor's interpretation of that was that the last clause -- 'prevent further disease progression' makes failure to provide treatment for ANY condition that may progress, into an offense that can be charged as cruelty. The jury bought that interpretation.

She was convicted on some other counts; the charges included selling two puppies a week under age (she got confused about which litter was which, when the buyer told her she offered a refund, an exchange, or bring the puppy back for a week but he said the only thing he'd accept was another pup from the same litter. Then after he got the second
pup, he turned her in.

She didn't have all the info required by VA's 'puppy mill' law for the dogs she had sold.

She may have had slightly over the 50 dog limit; that picture is confusing (some dogs were boarders or guests) and I don't know what the jury decided.

I think that was about all; when I find out exactly which counts (besides the cruelty) she was convicted on I will post the information.

Total fines look like a few thousand -- the jury obviously felt some pity for her since the cruelty counts can go to $2500 each and/or up to a year in jail. Plus court costs, of course. There are usually other little add-ons; I don't know about those yet.

On request from the prosecutor, the judge ordered that she dispose of all but four of her dogs.

Most of the court time was devoted not to proving the charges, but to proving that Ms. Cyhanick is a 'puppy mill.' They did this by stressing the number of females, the number that are pregnant or had puppies and a lot more of that sort of thing.

Much was made of the fact that defendant's calendar showed one whelping date and the card on the pens showed a different one. This seemed to be additional proof that Ms. Cyhanick was a 'puppy mill.' If you're a breeder, you're probably chuckling at that, but the court didn't know enough to be able to figure it out.

Basically she was tried for being a 'puppy mill' (not an offense AND not charged) but as a result, convicted of a bunch of other stuff. Good tactics by the prosecutor, I suppose, but how he sleeps at night, I don't know.

I'm not clear why the judge allowed all that rubbish: Material presented in a trial should bear on the specific charges being tried, and the 'puppy mill' material, did not. I'm even less clear why the defense didn't object to the presentation. It may have been because
the judge seemed biased against him and he feared making things worse by objections.

Bless his heart, the judge fell asleep a couple of times -- but only briefly and not during important testimony. And the ACO perjured herself quite blatantly AND GOT CAUGHT. However her lying was gratuitous -- nobody has any idea why she did it -- and it was
immaterial to the charges. There was no sign that any action would be taken.

The state veterinarian's representative (a DVM) repeatedly stated the gestation period of dogs as 65 days.

In his rebuttal to the defense's closing statement the prosecutor announced that Ms. Cyhanick's daughter had lied when she said that a certain dog was hers: His 'proof' was a notation on Cyhanick's calendar that a dog with that name was bred. The truth is that both
mother and daughter had dogs with that name, but there was no way to bring that out. So daughter's dog counted against mom's numbers. Again, clever tactics.

My correspondents say they never imagined that a court could be so thoroughly corrupt. Ms. Cyhanick spent a few minutes after the verdict telling the court about her background; she was eloquent and to the point. Even the jurors seemed shocked as they came to understand what they'd done.

There is a possibility of an appeal.

DO NOT IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE SAFE EVEN IF YOU KEEP YOUR DOGS PERFECTLY.

Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
Linda Rappaport
rappwizard@aol.com

 

Thanks for posting that; I'd heard of this case but not the outcome. Horrified to find out she was charged. For a fairly conservative state, Virginia has been steadily being brainwashed by the AR freaks and has some draconian laws on the books; some counties have even stricter ones than the state laws.

One example, that I'm sure was successfully mined by the AR opponents of this woman, was the recent "Gotcha" law passed in VA that may be coming soon to your state. It took effect in 07 or 08, and looks harmless on the surface, but the Cyanick trial shows just how nefarious it is. It's now law in VA that when you get your mandatory rabies shot, you must provide the vet with all your information, including the breed, sex and status (intact or not) of your dog. The vets must regularly report all of this information to the state and county governments, where anyone can look it up under the FOIA.

Yes, anyone--AR freaks who want to find out who hunts and/or owns hunting dogs, counties that want to force you to buy dog licenses or meet their breed ban or spay/neuter laws, insurance companies that blacklist certain breeds, and so on.

