Waiting for Animal Cruelty Charges

By Maddy B. Gray

The Maine horse community is holding its collective breath as the Kennebec County District Attorney’s office contemplates charges against Brett and Alexis Ingraham of Clinton.

It’s been eons since state troopers descended on Fair Play Farm and helped humane agents seize 15 horses and several other animals from Brett and Alexis Ingraham.

  We're entering our ninth (9th!) week without charges. 63 days and counting, folks.

Are they going to bring the hammer down and prosecute one of the state's biggest equine cruelty cases in recent history?

Or let another animal abuser slither away?

One should note that it is generally NOT the responsibility of the District Attorney's office to investigate the case. That duty falls on the woeful Animal Welfare program. So, just what are they still doing with this case?
Some say director Norma Worley spends more time going after her own petty grievances than pursuing major animal cruelty cases. One state employee is facing a hearing for posting a comment on NickerNews. A state humane agent is facing a hearing surrounding alleged insubordination (specific allegations not available).

Brett Ingraham was recently heard saying he is "collaborating" with Animal Welfare. Collaborating??
It's downright scary to know that justice is relying on such a dysfunctional department....
Prove us wrong, Norma, prove us wrong.

We hope to hear soon.

In the meantime, we’re learning more about the strange and conflicted operation run by the Ingrahams.

Many close to the couple say they would never hurt an animal.
Many say Alexis is a talented trainer.
Many say some horses were perpetually pampered.

But animal cruelty is not just running over a kitten in front of a group of bystanders.
The Ingrahams’ brand of animal cruelty is more insidious and duplicitous.

We hear of many horses being shot and buried. That’s not illegal. But what of the suffering before the final bullet?
We hear of horses down on the ice, suffering from hypothermia, unattended and unable to get up.
We hear of too many horses in close quarters, where the weak were not separated from the bullies, where they were left to be kicked, bitten, and deprived of food.
We hear of Brett and Alexis taking on more and more horses, even as they could not afford those already on the farm.

“They hear the word, ‘free,’ and they go and grab them,” said one acquaintance.
“With Alexis, having horses is like eating potato chips,” said another observer.
“Gotta have more. Gotta have more. Gotta have more.”

If we conservatively estimate the annual cost of caring for a horse at $3,000 (most put it closer to $5,000), then the Ingrahams would have at least $150,000 in yearly expenses.

By all accounts, the Ingrahams’ only source of revenue was in boarding, breeding, and selling horses. But they weren’t selling horses for tens of thousands of dollars and they weren’t charging $1,000 a month to board.

It doesn’t take a fifth grader to figure they were overreaching.

Perhaps, if they had kept their operation small and had an additional source of income, Fair Play Farm might have survived.
But instead, we have this horrible hoarding scenario in which horses suffered as a result of the Ingraham’s arrogance and greed.

Even as they plummeted further into supposed debt and animal welfare investigation, they denied their wrong doings to the state, to media outlets, even to close acquaintances.

An average animal owner would be mortified by a state investigation and media inquisition.

But the Ingrahams maintained a “witch hunt” was in the works and that nothing was wrong. (Indeed, the Department of Agriculture initially told us “nothing was wrong” at Fair Play Farm. But we’ll address that dysfunction later.)
Thankfully, public pressure increased as drivers by the Tardiff Road property saw dozens of thin horses, heavy with rain rot.

Nothing's wrong?

It all seemed like a twisted version of getting caught in a lie. You know, when a kid has to drum up successive lies to cover for the first one, instead of just coming clean?

When visitors voiced concern over several thin, malnourished horses, the Ingrahams said they'd just arrived.
When a horse went down because of malnourishment, exposure, or injury, the Ingrahams repeatedly told friends and visitors that the vet had been called.
But they lied.
When the horse continued to suffer from lack of care, Brett would shoot it.
As months wore on, bodies were buried with dirt or snow or even carted off to be used as coyote bait.
Brett and Alexis grew increasingly callous about their actions. More horses, even those once cherished as favorites, died at their hands. Their friends started to worry.

As one observer noted: “One person said they were crazy. But they told him, he was crazy. Well, then a whole roomful of people is telling them they’re crazy. So, who’s crazy?”

Experts say there is almost always a mental health component among animal cruelty offenders. And so it appears in this case.
In a media interview earlier this year, Brett told a reporter, “I love horses. I’d have 100 if I could.”

Heaven forbid.

Animal cruelty is depriving an animal of veterinary care.
Animal cruelty is not providing adequate shelter.
Animal cruelty is keeping an animal in harm’s way.

By these definitions and more, I believe Brett and Alexis have committed multiple counts of criminal animal cruelty.

View Reader Comments: