Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Templeton animal control officer urges 'nuisance animal' bylaw to cover livestock, repeated trespass and impound procedures
Summary
The Town of Templeton’s animal control officer proposed adding a 'nuisance animal' category to Chapter 1‑33 to expand rules beyond dogs, establish livestock‑at‑large violations, and clarify impoundment and redemption fees; the board directed staff to run the draft by town counsel for right‑to‑farm and fee issues.
The Town of Templeton heard a detailed proposal to broaden its animal control bylaw on Nov. 24 as the animal control officer urged the Select Board to add a 'nuisance animal' definition and related enforcement tools.
The officer said current Chapter 1‑33 references the Massachusetts general law nuisance‑dog definition and therefore does not clearly authorize action against other species. She recommended adding a nuisance‑animal definition that would cover excessive or continuous noise, repeated trespass, being at large, offensive odors detectable from the public way, molesting or attacking people or animals, and obstructing public ways. For the noise standard she proposed an audibility threshold and a 10–15 minute continuous‑noise test to allow verification by officers.
Why it matters: Board members and the presenter said gaps in the town’s code leave residents with limited remedies when goats, horses or other livestock stray onto private property or cause damage. The officer said a clearer bylaw would allow citations, impoundment and redemption procedures that better protect private property and public safety.
Board discussion focused on legal limits and practical implementation. Select Board members repeatedly flagged the Commonwealth’s right‑to‑farm protections and asked whether proposed language would run afoul of that statute for agricultural operations. The presenter acknowledged potential conflicts and recommended running a draft by town counsel to reconcile right‑to‑farm provisions with new nuisance‑animal language.
The officer also walked the board through impoundment and redemption mechanics already referenced in Chapter 1‑33 and related General Laws: suggested fees included a $30 impound fee, a $15 boarding charge per 24‑hour period, reimbursement for veterinary care, and proof of up‑to‑date rabies vaccination as prerequisites for redemption. The officer said an animal control officer or veterinarian may provide emergency veterinary care and that animals unclaimed after seven days may be released for adoption or humanely euthanized per the bylaw and state law.
Several members asked for clarity about where redemption and impound fees would be deposited; the presenter said fees currently go to animal control’s account (largely raised via fundraising). Board members asked whether Winchendon and Templeton share animal control functions and whether the town’s historic 'field driver' provisions still apply; staff said they would research the overlap with Mass. General Laws and the town’s practice.
The board did not vote on the proposed language at the meeting. Chair Jeff Sher said the presentation provides a useful starting point and directed the town administrator to work with town counsel and return recommended redlines and fee‑deposit details at a future meeting.