I understand many people are no longer getting rabies vaccinations, especially on hunting hounds. I live on a farm and can't take that risk, but I no longer get my dogs vaccinated locally, or if I do, I go to a vet I don't know and make up a fake name/address and pay in cash. Well actually I only did that once, the shot ended up costing $150! I felt guilty lying to the nice old vet, but he properly had to give my dog an exam before the shot. My own vet even agrees: recently when I was shipping a dog that needed his rabies updated, I put the trainer's name down as the owner and told my vet why. He understood and lamented the law as it makes more paperwork for them which they've had to pass on to customers, but he doesn't want to break the law.

What's worked best is using those PetCo clinics, since a Maryland company does them here in the D.C. area. So they don't have to do the record-sending (I'm sure that loophole will be closed soon) and just in case, again I make up a fake name and give an out of state friend's address.

Those of you that take this stuff lightly...don't. Those of you that hate politics, this is too important to put on POTUS, you need to be aware and help defeat this kind of B.S. however you can, because if this stuff can happen in a conservative state like Virginia, imagine the fertile ground these animal rights types will find in the more liberal states. And, be very careful never to publicly badmouth other breeders, including and especially if you think they breed too many dogs. The animal rights freaks won't differentiate between your one litter every two years and their 50 a year. While I'm a dog snob and find what Ms. Cyhanick does distasteful, I totally support her rights to own and breed her dogs. If clean, law abiding operations like this are outlawed or harassed out of existance, we all lose. Commercial breeders will go underground, and it'll be worse all around--people are still going to buy dogs, but breeding will become the provence of criminals and cartels.

 

Just wanted to add or ask about puppy age, since it was an issue at thist trial that the woman sold them at 6 weeks. Virginia doesn't have an 8 weeks law and in cany case I often wondered about it for little breeds. It seems like they might be OK leaving sooner, say at 6 weeks, as overall they mature so much faster than larger breeds. Does anyone here know? I've seen 4 and 5 month old Jack Russell pups for example, that are much closer to their eventual adult size than say a retriever pup at that age, and small breed females seem to come in season earlier than big dogs.

 

The fine of 4,950 bucks is really small taking into account her overall operation. She did violate state law, seems to me for the following conviction she got off really cheap!

"The jury of three men and four women found Charlotte Jean Payne-Cyhanick, 64, of Staunton, guilty on two counts of selling immature puppies, six counts of animal mistreatment, one count of owning more than 50 dogs, seven counts of failing to provide adequate care and 34 counts of failing to maintain adequate records."

State law seems reasonable to me, IMHO!

 

Byron, Once court cost were added this fine went to well over 10,000 dollars.These people live on a very fixed income. Her husband is a diabled navy vet. and she herself has MS and lymphacitic colitis I know what you are going to say next well then all of thier medical is free. WRONG, that is a myth ask any vet. yes she get a 70% discount but it sure isn't free. and niether are her scripts. She needs glasses and her teeth are in horrible condition Dentistry by the way is not covered at all for her.Nor are glasses. you know what she told her kids and me a friend she wantus each to give her 10.00 to go toward her glasse and eye exam. now does that sound like someone whoi has been getting rich from breeding dogs? those dogs weren't money to her they were love and escape from the horrors of her past. Yes there was a time befor the economy got bad that she made a little that all went back into her sons medical problems. There is a good bit of expense to keep dogs so, actually the dogs were helping with thier keep. What is so bad about that?

 

And not trying to be argumentative, but the comment "My correspondents say they never imagined that a court could be so thoroughly corrupt. Ms. Cyhanick spent a few minutes after the verdict telling the court about her background; she was eloquent and to the point" by the OP, does not match the comments made by News Virginian posted

Quote:"Outraged by the ruling, Payne-Cyhanick lashed at the prosecution.

“It’s not fair,” she said. “It’s not right. I would never mistreat an animal. What goes around comes around, and I curse each and every one of you.”

That did not seem very "eloquent"! Sorry, it caught my eye after reading all the stuff on this.

 

And not trying to be argumentative, but the comment "My correspondents say they never imagined that a court could be so thoroughly corrupt. Ms. Cyhanick spent a few minutes after the verdict telling the court about her background; she was eloquent and to the point" by the OP, does not match the comments made by News Virginian posted

Quote:"Outraged by the ruling, Payne-Cyhanick lashed at the prosecution.

“It’s not fair,” she said. “It’s not right. I would never mistreat an animal. What goes around comes around, and I curse each and every one of you.”

That did not seem very "eloquent"! Sorry, it caught my eye after reading all the stuff on this.

Byron, I googled the case and read up on it. Seems like the reporting was mostly slanted as if she was an animal torturer. I'm inclined to believe the stuff Eric posted as a better representation of what actually happened. And while the fines may have been minimal, the woman lost her livelihood. If she maintained a clean kennel for 50 dogs, wouldn't you assume she has a large sum invested in her business that is now worthless?

The sad fact about this woman, and similar cases, is any time there are animal cruelty allegations, whether or not legitimate, the clueless public ALWAYS assumes the accused is guilty and LEOs respond to that pressure in a similar manner: treating the accused like a pedophile or ax murderer. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? It's very easy to spew inflamed rhetoric and fire people up because universally, people tend to get so emotional over animal cruelty. No one is going to cry racist or profiling or abused childhood or any of the other defenses of vicious criminals, if you savage someone accused of hurting an animal.

I had first-hand knowlege of how this pack mentality works earlier this year in Front Royal, VA, a hicksville small town in the Valley. I'd gone to a strip mall to a Big Lots to buy things for the RRRC hunt test on a sunny 70 degree April morning, and had my 3 dogs in the car. Because there was no shade, even though it wasn't hot, I left the truck running with the A/C on and raced in the store, got what I needed in under 15 minutes and was waiting to check out when I overhead the clerks talking about some dogs baking in a hot car.

Sure enough, when I looked outside, there was a crowd assembling in front of MY truck! I shoved my cart and credit card at the clerks and ran out just as Animal Control and two cruisers were pulling up, lights flashing. A woman in a house coat sitting on the bench outside the Big Lots smoking cigarettes had called them and told them my dogs were dying, and she was fanning the crowd into a frenzy. "Those poor beautiful dogs are dying!"

One of the cops pulled out a thing that looked like a radar gun that supposedly reads the inside temperature of the vehicle and it read 118 degrees! I could see through the window that all 3 dogs were fine, but couldn't get a word in edgewise as the accusations flew, including a statement by the caller that my truck had been there all day. Finally I was able to open the door and demand the officer put that temperature thingy inside, where the A/C was running. It was a comfortable 74 degrees, and my dogs were all resting comfortably (and yes, I did consider hissing them up to bark and growl at the cop!). I think you know that any of us that compete and spend the time training our dogs that we do, would NEVER jeopardize them by letting them bake, we'd rather do as I did, risk leaving it running first! Not only that, but I had a bank deposit slip from an hour earlier in Marshall (40 minutes away) PROVING my truck hadn't been there all day.

Even though I thought surely the officers would believe me over the shrieking virago in the house coat, I got a stern lecture about how quickly vehicles can heat up and endanger pets, and yadda yadda, and the LEOs all acted like I should be grateful to not get a ticket--when I'd done NOTHING wrong! The crowd by then had dispersed as I think most had believed me, that the truck was running, dogs were never in danger, etc.

The reason I relate this cautionary tale is to point out that people, and even LEOs, do not use reason when the incendiary flames of animal abuse are torched. You are NOT innocent til proven guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent, and perhaps even tarred and feathered with the charges even if they're baseless. It's a scary world we live in, when the majority of people have no idea what constitutes good animal husbandry.

 

The fine of 4,950 bucks is really small taking into account her overall operation. She did violate state law, seems to me for the following conviction she got off really cheap!

So Byron, you're OK witht he State of VA taking this lady's business and means of livelihood for animal cruelty, which was plaque on dog's teeth, letting 2 pups go at 6 weeks (look at the recent thread here about when to get a puppy) and some paperwork issues?

To me they ruined her life in VA and she will always have that animal cruelty conviction on her record.

How is the plaque on your dog's teeth?

 

So Byron, you're OK witht he State of VA taking this lady's business and means of livelihood for animal cruelty, which was plaque on dog's teeth, letting 2 pups go at 6 weeks (look at the recent thread here about when to get a puppy) and some paperwork issues?

To me they ruined her life in VA and she will always have that animal cruelty conviction on her record.

How is the plaque on your dog's teeth?

Sadly, given the creative license the appointed "breeder board" has taken with the regulations that have been drafted in Oklahoma, I fear you will be reading about Oklahoma being the next state to follow VA's example. The press along with the HSUS proponents are referring to the bill that passed as the black market puppy mill bill..further attempt at degrading all breeders with a negative description "BLACK MARKET".

 

so given that she got off with less than 5K of fines and no jail time is pretty darn good don't you think?

Not to me. They took her business for basically a nothing law case. What will they go after next, shooting pigeons for training purposes, force fetching, collar conditioning, or ????

