WEST SPRINGFIELD – Mayor William Reichelt is formally withdrawing his proposal to regulate wildlife feeding in West Side, claiming he was “disappointed” with how the Town Council handled the situation.

In June, the mayor submitted an ordinance proposal to the Council to prohibit the feeding of wild animals and to regulate the feeding of songbirds on private property. His proposal cited the risks and cons – for both humans and animals – that come with feeding wild animals. Reichelt doubled down on his efforts in October after a black bear was euthanized by the Massachusetts Environmental Police within town borders.

In mid-October, the Ordinance and Policy Committee amended the language of Reichelt’s proposal, changing a majority of the proposed ordinance, and on Nov. 14, the mayor sent a letter to Town Council President George Condon III announcing he was formally withdrawing 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),” despite seeing a majority of public opinion in favor of the original ordinance proposal.

“It’s [the ordinance proposal] been redlined so much, there's no point in moving forward with it. I am very disappointed in that, for one, we sent it to them back in June and there has been a number of public meetings and everyone who spoke has been in favor,” said Reichelt. “I think part of the issue is they [the Town Council] don’t get a lot of complaints themselves, so I guess they perceived there wasn't an issue. They’re putting their own own concerns ahead of the constituents.”

Initially, Reichelt outlined the regulations for the feeding of wildlife or wild animals in Section 1 of his proposal. Some of the section’s highlights included:

• 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 subsection 2 of This Section.

• 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 trash, cooking grills, pet food, bird feeders or any other similar food source 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 outdoor trash, grills, pet food, or bird feeders.

Section 2 of his ordinance honed in on birdfeeders and the feeding of songbirds. Its highlights included:

• Birds shall only be fed from bird feeders. Birdfeeders shall be installed at least five feet above the ground. Birdfeeders shall not be installed or attached to fences in any manner

• The scattering or placement of food, seed, grain, or any other type of attractant on the ground shall not be permitted.

• Feeding shall not create an unreasonable disturbance or public nuisance that affects the rights of surrounding property owners or residents

• Feeding shall not become an attractant for rodents or other wild animals

After the Ordinance and Policy Committee reviewed the ordinance proposal, the committee suggested striking all conditions regulating the birdfeeders – aside from the portion claiming birdfeeders should only be allowed on private properties and seek to serve only birds.

The committee also suggested adding the word “overtly” into the Section 1 language prohibiting individuals from feeding or providing access to food to wildlife. With the suggested edits in place, Reichelt said he felt that the remainder of the ordinance was ineffective.

“Their [the Council’s] idea of ‘overtly’ is to try to add intent to the ordinance – so they would only fine people that are knowingly doing it [feeding wildlife]. There’s no way to write an ordinance like that, there’s no way to write a perfect ordinance because you can’t predict every type of behavior that’s going to happen out there,” said Reichelt. “By adding intent, and this mental piece, it makes it unenforceable because there's no way to prove ‘overtly.’ It essentially makes the ordinance worthless, and I’m not in favor of making ordinances that don’t have a purpose.”

Condon, on the other hand, told Reminder Publishing that the Council’s amendments came from a place of concern about government overreach.

He explained the cases of wildlife feeding in town were isolated events.

“Unfortunately, with this legislation, he [Reichelt] is trying to grab huge swaths of things that aren't necessarily an issue, and making them an issue,” said Condon. “The Council was trying to target those that are feeding bears specifically, because that’s what started this – there were a few people in neighborhood deliberately leaving food out.

“The councilors cut it down to target those who feed bears deliberately and he was unhappy about that, so he decided to rescind his proposal,” he continued. “I'm sorry he took that path – why ask for the Council’s input if you don’t want Council’s input?”

Reichelt added that he plans on revisiting this issue in the future, but will seek to work out regulations with the Health Department instead.