get it home page promo

Tab for dog care could exceed $500,000

Chilinki restitution hearing on hold
2013-02-06T18:09:00Z 2013-02-07T10:25:12Z Tab for dog care could exceed $500,000By SANJAY TALWANI Independent Record Helena Independent Record
February 06, 2013 6:09 pm  • 

BOULDER — A hearing to determine restitution owed by Mike Chilinski, convicted of more than 90 counts of animal cruelty, ended abruptly Wednesday when a judge ordered lawyers to file briefs on a motion by Chilinski’s lawyer to scrap the hearing entirely.

If District Judge Loren Tucker rejects that motion, the hearing could resume in about a month.

Prosecutors have said the amount owed by Chilinski for the care of some 161 malamutes seized in October 2011 and their offspring could exceed $500,000, even after being offset by about $75,000 in donations.

Chilinski, who also awaits sentencing in federal court for growing marijuana, might never pay the amount the court ultimately decides, said Adam Parascandola, the director of animal cruelty response for the Humane Society of the United States, which is claiming the vast majority of the costs.

But, he said, the restitution would send a signal.

“I think it’s important that people who are mistreating animals to pay the costs,” he said after the hearing.

Parascandola flew from Washington, D.C., to testify at the hearing, as he did in December when District Judge Loren Tucker sentenced Chilinski to 30 years with the Department of Corrections, with 25 suspended, and conditions that could prevent him from owning animals until he’s in his 80s.

He will likely fly out again should Tucker resume the hearing.

Tucker recessed the court after Chilinski’s public defender, Betty Carlson, made a motion to dismiss the hearing. She argued that the law does not permit a restitution determination after sentence has already been pronounced.

At the December sentencing, Carlson said she had just received documents submitted by prosecutors, and Tucker agreed to leave the restitution portion of the sentence for another hearing.

Tucker ordered Carlson to file a brief in the matter, allowing prosecutors to respond. Carlson then would have a period of time to reply to the response.

Based on scheduling procedures explained by lawyers at the hearing, the matter could be ready for Tucker’s decision in about a month.

In October, a jury found Chilinski guilty of 91 counts of animal cruelty. Prosecutors said investigators discovered dogs emaciated, diseased, malnourished and living in filthy conditions in his kennels outside Jefferson City.

Chilinski has maintained that he was a highly regarded dog breeder, he never intended to abuse the dogs and that the conditions were not as bad as prosecutors claimed.

He’s also claimed his constitutional rights were violated, particularly by allowing the Humane Society groups — local and national — to exercise police-like powers in what they called the “rescue” of the dogs in 2011.

Carlson has indicated Chilinski will appeal the conviction, although it’s not certain on what basis.

The Humane Society of Western Montana has proposed legislation to prevent such breeding operations from taking a turn like Chilinski’s, said Wendy Hergenraeder, Montana director for state affairs of the Humane Society of the United States.

The bill draft, requested by Rep. Margie MacDonald, D-Billings, would create the Montana Commercial Pet Protection Act, requiring the Department of Livestock to make rules to regulate commercial breeders.

About half of the dogs, which at one point numbered about 170, have been placed in foster homes and with families and individuals, including several in the Helena area, said Liz Harrison, spokeswoman for the Lewis and Clark Humane Society.

The remainder are still at “Malamute Village,” she said, referring to the former state nursery just west of Helena on Route 12, now with numerous empty kennels.

“It’s been very bittersweet for everybody, actually,” she said. “We’ve gotten really attached for them, be-cause we’ve had them for 16 months.”

Reporter Sanjay Talwani: 447-4086, Follow Sanjay

Copyright 2015 Helena Independent Record. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(4) Comments

  1. skywatcher
    Report Abuse
    skywatcher - February 08, 2013 6:10 pm
    my comment was meant more as a simple observation, and somewhat as a joke- who knew it would instigate such vitriol
  2. Mal-lover
    Report Abuse
    Mal-lover - February 07, 2013 6:46 pm
    FlamingLiberal is right, restitution is not dependent on an individual's ability to pay. While I am sure he does not have a half mil sitting around, there are significant assets which may be seized and liquidated under Montana Code Annotated 46-18-244. Of course this is assuming he is able to come up with the $70,000 so the house and property is not seized under the Federal charge.

  3. FlamingLiberal1
    Report Abuse
    FlamingLiberal1 - February 07, 2013 1:25 pm
    Since when has the imposition of a fine or restitution depended upon the perpetrator's ability to pay? He may not be able to pay half a million dollars, but he should be required to pay a portion of his income for the rest of his life to compensate those who took care of those dogs he abused for his own profit.
  4. skywatcher
    Report Abuse
    skywatcher - February 07, 2013 8:59 am
    does he look like he's got half-a-million bucks laying around? I don't think so

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick


Follow the Independent Record

Great Helena Businesses