The US seems to have a lot of do gooders in it minding the business of everybody else and not their own.

 

Yep, I know this is HSUS stuff, but I'm not impressed.... Jean seems to be a major part of this video. Check out at 4 minutes 20 seconds= classic one liner "Don't take em to the damn Vet"! Classic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxY51QlpEG0


Yep, should not close this down......... I'll stick with back yard breeders any day!

 

Sock's VA state law simply does not allow a COMMERCIAL breeder to have more than 50 dogs. People should be calling their congressman and stop poking their neighbor in the eye!

Why is no one concerned with what she was selling, to whome she was selling, what certs the dog's had, what titles, etc?? These dogs of her's appear to be sold via the newspaper, via puppy stores.

What is your opinion of Jean Cyhanick kennel as portrade in this video? The name is Rainbows End Kennel, does it look like a pot of gold to you??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxY51QlpEG0

How would you feel if someone you were purchasing a dog from said what this lady said at the 4 minute 20 second mark in this?

Is this video real? I suspect it is as real as the Original Poster's slanted anti HSUS post.

I am perfectly willing to debate Virginia law and the specific's of that law, or call the congressmen and complain about it if it bothers me.

There are two sides to this story, before passing judgement it might be good to get both.

I just happen to have more faith in the justice system, the district attorney and the jury than the some of what I am reading in this?

 

COMMERCIAL breeder to have more than 50 dogs.

It is not just that it is 50 dogs. It is that it is 50 dogs that are over 4 months old. That means it does not include all of the puppies one could have on the ground at any one time.

Take a look at the internet. Google her name. I found 3 different internet sites she was advertising puppies on.

 

I think it's important to remember that the HSUS specializes in editing film to present their story in the most unforgiving fashion for the breeder in question. In fact, a friend has posted this note:

>>I've been to her kennel, I've spent a few hours talking to her, and in
fact it was stipulated in court that the dogs were fine except for the
charged violations -- dirty teeth and two cases of old (healed)
corneal abrasions. (And some paperwork violations coming from the fact
that because dogs belonging to two other people were counted, she had
exactly enough dogs to have to comply with Virginia's commercial
breeder law.)<<

The charges at issue were 5(!) dogs with dirty teeth, 2 cases of old (and healed) corneal abrasions, and some paperwork errors, errors that wouldn't count except for 2-3 dogs that were being boarded and several non-breedable dogs (spayed) that put her over the 50 dog commercial kennel threshold. Had they not included the boarding dogs or the spayed dogs, she would not have been over the limit and not subject to the charges.

Further, please note that none of the charges related to the kennel conditions and in fact, the State Vet testified that the dogs were in good health.

What we had was an AR-leaning prosecutor who interpreted the dogs' condition against the medical advice of the veterinarians. Do breeders in this jurisdiction need to schedule all their dogs for a teeth cleaning every 2 months or so (along with the anesthesia risk)?

Eric

 

What we had was an AR-leaning prosecutor who interpreted the dogs' condition against the medical advice of the veterinarians. Do breeders in this jurisdiction need to schedule all their dogs for a teeth cleaning every 2 months or so (along with the anesthesia risk)?

No dogs, no hunting, no farm animals, no meat eating and no leather, a world where Madagascar hissing cockroaches have the same rights as people.

This is what the majority of people do not get-no one can comply with their rules. No one can have dogs medically to their standards. They will be able to fine you and in some cases seize dogs even with the testimony of veterinarians that the dogs are well taken care of. They don't even care about the dogs because what they really want are no dogs as companions, yet they derive the majority of their income from stupid people that donate because they think they are taking care of stray dogs.They have no interest in that and in fact euthanize the dogs.

 

Just to clarify the 2 gentleman quoting the "law" you are incorrect.

The current law says you are allowed to have up to 29 intact female dogs over the age of 18 months for breeding purposes. You are allowed to have as many dogs as you want after that as long as they arent used for breeding purposes, they are spayed etc..

If you have more than 29 intact female dogs for breeding purposes that are over the age of 18 months then you must file for a commercial breeding license and you cannot have more than 50 dogs in total.

Trust me this is the current law. You can go to your city hall or where ever and ask for an updated copy of the little handbook they give out. Or If you want to truly insist I can scan the pages out of my copy and show you.

