Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.

Hearing Authority considers suggestions for animal regulations

Date: 9/12/2014

WEST SPRINGFIELD – The Hearing Authority (HA) is in the process of refining the “cat colony” and “dangerous dog” sections of recently updated Animal Control Ordinance.

Per the ordinance, the HA is tasked with determining the regulations of these parts. After conducting a public hearing on Aug. 28 to get public input on the proposed language, the HA has modified some of its stipulations and has submitted the finalized proposal to the Town Council for review. It is expected that the council will include this item on its Sept. 16 agenda.
   
“There were no broad changes, only slight language changes,” Town Clerk Otto Frizzell, member of the HA, said. “It did bring to light some issues with the disposal of dead bodies [road kill].”
   
The town’s Animal Control Ordinance defines the HA. It states, “The HA shall be comprised of the town clerk, the health director and a designee from the Police Department chosen by the police chief. The HA shall create additional procedures for the management of outdoor cat populations and the determination of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs and cats with approval from the Town Council in accordance with MGL [Massachusetts General Law] Ch. 140, Section 173.”
   
Frizzell, Sgt. Michael Reed, Animal Control Officer Hannah Chapman and Director of Public Health Jeanne Galloway comprise the HA.
   
Frizzell stated that the procedures for the disposer of dead bodies position were being updated because of feedback from the public session. He said that there were no changes made to the Feline Immunodeficiency Virus portion of the ordinance because he believes “that’s something Hannah can address on a case by case basis.” The HA defined a cat colony as “three or more” felines.
   
During the public hearing, Frizzell stated, “The goal is to open up a dialogue between the town and the people doing the work [caring for the animals].” Afterwards, he commented that the event did just that.
   
In regards to the collection of deceased animals, Galloway informed the attendees that the responsibility depended on the location of the animal. If private property, then the landowner is responsible; if a town road, the town is responsible; and if a state road, the state is responsible. She noted that responses from the town were not “immediate” because there is only one person designated for the job.
   
The ordinance also defines a dangerous dog. It states, “a dog that either: Without justification, attacks a person or domestic animal causing physical injury or death. Behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would believe poses an unjustified imminent threat of physical injury or death to one or more persons, domestic or owned animals.”
   
Reed stressed that as in the case with humans, all “evidence” is considered prior to labeling an animal “dangerous.” He said, “It’s all taken in as a whole,” adding that the number of incidents is also considered.