Just before 3 a.m. one cold night last November, someone on Murray Lane called 911 with suspicions about a pickup parked on private property near the end of the road, next to the Burgess-Brown conservation land. When Sgt. Charles DiRienzo and Officer Tyler Forbes reached the scene, they found two men in the pickup and a freshly killed deer in the back of the truck.
As Forbes told the Conservation Commission a week later, the men claimed the deer had been killed during legal hunting hours before nightfall. But Forbes knew that was not true, because steam was still rising from the carcass in the chilly air. The men also claimed to have been hunting with permission on the private land. When the officers questioned that claim, the two next said they were entitled to hunt there because the property was not posted with “No Hunting” signs.
After checking the two men’s identification, a call to the dispatch center showed that one of them—a Leominster resident—had 56 previous charges for poaching, Forbes said. The Harvard officers tried repeatedly to reach someone at the Massachusetts Environmental Police, but no one was available through the MEP hotline.
Harvard currently has no bylaw about hunting. Of course, the state’s hunting laws apply in Harvard. But no bylaw specifically empowers local Harvard police to enforce those state laws. So the officers allowed the two poachers to leave and turned over their names to the environmental police later in the morning.
One man was jailed while awaiting a hearing because he was already on probation from previous hunting violations. Both men have since been arraigned on several state charges including hunting without a license, hunting after hours, and firing a crossbow bolt too close to a roadway.
Police chief seeks bylaw amendment
Shortly after the Murray Lane incident, Police Chief James Babu suggested that Harvard amend its bylaw on firearms so that it also covers hunting infractions and empowers local police to enforce those rules. Conservation Agent Liz Allard provided bylaws from other nearby towns for comparison.
The Murray Lane case was not the only example of poaching activity in town. In February Marc Sevigny, of the Harvard Conservation Trust, told the Conservation Commission the trust has also had problems with poachers, particularly on the Eastern Greenway land acquired from National Grid last year. Pickup trucks are dropping off hunters with guns at the end of Jacob Gates Road, he said; then the trucks leave quickly before anyone can get their license numbers.
The Conservation Commission discussed several amended versions of the firearms bylaw. At its Feb. 16 meeting, the commission approved sending an amended bylaw to Chief Babu with the understanding that he would submit a similar version as a warrant article. After review by town counsel, the proposed amendment became Article 24 on the warrant for the April 29 Town Meeting.
Warrant Article 24 proposes amendments to Chapter 39 of Harvard’s bylaw starting right from the beginning, changing the title of the chapter to include hunting and trapping as well as firearms and explosives.
In an email to the Press, Babu wrote, “The bylaw has been changed to make it more difficult to hunt, trap, or discharge firearms or explosives on public or private property.” The amended bylaw states that people who wish to engage in those activities must have written permission to do so, and they must carry that permission with them.
On public property, the Select Board would have the authority to grant the written permission, Babu wrote. On private property, permission would come from the property owner. Under the current law, no consent for hunting on private property is required, Babu explained. Hunters can go on private land unless it is posted with “No Hunting” signs.
The amended bylaw also makes clear that local police would have the authority to enforce this law. Fines for violations could range from $250 to $500 for each offense and could be charged as an alternative to the range of fines set in state law (Mass. General Laws Chapter 131, Section 90).
“The changes to the bylaw are intended to protect public safety and wildlife,” Babu wrote. “Hunting and trapping can be dangerous activities, and it is important to ensure that people who participate in these activities are properly trained and authorized. The increased penalties are intended to deter people from violating the bylaw.”