Now I know Jean VERY well and I was in the court room for all 3 days of her trial. Let me further clarify some things for you. Jean only had 28 female dogs for breeding purposes. They charged her with having 31. The extra 3 they charged her with were 1 dog she kept in her house as a personal pet, that the state vet never even bothered to look at while she was at Jean's property. 1 Dog that belonged to her daughter that she was dog sitting while her daughter was on vacation in Puerto Rico (Her daughter even had all the paperwork proving it was her dog NOT Jeans) and 1 dog that was spayed but the prosecutor said it still counted because it had had puppies in the last year even though it was now spayed.

You can get any lawyer you want and they will tell you they dont see how those 3 dogs could count. I dont see it and I dont honestly see how you can say you think its fair they counted either.

Given the circumstances Jean was NOT breaking ANY commercial dog breeder laws because she should have NEVER been considered a commercial dog breeder.

Now as someone else clarified already, the prosecutor and the state vet both admitted that all the dogs on Jean's property were healthy and happy. They had adequate food water shelter shade heat etc. The kennels were clean and taken care of.


The 7 cruelty charges were for plaque on the dogs teeth on 5 of them and 2 HEALED eye lacerations on the other 2. In which 2 vets with about 20 years of experience each testified on the stand that the eye lacerations could have been caused by about million normal day to day things and that they were taken care of properly.

What the newspapers also dont tell you is that Jean had taken ALL 7 of the dogs to the vet when the state vet pointed out the issues to her within 10 days and HAD made appointments to get the dogs teeth taken care of. Most were taken care of even before the charges were pressed.

In fact if you had been in the courtroom you would know that most of what is in the newspapers only reflect 1 side of the story and much of what they have is incorrect as well. If you understand dog breeding you would have also known most of the what the prosecutor said was a big load of dung as well, but playing the to the ignorance of the jury worked for him. Just as its working on you. You are happy to accept every news story and HSUS video as if its solid gold fact without really knowing the situation or having seen any of it with your own eyes.

The prosecutor did a very good job of convincing the jury that Jean was just a puppy mill which isnt hard to do given most people's ignorance. Then playing upon their emotions to get the verdict they wanted. As someone else said if she was to have a jury of her peers then they should have all been dog breeders as well.

Now on to the HSUS video. Coming from someone to has been to Jean's property on several occassions and knows for a fact what the kennel looks like and its condition, I can tell you that most of the kennel footage showed in that video WAS NOT of Jeans kennel. Thats right, they showed footage of someone elses kennel while they were talking about Jean.. Why you may ask? Obvious they knew Jean's kennel was not in bad shape and neither were the dogs so they couldnt use most of the footage from her kennels.

Also about her comment of taking the puppy to the vet, the undercover HSUS people who were at the kennel that day kept asking unusual questions and loaded questions till they got Jean riled up and got her to answer enough for them to edit it to how they wanted it to sound..

You should never really believe any footage you see from the HSUS. It is all very heavily edited. In fact you should write them and ask them for the FULL unedited version of that video and see how far you get.

 

Thank you for telling the facts of the case and confirming what some of us already know about animal rights freaks. This case had nothing to do with facts and actual animal welfare and everything to do with how these groups use propaganda and fact distortion to make a case for halting any breeding of domestic animals.

As you correctly summed, this law and others like it that are becoming insidious in every state, have nothing to do with good animal husbandry and everything to do with making it harder to own animals.

Those people that think it's no big deal and "so what? She had too many dogs and broke the law" need a wake up call. You may find her operation distasteful but trust me, if people like her are forced out of business, the ones that will step in to fill the demand outside the law will be way worse. Thus paving the way for even more onerous legislation and restriction until PETA & HSUS win and none of us can own animals.

Not to mention...hello? The country and most states are broke. There are already more than enough laws that aren't enforced that seek to ensure animals are well cared for, we do not need any more. And we most certainly do not need HSUS and PETA telling us how to care for, train or breed dogs.

 

Byron, I'll publicly apologize since I never looked at the video--I don't do videos. But in answer to your question generally if the youtube video is linked to HSUS' site then yes, they make money every time the link is clicked. You'd have to get someone more familiar with internet advertising than me to explain how it works, but that is how money is made for high traffic sites. I'm sure if you're willing to shell out some money initially and want to get paid for every click on your own videos, someone can set you up ;-)

 

Since I've been close to this case since the beginning -- and have followed pet animal law issues in VA and elsewhere since around 2002 -- I'll fill in a couple of blanks.

