The following statement was released Friday by the Westport Board of Health ….

This is not a statement of finger pointing, blame or guilt. The past few weeks have been an eye-opening lesson in the problems within the town, its government and the function of team work.

Westport has pushed hard to become a right to farm community with the Agricultural Commission to be the ambassador between the public and farms. The BOH takes its job duties and responsibilities in the area of farms very seriously. The town by-law requires contact with the Agricultural Commission in regards to all complaints and issues regarding farming activities. Most of the issues have become litigious, as opinions on both sides have become passionate. Anybody attending last year’s annual Town Meeting saw the divide and lines being drawn over farming issues.

The BOH has permitting requirements for pigs and horses only. The BOH is tasked with nominating an individual or individuals for the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture Resource to appoint an animal inspector. The duties of these inspectors include the animal census, rabies monitoring and education.

The BOH has been justifiably criticized for some aspects of the enforcement, but in some cases was not aware of the activities or the movement of animals to and from locations because of apathy by abutters, other tenants, and people in the “know.” The problem in town is not the real farmer but the “keeper” of animals. In most cases these parties are not known until an egregious complaint is filed, usually anonymously, and a serious situation has developed. Even then it becomes a difficult task to enforce without a specific ordinance or by-law to give teeth to the BOH.

Most of you have become well aware of the situation regarding the property on Route 177. What has not been acknowledged is the BOH involvement previously with this property.

On Christmas Eve 2010, the BOH was summonsed to the property on a similar complaint. At the time, the MSPCA, MDAR, Westport Police, Westport Building Department, and BOH all cited the owner of the property and known owners of the animals (for) various offenses. The state agencies declined to prosecute the land owner, animals were removed and the site partially cleaned up. State agencies responsible for pressing charges backed off somewhat, allowing the land owner to face lesser charges. Followups on the site were to be done under state agencies. The town Agricultural Commission as required under the Right to Farm By-Law was to oversee problems and to help the “farmer” come into compliance with by-laws and regulations. Owners of horses and pigs were required to apply for permits and come into compliance or remove the animals.

Shortly after the initial incident, the BOH pushed to have the former “dog” officer position changed to an Animal Control position. That year, at the annual Town Meeting, the position was created. A town by-law was crafted with the new Animal Control Officer was sponsored jointly by the BOH to regulate “tenant” farms. That by-law was widely criticized as too restrictive and cumbersome to “farmers” and was withdrawn from the warrant due to lack of support. The Animal Control Officer was widely criticized by some residents as being “overzealous” in animal enforcement, and improperly entering properties to check on the welfare of animals. This position was essentially neutered to a point where the position, although written into the job description as a requirement, was not allowed to do animal inspections. The Westport Senior Agent was not allowed to become an Animal Inspector by the overseeing agency.

During the past 4 years, the BOH has received numerous complaints on farm odors, farm operations and animals. The BOH has followed up after hours and through the AGComm to address these issues. In some cases, with no support from entities that should be overseeing the operations and others by residents who have vocally voiced an opinion of support by the perpetrator.

Now we are at a crisis point for the town and the welfare of the animals. Solutions to future problems will include the former by-law, which will require the landowner and all “tenant” farmers to register locations, number of animals, ownership, and all appropriate state and local by-laws. This will include a right of entry by the agent or agents for the town on a regular basis and the disposition of all animals and operations. It will involve singling out sections of the town where the keeping of certain animals is not appropriate or warranted. It will involve a challenge to the Right To Farm By-Law, universally accepted by the town itself. It requires support, it requires a change in culture and it requires action. It also requires a new thought process in town government and town communication and cooperation.