I think you've all seen this, but just in case: I'm the complainant mentioned in that article, and I go over my experience and the big issue with the article here.

In brief: when the reporter asked for my side of the story, I sent her documentation & recordings of evident violations, info on statutes, and evidence that the ACO and Maine Animal Welfare had a pattern of ignoring complaints/apparently obstructing for the place. The reporter said the info was too complex for the length of story she was allowed to write and just ignored it entirely, taking the ACO and Animal Welfare completely at their word. Thankfully, from the comments and others' first-hand experiences with the place, it looks like no one is buying the gloss-over.

Seriously, thank you all for that.

You did a great job calling them all out in the comments. Time to rally the neighbors in the immediate area, and possibly offer the guy help cleaning up his property and adopting out some of the dogs? The article says he's disabled so I'm thinking 2 things might be factoring into his inability/unwillingness to properly care for these dogs he calls his babies:

1. Perhaps he relies on the sale of the dogs for part of his income, and is too proud to ask for financial help or is not eligible for financial help.
2. Perhaps his disability prevents him from doing the labor required for proper care of the dogs and he does not have anyone to help him. I don't know the guy personally, I am just conjecturing, however I am disabled and unable to work and yet do not qualify for any assistance so I can see how that might be an issue for someone else as well. I am definitely not defending leaving dogs out in Sub-Zero temperatures, but I always try to look at situations from a kind perspective. This article is the first I've seen mention of his disability.

42 fucking dogs? How is that in itself not an issue? Seems unsanitary and an animal hoard. How is leaving pets outside in temperatures forty degrees below freezing legal?

If the guy is not able to properly take care of dogs due to some disability (if it does not involve mobility then why is it mentioned?), then perhaps he ought not to have that many dogs.

Well, agreed. But if he already had the dogs before he was disabled I can see that it would be hard to part with them. I mean he could be lying completely and not be disabled and not really think his dogs are his babies, or he could have just fallen into an unmanageable situation and feel unable to ask for help.

Sounds like a good ol boys club or three! Is there any government that isn't corrupt?

Whatever his situation, John Ames failed in his duties to his dogs during incredibly low temperatures. He could ask for help, sure, but a 2ndary issue here, as I see it, is the failure of town employees to do their jobs.

I agree that everyone, including the owner, the town officials, the SPCA, the reporter, and PETA, have all failed these dogs. Just trying to see a way forward that gets the owner invested in change rather than getting his back up.

Nah, this person is still a true pos for keeping all those dogs out in the cold like that. Fuck that guy.

The article says multiple times that the shelters were “adequate” and that they were constructed with “thick plywood” with baffles and hay.

Setting aside for a moment that I think none of that matters, and that hundreds of Mainers can hold up their frozen and blown up water pipes as evidence that plywood and insulation do fuck-all to protect you.

If they think everything was so “adequate” and legal, then why didn’t they give us a temperature reading from inside the dog houses? Seems pretty simple, “hey look, it’s -20 outside, but the dogs are toasty warm at +40 inside!”

Probably because that’s not the case, and it was still -20 inside those dilapidated sorry excuses for shelter.

Thank you for giving a shit and documenting like a badass.

When are they gonna put this prick out of business?

You just can't half-ass this shit when it comes to journalism. You have to give it your whole ass. Your whole entire ass.

Gotta say, I admire you continuing to fight the good fight. Keep it up!

Thank you!

Thank you for the kind words. I completely understand what you're saying (this is the first I've heard of the disability, too; I obviously don't know its nature). I'm honestly not looking for an unkind resolution here: something like you describe, where there was a a gradual, community effort to get the dogs better homes in some manner, would be great. It's just that the guy has iron-clad protection in perpetuating the current situation (when he, by the law, shouldn't), and it's a situation, as discussed, that invites suffering. There needs to be a path to better for the dogs and the community.

While I certainly don’t believe anyone in a town should have 42 dogs, it does appear though that if the animals were healthy after the cold (unless he started with 50 dogs) then the shelter provided was at least enough to spare them lasting damage. I know with chickens, pigs, and goats the only thing they need for shelter is something to keep the wind out, and they are fine even down to those cold temps.

Maine has a law regarding outside housing : it needs to consist of a four (4) sided structure and roof made of waterproof and wind proof material with an R factor of .9 (example: .9=3/4” thickness of wood). The article states it is plywood. Most common plywood is 1/2 inch. I don’t know how thick the plywood is that he is using, but I have a sneaking suspicion it’s not 3/4” thick. Plywood is also not waterproof in it’s natural state. The law also states that the portal of entry of sufficient size to allow the dogs unimpeded passage which shall include baffled or appropriate sheltered entrance. The opening must face south or the direction away from which most wind driven precipitation comes from. It also must have a solid floor at least 3 inches above ground level, with clean and sufficient bedding material to retain the animals normal body heat. At -20 degrees, a dog is vulnerable to hyperthermia and frostbite.

The animal welfare program will, upon written complaint by ANY person alleging violation will cause an investigation to be made. If a violation is found to exist , the animal welfare program or attorney general may seek enforcement remedies including but not limited to revocation or suspension. I made a complaint today and I suggest everyone else to. You can write a formal complaint to animal.welfare@maine.gov In the complaint, it does need your name and phone number. It also needs to include the name of the animals owner’s physical address and a description of possible violations. Let’s all come together and do the right thing - make the complaints. There’s power in numbers. We have the power to make the change, but it needs to be a community effort.

You can also contact Kathleen Bernard. She is on the Maine Animal Welfare Advisory Council. She must own a pet and represent the interests of the public in animal welfare.

Bonnie Martinolich is also on the council. She is an attorney and has to have experience in Animal Welfare Laws.

Sharon St. John represents licensed breeding kennels in Maine. She is another person to file a complaint with.

I don’t know the circumstances of the owner, but he called his dogs ‘his babies’. Would you leave a baby outside in -20 degrees? Disability or mental health issues (hoarding) does not justify this issue. It needs to be addressed.

I worried about how long our two Saint Bernards were out in that weather! They have dog beds, couches, etc and are not left alone in the elements. These people seem criminal.

What the hell?! Why should the length of the article they’re permitted for get in the way of the truth? The media infuriates me sometimes, often, almost always. Sorry, that must be really frustrating from your standpoint.

Just found out: if you emailed Maine Animal Welfare about the property in response to the video last Friday, you may have gotten a response from Animal Welfare stating that a PETA rep toured the kennel and approved of conditions ("The property was visited on Friday by a selectman, the town’s Animal Control Officer, both accompanied by a representative from PETA"). This is a lie; the PETA rep on the case confirmed that this did not take place ("No one from PETA was present when they did their inspection").

Also, Animal Welfare was providing my personal information to those who emailed. This was before the above story was published.

So: yet more lying and more unprofessional behavior that could have been covered in this article—whose puff-piece premise was completely rejected by those who read it and ended up being a complete waste of space.