The HSUS video was indeed edited. Two women came to Ms. Cyhanick's kennel saying they wanted to buy a puppy but wanting one for less than the regular price. Ms. C. had a puppy that had a birth defect causing it to jerk its head occasionally -- sort of a tic. The women worried for a while about how much it would cost at the vet. Jean said "I already took it to the vet." The women worried some more about the vet bill and Jean responded "Don't take it to the damn vet!" Bingo ...

The whole thing was intended to do just what it accomplished: get her to say something that could be used out of context.

Her kennel is first rate. Yeah, it looks farm style, but it is spanking clean and the dogs were (most are gone now, given away to appropriate homes because under VA law a conviction for cruelty is an automatic bar to ever selling a dog) healthy and happy.

(Footnote: The puppy with the tic is in an excellent home.)

As to 'puppy mills' in general, when most of us originally learned the phrase it meant someone breeding abusively, probably selling poor quality dogs on a fly-by-night basis. Now it is used -- by HSUS especially -- to refer to any commercial breeder, or in many cases, any breeder, period. When we buy this dishonest tactic, we are cutting our own throats. They have easily a dozen of these campaigns -- 'factory farming' is another example.

Most of us don't approve of 'accidental' breedings and they're probably in decline in most parts of the country. Commercial breeders are being tarred as 'puppy mills' and forced to operate an an uneconomical scale in one state after another. Hobby breeders produce only a fraction of what the commercial kennels do and because 99% of us lose money on every litter I don't see expansion in my crystal ball. Importing of dogs for resale is problematic at best and will be largely illegal when USDA gets around to writing regs to implement the restrictions in the 2008 farm bill. Where is it that you imagine future pet dogs will come from?

Do we really want to see most pet dogs bred by backwoods types and sold like 'recreational' drugs? That's where we're headed, and HSUS will love it, because the more problems there are, the more laws they can pass.

Do you think that hunters will be exempted from the restrictions that are falling on other dog breeders? We all know better than that ...

Sharyn and I are hobby breeders (whippets) but when HB 538 was introduced, we knew how destructive it would be, and got into the fight immediately. We lost -- the bill passed -- but we got to know a couple of commercial breeders. Guess what, fellows and gals: There's not a dime's worth of difference between hobby breeders and commercial breeders when it comes to caring about the dogs or quality. Although I don't know any breeding hunters very well, I'd bet my last dollar that your world is the same: Some great breeders, many good and caring ones, some with more skill in a minute than I can find in a month, and a few real bums.

Not only do we all need to work together, what I'm finding is that I don't have to hold my nose with commercial breeders any more than I do around hobby breeders: You know, those folks who breed dogs with serious inheritable health problems in a breed that is generally healthy? Including letting them become popular sires? Those who breed only to show, sell 'leftovers' as pets, and provide NO post-sale help to buyers? Yes, we know many fine hobby breeders, but we also know some exceptions.

As the man said, we need to hang together or we shall assuredly all hang separately.

 

Byron said: "As far as VA's HB-538 bill, I have no gripes about it and I agree some standards need to be in place concerning COMMERCIAL breeding, simply because Puppy Mill's piss me off."

I've addressed the 'puppy mill' issue. Commercial breeders have been subject to the exact same standards as every other pet animal owner since forever. What exactly is it that you feel is needed in addition?

Your support for HB-538 is curious since one of its provisions is the ban on EVER selling a dog if you are convicted of neglect, abuse, or cruelty. Since we now know that failure to take a dog to the vet for any condition that could progress (kennel cough? worms? fleas? a bloody tail from thorny brush? ...) can be considered denying emergency veterinary treatment = animal cruelty, I wouldn't expect anyone who breeds or thinks he ever might to favor that bill.

"I hardly think this thread can represent what the jury had to convince them? I find it hard to believe a jury convicted her if the dog's only had simple case of plaque on their teeth? If the conviction was so wrong then she stand a good chance of winning an appeal."

It's easier to believe if you had a trusted informant there and have seen a few of these things before. Juries have no clue about animal husbandry; their knowledge comes largely from Disney, with the advanced members perhaps taking the Animal Planet course. Prosecutors are in business to get convictions and when they're coached by HSUS (Commonwealth's Attorney Gaines did not develop the legal theory on which Ms. Cyhanick was convicted) they can lead the blind and ignorant pretty much where they wish, when the law itself is bad.

In my opinion you're right about the favorable prospects for an appeal. Whether she and her attorney will decide to do it, I don't know.

