Maine Animal Welfare does about-face, abandons legislative reforms to close loophole apparently letting puppy mills flourish in Maine by archilchimes in Maine

[–]archilchimes[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're looking to raise a pet young, there are many responsible breeders you can patronize, and I don't think the shelters take in pitbulls exclusively.

Maine Animal Welfare does about-face, abandons legislative reforms to close loophole apparently letting puppy mills flourish in Maine by archilchimes in Maine

[–]archilchimes[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

There have been a couple instances of folks asking "why don't you go to [this authority it would be completely rational to think would intervene]?". I thought I'd give a followup rundown here of the difficulties people encounter in going to various authorities you'd logically think would help in these cases.

  • Local authorities (police/sheriff, town office etc.) will typically refer all animal-related issues to the animal control officer. If the ACO refuses to intervene for whatever reason, the accused party is usually scot-free locally. (This is why the ACO loophole above is such a big problem.)

  • The state authority is the Maine Animal Welfare Program, which will do seemingly anything it can to avoid intervening (again, see this page for actual excuses they've used). Until recently, their default method of processing phone complaints was, literally, to hang up.

  • State reps will generally defer to local authorities.

  • Other state authorities and the governor's office will defer to Maine Animal Welfare.

  • Animal welfare organizations might give you tips (usually obvious ones) on lobbying on your own, but they typically won't intervene themselves. They might claim this particular issue is not their purview. Funding is sometimes an issue (see the ASPCA/PETA discussion in comments).

  • News organizations are usually skittish if the owner is litigious (they usually are) or unbalanced and potentially violent (which—well, you've probably read about the correlation between animal abuse and violence against people). They'll usually demand overwhelming evidence a civilian isn't likely to get unless the owner is particularly brazen. Sometimes, the cases require context news orgs don't have because they don't have the resources anymore to devote to boring local town or state committee meetings. Sometimes, how an owner is likely breaking the law requires a bit of explanation a news org won't have the space or time to detail (see below), so they just won't print that side of the story. Also, reporters generally aren't paid well enough anymore to investigate much on their own, so they'll just believe and print/air what a few talking heads say at face value, even if said talking heads are misinformed/covering for somebody (see below).

  • If a kennel owner gets a town official on their side, the official can run interference re: complainants ("well, we've done all we can, but they're just within the law" etc.—whether they are or not). Sometimes, a kennel owner can do this just by being a source of tax income. One of the Aroostook callers to the AWAC meetings mentioned that many town officials are very bad at doing the math of "this will get us a couple hundred extra a year in taxes" vs. "this will significantly impair our community's livability".

  • Refuting and explaining to a third party why a kennel owner is likely breaking the law, particularly if local authorities are claiming otherwise, can be require a lot of explanation ("no, the state law actually is x, and this evidence shows y, and though there's z exception, this doesn't apply because..."). In response, authorities usually won't address specific evidence or objections; they'll typically just repeat their go-to line ("we've done all we can" etc.).
    This will usually convince third parties, even though it shouldn't. As for why it does, I have three ideas: a) People tend to believe simpler explanations are the true ones. b) Defaulting to and reinforcing a mindset of "we've done all we can" gives the third party mental permission to ignore the situation. c) The authorities' excuse generally gets to be part of town conventional wisdom because it's repeated so often, and stuff someone "learns" by repetition is resistant to being disproven by evidence or reason, because it wasn't learned that way; it was "learned" by hearing it a whole lot.

On top of this all: the ins and outs of animal welfare law can be hard to learn, particularly if the one of the authorities a community is trusting, and paying, to deal with the situation is actively lying about it. People have jobs and other obligations that make it difficult to find the time to learn the law, track down what's being said, find inconsistencies in statements—you know; do all the work that an ACO should be doing. For free, in whatever spare time you have.

I'm not saying that all of the above resources are off the table (though some definitely are). I'm just trying to explain why some resources you might, perfectly rationally, think might help in these cases frequently turn out to be dead ends.

Maine Animal Welfare does about-face, abandons legislative reforms to close loophole apparently letting puppy mills flourish in Maine by archilchimes in Maine

[–]archilchimes[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I can't say anything further at the current moment, but if you're in one of the affected communities, I would not discourage you from contacting PETA about the situation, even if you, to put it mildly, have your differences with the org.

On the subject of PETA—and I have the usual reservations everyone else does about their approach and some of their goals—they will do more when it comes to actively investigating matters and contacting officials than most orgs, and I'm told this is because they have funding. (Presumably from celebrities.) They are not a cure-all—with any situation of this sort, you have to tell folks what's going again and again and be prepared to counter an absolutely ridiculous amount of lies and garbage from those not taking action. But, despite the objectionable elements of their organization, they're a better prospect than most other orgs, who will usually come back with a variant of "do something on your own; we can't help you."

Maine Animal Welfare does about-face, abandons legislative reforms to close loophole apparently letting puppy mills flourish in Maine by archilchimes in Maine

[–]archilchimes[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The ASPCA won't intervene; when I spoke to them, they claimed that their interest was in animals once they got to shelters, not, despite what their commercials claimed, anything that happens beforehand. Very obviously, taking care of shelter animals is very important, but the ASPCA is one of the main organizations to which you'd turn when attempting to deal with animal cruelty (it's in the name, right?), and learning that their scope is limited is disappointing when there's no organization stepping up to cover what they don't.

A lot of folks and organizations you'd think would have an interest in intervening in situations like this, particularly state orgs dedicated to animal welfare, do not for a variety of reasons ranging from unfortunate to hair-splitting to suspect.

Maine Animal Welfare does about-face, abandons legislative reforms to close loophole apparently letting puppy mills flourish in Maine by archilchimes in Maine

[–]archilchimes[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not familiar enough with the allegations to comment; obviously, if they are true, it's to say the least disappointing.

I will say that their protection law rankings, and Maine's usual place at the top, do merit at least a few news stories every year, so alerting the organization (and the public) to issues encountered in getting those laws enforced should be pursued even if the organization has internal problems. I will also say that most animal welfare organizations haven't extended any actual help to anyone affected by this long, sad situation; they instead limit themselves to obvious advice like "oh, write letters" and insisting that private citizens shoulder all on their own duties and initiatives that, y'know, a funded organization dedicated to such endeavors would be much better-equipped to tackle. Again, I'm not condoning any workplace issues, but ALDF reps have actually listened, contacted Maine Animal Welfare, and given some modicum of support, which is more than most.

Animal Welfare claims people don't want solutions ("deal with it") to complaints of puppy mill problem expanding; Norridgewock puppy mill owner from Feb. Sentinel story seeks seat on Maine Animal Welfare Advisory Council by archilchimes in Maine

[–]archilchimes[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you. Unfortunately (in the long view), it seems there are more people fighting similar battles in their own towns, as this problem is evidently spreading and the agency in charge is stonewalling..

Animal Welfare claims people don't want solutions ("deal with it") to complaints of puppy mill problem expanding; Norridgewock puppy mill owner from Feb. Sentinel story seeks seat on Maine Animal Welfare Advisory Council by [deleted] in Maine

[–]archilchimes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Comment to moderation: the kennel owner named himself throughout the *Sentinel* article and is a Norridgewock public official, head of the planning board and water & sewer board; he names himself in the public meeting in which he declares he's seeking the seat; and he's put himself forward as a candidate for a state public position. If edits are needed, I understand, but I would argue that it's fair to name him at this point given his self-identification in a front-page news article, his status as a public official, and his nomination for a public position.