Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 1/16/2019
WEST SPRINGFIELD – The debate surrounding possible wildlife feeding regulations in West Side has been an ongoing saga since the summer – now, the Town is one step closer to putting the issue to rest. Although Mayor William Reichelt told Reminder Publishing he has no intention of signing a council-sponsored ordinance seeking to regulate certain aspects of wildlife feeding, he will allow it to sit on his desk for 10 days before it is automatically enacted into law.
On Jan. 7, the West Springfield Town Council voted 7 – 1 to approve a council-sponsored ordinance that aims to impose fines on residents charged with intentionally feeding wild animals – the feeding of songbirds on private property is still legal under the proposed law, however. The ordinance came as a response to Reichelt’s original efforts back in June to address the negative implications of wildlife feeding for both humans and animals.
“It feels good [to approve the ordinance], but unfortunately the wheels of government move slower – that gets frustrating at times,” said Town Council President George Condon III. “But, I remember there’s a reason it moves slow, because you don’t want someone to pass something just because it’s popular at the moment without realizing the potential implications.”
The mayor initially submitted an ordinance proposal to the Town Council during the summer seeking to prohibit the feeding of wild animals and to regulate the feeding of songbirds on private property. Reichelt doubled down on his efforts in October after the Massachusetts Environmental Police were forced to euthanize a black bear within town borders.
In mid-October, the Ordinance and Policy Committee amended the language of Reichelt’s original proposal.
The mayor claimed the Council “eviscerated” a majority of his proposed ordinance, and on Nov. 14 he formally withdrew his proposal from the Council’s consideration “without prejudice.”
Reichelt expressed frustration with the Council’s proposed changes to the ordinance, and said he was displeased with how the Ordinance and Policy Committee spent numerous meetings debating the “language based on members’ own personal opinions (and not those of their constituents),” while a majority of public opinion favored the original ordinance proposal.
Despite the mayor’s pull, the Town Council approved a council-sponsored version of Reichelt’s initial proposal during its first meeting of the New Year.
“We [the Town Council] had done seven months of work on it, so the councilors decided it’s still an important issue because we don’t want people feeding bears,” said Condon. “We took our scaled-down version – which was the mayor’s version after we took out a bunch of language – and introduced it.
“There is a true concern out there about deliberately feeding animals, and we felt like the mayor’s addressed that, but also felt like it encompassed other things that may or may not be an issue,” he continued. “We decided, ‘let’s get to the root cause of the problem and address that.’ If we find it needs to be tweaked, we can go back and add to it later.”
Some of the highlights from the council’s version of the ordinance include:
• No person shall feed, bait, or in any manner provide access to food to any wild animal and/or wildlife within Town of West Springfield on lands either publicly or privately owned, except as permitted by Section 110-29.
• No person shall fail to take remedial action to avoid contact or conflict with wild animals, which may include the securing or removal of outdoor food sources or attractant after being advised by the Town to undertake such remedial action. Further, after an initial contact or conflict with a wild animal, no person shall continue to provide, or otherwise fail to secure or remove, any likely food sources or attractants, including but not limited to bird feeders.
• The prohibitions of this Section shall not apply to naturally growing shrubs, live crops, plants, flowers, vegetation, gardens, or trees.
• The feeding of songbirds and other backyard birds shall be permitted on private property subject to the condition that birds shall only be fed from bird feeders.
• The Park Rangers and/or Animal Control shall enforce the provisions of this Ordinance.
• Violations of this Section shall be enforceable under the non-criminal disposition procedures established by M.G.L. c. 40, § 21D, and adopted set forth in Chapter 1, Article II of these Ordinances. The non-criminal disposition penalties for any person violating this Section shall be a written warning for the first violation; Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) for the second violation; One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for the third violation; and Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) for each subsequent violation. Each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense.
During the council meeting, a majority of councilors expressed support for the ordinance.
“This was the ordinance we had some contention about between the council and the mayor. When we received the original ordinance, it was, in our opinion overreaching and it covered too much ground,” said Councilor Daniel M. O’Brien. “This is the stripped down version of it, and I believe it gets exactly to the point of the problem without being an overreach. I believe it will be a great tool to handling this problem.”
Sean T. Powers explained that, although he would be voting in favor of the proposal, he wished “there was more enforcement power with the Board of Health.”
He asked that if any residents run into issues with enforcement, they let the council know so it can “revisit [this] down the road.”
The one opposing vote came from Councilor Michael S. Eger, in which he echoed Powers’ sentiments on enforcement.
“I did want to see the original bill go to the floor. I thought that, even though some of the language was a little bit strong, it had a lot of considerations,” he said. “My main problem with this bill is the enforcement. We really only have one animal control officer and there’s not going to be much coverage to enforce this rule.”
The ordinance is currently in the works of being sent to the mayor’s office, in which, as previously stated, he will let it sit on his desk for ten days before it is passed as law.
Although Reichelt said he is frustrated with the way the situation unfolded, he is hopeful to having a more positive relationship with the Council moving forward.
“It’s disappointing. It kind of just died in subcommittee and they made massive changes. When I said it’s not worth doing it, they just rushed out a second version of theirs forward – this isn’t the way government is supposed to be,” said the mayor. “I did meet with the president to go over plans for 2019 though, and I’m positive that the relationship should be better this coming year.”
He added that he plans on pursuing further safety and health regulations surrounding wildlife feeding through the Board of Health in the near future.