This is enough for one sitting. Perhaps tomorrow I'll follow the reasoning of the 'dirty teeth = animal cruelty' conviction. You are correct that she was guilty; the error is in thinking that a reasonable man could have avoided the violation. I can make that even plainer: Both you (if you have a dog) and I are now violating the standard of care marked out by this case. The difference between us and Ms. Cyhanick is that we haven't been caught yet.

One final thought: It would be okay, I think, to tip our hats in the direction of one very gutsy lady who took a case on a law that will ultimately affect all of us, to trial. To the best of my knowledge, that's a first: Everyone else has taken the plea. When we go to lawmakers saying "This law is unjust" they say "Show me someone innocent who has been hurt." A plea of guilty is an admission of guilt ... we've had nothing.

She faced the potential for many years in jail so that this law could get tested. Some of us, doubtless, have been in combat; perhaps a few others have shown equal courage. But I wonder how many, safe now with our families in our homes, would have done what Jean Cyhanick did.

Don't give it to me about 'protecting her income.' I have a pretty good idea about those numbers and trust me, this was not about the money.

 

How nice to see you.

I would say that from the notes I've seen on the trial, I wonder what the appeal would be based upon. None of the descriptions have mentioned a reversable error that leaps out. The prosecutor's twisted logic is not eligible. Maybe the fact that the judge fell asleep?

Eric

 

I was sent this site by a friend who new I new this person. Charlotte had no ideal this could happen to her. Because of what happen with the hsus in 2007 she had become even more vigilant tnen ever in trying to care for her dogs correctly. Up until 2007 when she saw what the hsus had done, she did not believe that something like that could happen to an American . She never thought that someone could lie, film, edit your words or libel you and you had no recourse by law to defend your self unless you were rich and could afford an OJ type lawyer. Boy, were her eyes parially opened. I say partially because she still believed the laws would protect the innocent. So she set about to do everything right. AND SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS DOING A GOOD JOB. That was her first mistake she trusted the laws. The authorities had been trying to put this women out of business for 30 years. they were never able to justify a complaint until 2009 when the new commercial kennel laws went into effect. She tried to do it the way it said to, but she never dreamed that the dictionary terms of emergency was not the laws. It never crossed her mind to think she was guilty of cruelty because her dogs teeth were dirty or had plaque on them or that any reddness of gums was advanced gum desease. She never thought a spayed female could be called a breeder or that a dog she was watching while her daughter was on vacation, was by the law hers. Was infact a breeder of hers. She thought she had 29 healthy, happy, well adjusted, friendly females. All look great, were eating fine, no fleas, no ticks, no mange, no worms, heat in the winter, shade and fans in the summer. large grassy areas to play in, vets coming twiced a year to do rabies and check her dogs. And all of that was stated in court to be true.
So you say why did they hassle her for that long if she was doing nothing wrong. Cause when she bought her place, a small farmette it was in the county, 7 years later it was annex into the city.No kennels in the city but she was grandfathered, then rezoned and low and behold the city had a kennel they did not want there. And so it began.

 

Oh I forgot to tell you about the underage puppy. maybe this will help you understand. In Feb. of this year she and her grown children took a repeat offender pedaphile off the street. It was a horrible case and very stressful since they were personelly involved and it was a long drawn out case, in Mar. 2010 they lost a grandchild, In May 17 2010 her mentall destressed son killed himself at thier home. In May is when she made a mistake on the calender and sold the puppy to young. June 2, 2010 here come the dog [animal rights, state vet, police you know how it goes. Now why do you think they came at that time and they did know what had happened because they spoke of it to her. still after filing 69 chages of everything from cruelty ti paper work they left without the dogs, they left the dogs there for 6 more months then she was convicted and they left the dogs there another 90 days for her to dispose of as she saw fit. the only stipulation she could not sale or make profit from thier disposal If this person and the conditions were so bad there why would they leave the dogs there for 9 more month. WHAT? Have you never made a mistake??

