To the editor:
The Board of Health has scheduled a second public hearing on the Livestock Site Registry for September 11. At the very minimum, the site registry must include the name of the …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
To the editor:
The Board of Health has scheduled a second public hearing on the Livestock Site Registry for September 11. At the very minimum, the site registry must include the name of the property owner, property address, emergency contact information, and type and quantity of livestock kept on the property. If it is a tenant (plot) farm situation, it must also be specified who is legally responsible for the animals. Registration must be mandatory for everyone who keeps a specified number of animals on their property, and a minimum fee of $25 must be attached. (Most towns exempt people with fewer than six chickens or rabbits, and we agree that makes sense.)
Our concern is that, should the BOH vote to establish a livestock site registry, they will only go so far as to require the property owner’s name, address, and phone number—something that BOH members have been describing as a “database registry.” That is not enough and will prove ineffective.
Without a registration fee, there will be no mechanism in place to adequately pay the animal inspector who conducts yearly state-mandated barn book inspections of all farms. By state law, “hobby” or “backyard” farms holding livestock are also supposed to be inspected. (But, obviously the town first must know of their locations.)
The lack of adequate funding for this position is a key reason why animal abuse has been plaguing our town. The position of animal inspector needs to have a line item in the annual town budget. Last year, the municipal animal inspector received a grand total of $1,500 to conduct approximately 115 barn book inspections and 10 ear tag inspections. If problems are found, more than one trip is needed. Based on those numbers, the animal inspector receives less than $10 for each action.
Not only is the pay lousy, it’s a difficult job in that — as one local farmer candidly put it at an Animal Action Committee meeting: The person who wears that badge and who cites a farmer for a violation will have no friends in this town. If it’s a given that an effective animal inspector is also a disliked one, then who would want to take on such a job for so little compensation?
The BOH currently has no incentive to push for better funding of the animal inspector position because, unlike most town health boards across Massachusetts, our BOH is no longer in charge of who is nominated for this state-appointed position or of that person’s oversight once he or she is hired. The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources shifted those responsibilities to our Board of Selectmen in the aftermath of the second Medeiros farm abuse case.
We see these difficulties and disincentives. But we are asking the BOH to stand up and take the lead in securing better farm animal oversight in our tarnished community. We ask for the establishment of a livestock site registry that has a chance of actually being effective. And that means one that is more comprehensive than a toothless “database.” We also ask that the BOS work with the BOH to find the necessary funding to adequately compensate the person or persons who conduct animal inspections.
Donna Parrillo and Chris Wiley
Westport
For Join the Conversation Westport