SCARBOROUGH, Maine — By a 2-1 vote, the Town Council Ordinance Committee on Tuesday postponed consideration of a ban on the retail sale of puppies from large breeders.
With committee Chairwoman Carol Rancourt opposed, Councilors James Benedict and Richard Sullivan voted to table the discussion that began at a June 26 meeting.
The committee has not drafted an ordinance for consideration, but has been provided samples of similar ordinances from other towns. Rancourt said the hour-long discussion with public comment Tuesday was for “edification and education.”
Rancourt asked speakers not to mention any businesses by name, but any ordinance regulating puppy sales would have only affected Pawsitively Pets on Payne Road.
Store owners Barbara Cross and Jamie Nonni bought the business June 1. Nonni said after the June committee meeting that he and Cross extensively researched the breeders they could use to supply purebred puppies. They eliminated those with consumer and regulatory complaints, he said, and other breeders who did not meet the owners’ standards for quality of facilities and care.
But converting the store to sell only dogs that had been rescued or in shelters is impractical, Nonni said, adding that he does not like the suggestion that all large-scale breeders are running so-called “puppy mills.”
“Our specialty is high-quality, purebred dogs,” he said, and estimated the store gets five customers a day looking for such pets.
The store’s previous owners were picketed by protesters from Maine Citizens Against Puppy Mills from last summer through early spring.
Organization founder Lynne Fracassi and Carol Reynolds, owner of Wizard of Paws in Bridgton, approached councilors about drafting the ordinance. They said Nonni and Cross meant well, but claimed their research showed the store is still supplied by questionable breeders.
“I feel they have been duped into buying this business,” Cross said.
Kathleen O’Shea, a Scarborough dog trainer, said despite Nonni’s efforts, she has found training dogs acquired from shelters to be much easier than dogs bought at stores.
“From my point of view, rescue puppies behave much better,” O’Shea said.
In other business, the committee agreed to advance a draft of zoning ordinance revisions affecting property owners living within 100-year floodplains, as determined by Federal Emergency Management Agency standards.
Property owners who repair, renovate or rehabilitate residences with projects valued at more than 50 percent of the current value would be required to elevate the building 3 feet above the ground instead of the current 1 foot.
Town Planner Dan Bacon said the ordinance affects residences, not outbuildings or commercial properties, and a recent amendment allows homeowners to build above the 35-foot maximum height for homes if the base elevation has to be increased.
Rancourt, Benedict and Sullivan agreed the changes should be discussed in September and October by the entire council and be subject to a public hearing. The section regarding building heights requires a Planning Board hearing and recommendation after the first council reading.
Puppy mills should be outlawed. Only responsible breeders should be in the business of conscientious dog propagation.
Gee, I had no idea Scarborough’s town council was so ignorant…..good to know.
They’re not ignorant. They’re also not legally able to address such issues. The problem needs to be addressed at the breeder level, not the retail level.
While their at it, Scarboro, please stop world hunger…
If anyone voted against banning puppy mills they need to be ousted. They Cannot have the same compassion and common sense as the majority of America has and only will tend to pull Scarborough down to the sewer of society. OUT THEY GO ALONG WITH THE PUPPY MILLS…..
Your comment demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge about the proper role of local government. Past a certain point, they have no legal standing to mandate what kind of dogs and cats are sold in any given town.
The same thing goes for other products — other than health and safety requirements, local municipalities are not legally in a position to implement these kinds of ordinances. They don’t get to say what books are sold, and they don’t get to say which pets are sold (unless the pets aren’t legal in Maine).
The problem needs to be tackled at the breeder level, by enforcing the laws already on the books, not by implementing more unenforceable ordinances on retailers.
Gee more anti business legislation from the government. Just what we don’t need.
I am all for less govt interference but the view that anti-puppy mill is as simple as “anti-business” tells me you don’t care much about animals.
Either that, or maybe Gould understands what a town council can, and cannot legally do.
I withdraw my comment.
The article title seems to suggest this is an easy to solve issue, but it sounds like defining and determine what a puppy mill is isn’t very clear cut from a regulatory perspective. It seems like there needs to be a better regulation of breeders (like requiring them to have certain certifications or only having X number of puppies per place), or a better education campaign aimed at prospective pet buyers.
Agreed. The target should be the breeders, not the retailers.