 

Oh I forgot to tell you about the underage puppy. maybe this will help you understand. In Feb. of this year she and her grown children took a repeat offender pedaphile off the street. It was a horrible case and very stressful since they were personelly involved and it was a long drawn out case, in Mar. 2010 they lost a grandchild, In May 17 2010, partly because of the above case in Feb. mentally destressed son killed himself at thier home. In May is when she made a mistake on the calender and sold the puppy to young. June 2, 2010 here come the dog [animal rights, state vet, police you know how it goes. Now why do you think they came at that time and they did know what had happened because they spoke of it to her. still after filing 69 chages of everything from cruelty ti paper work they left without the dogs, they left the dogs there for 6 more months then she was convicted and they left the dogs there another 90 days for her to dispose of as she saw fit. the only stipulation she could not sale or make profit from thier disposal If this person and the conditions were so bad there why would they leave the dogs there for 9 more month. WHAT? Have you never made a mistake??

 

Is this you? Sure looks like your writing! Is this your alias? Your alter ego?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sobeit
Oh I forgot to tell you about the underage puppy. maybe this will help you understand. In Feb. of this year she and her grown children took a repeat offender pedaphile off the street. It was a horrible case and very stressful since they were personelly involved and it was a long drawn out case, in Mar. 2010 they lost a grandchild, In May 17 2010, partly because of the above case in Feb. mentally destressed son killed himself at thier home. In May is when she made a mistake on the calender and sold the puppy to young. June 2, 2010 here come the dog [animal rights, state vet, police you know how it goes. Now why do you think they came at that time and they did know what had happened because they spoke of it to her. still after filing 69 chages of everything from cruelty ti paper work they left without the dogs, they left the dogs there for 6 more months then she was convicted and they left the dogs there another 90 days for her to dispose of as she saw fit. the only stipulation she could not sale or make profit from thier disposal If this person and the conditions were so bad there why would they leave the dogs there for 9 more month. WHAT? Have you never made a mistake??


__________________
R// Byron Musick

Musick's
Thunder Storm JH
Miss Hot-T-Molly Deez (hand full!)

To answer your question, no Byron this is not me. Apparently you think you are the only educated person on the board. For the record, I have read all those documents. I also have an education, hold down a full time job, work as trainer and sympathize with people who fall victom to a system that is idealistically perfect but is proven imperfect each and every day.

Congrats on getting a dog a JH title.

/Paul

 

I was messing with you Paul, thus the Private message Jab! Your opinion that I feel I am the only educated person on this board has me scratching my head, I simply had an opinion. You and a few others made assumptions that I had no sympathy based on my statement that it could have been worse! Glad to see you handle private messages so well, and yes thanks for the compliment!

 

Byron and Gundog? Are you two really interested in what is going on here or are you just try to get at each other?. I am very intetrested in everyone opinions and thoughts on this, but let stick to the subject. The fact is no one knows everything about this case or this person. She is relying on people of inteligence to get as much of the FACTS as they can befor they hang her. So far even the courts have not bothered to do that. Wake up america you could be next Remember the words THEY CAME FOR THE GYPSYS, I WASN'T A GYPSY SO I DID NOTHING. THEY CAME FOR THE BLACKS, I WASN'T BLACK SO I DID NOTHING. THEY CAME FOR THE JEWS, I WASN'T A JEW SO I DID NOTHING, THEN THEY CAME FOR ME BUT THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO DO ANYTHING!! Well people that is the fork in the road that you are walking right now. So WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?????

 

I came out of PetSmart one HOT day to see a woman peering thru the dusty windows of my VW Passat into the empty wire crates in the back. I said there are NO dogs or other animals in there. She stuck her nose in the air and said, as she walked away, "I'm just checking".

I'm ready to declare an 'open season' on 'do gooders'. Sometimes they cause more problems and ill will than they fix.

Seriously, more and more people are being born without any common sense. Clean up your own house before you critize mine.

 

Hear Hear, You are ight on with that statment. Many people would find they had more then enough to do if they were to try to get thier own life in order. So many people spend so much of thier time trying to set other people strait that they have no ideal how much disorder is in thier own lives. Some day when they least epect it bang your it!!

 

Thanks Byron, I needed a little humor, I am not being sarcastic I really want to know, Was there a message in that for me. You are right I am stressed I am a dog breeder too and this lady has helped me both with her knowledge and her money [ charge card to use at emergency vet]. I am walking in her shoes if they come for me I am afraid I am a gonner. I mean who thought you could call a spade bitch a breeder? and how can you call a bitch a breeder when it is a year old but you cannot breed it till it is 18 months old.Some of my little furballs have bad teeth, thats the way it is with little dogs especially. Now theres where they could potentialy get me I have young dogs that I kept for breeders they would/could put me over the magical number. So what am I supposed to do with the for 6 mon. Any ideals people.?