Expert veterinary care for every stage of your pet’s life.
Emergency: 617-522-7282
Poison Control: 888-426-4435
Bringing pets and people together.
Advocate for animals, volunteer, or get help for your pet with our compassionate community services.
The Mass Ready Act (H. 5518/S3064) is an environmental bond bill that authorizes borrowing for environmental programs. As a large omnibus bill, it also packages together many environmental policy provisions. Because the House and Senate passed different versions, a 6-members conference committee has been appointed to reconcile the differences. The deadline for the committee to do this is the end of the year, though our best guess is that this would happen sometime this fall.
Key provisions in the Mass. Ready Act relating to animals:
Mass Ready Act Conference Committee Members: (Links go to their pages on the malegislature.gov website)
Senator Julian Cyr Cape and Islands – Consisting of the city known as the town of Barnstable and the towns of Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Eastham, Harwich, Orleans, Provincetown, Truro, Wellfleet and Yarmouth in the county of Barnstable; the towns in the county of Dukes; and the town in the county of Nantucket
Senator Rebecca Rausch Norfolk, Worcester and Middlesex – Consisting of the city known as the town of Franklin and the towns of Bellingham, Dover, Medfield, Millis, Needham, Norfolk, Plainville and Wrentham in the county of Norfolk; the town of Milford of the county of Worcester; and the town of Sherborn in the county of Middlesex.
Senator Peter Durant Worcester and Hampshire – Consisting of the city of Gardner, the city of Worcester, Ward 7 Precincts 2, 4, 5, 6, Ward 9 Precincts 3, and 4, and the towns of Barre, Brookfield, East Brookfield, Hardwick, Holden, Hubbardston, Leicester, New Braintree, North Brookfield, Oakham, Paxton, Phillipston, Princeton, Rutland, Spencer, Sterling, Templeton, West Brookfield and Westminster in the county of Worcester; and the town of Ware in the county of Hampshire. Rep. Michael Finn 6th Hampden – Consisting of Precinct 1, of the city known as the town of Agawam, Ward 2 Precinct A, Ward 3 Precinct A, and Ward 4 Precinct A, of the city of Chicopee, the city known as the town of West Springfield, Ward 2 Precinct A1 and Ward 6 Precinct B, of the city of Westfield, all in the county of Hampden.
Rep. Christine Barber 34th Middlesex – Consisting Ward 4, Ward 5, Ward 7 Precincts 1, 2A, and Ward 8 Precinct 2, of the city of Medford, Ward 4 Precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, Ward 6 Precinct 3A, and Ward 7, of the city of Somerville, both in the county of Middlesex. Rep. Kenneth Sweezey 6th Plymouth – Consisting of the town of Duxbury, Precinct 2, of the town of Halifax, Precincts 2, and 3, of the town of Hanson, Precincts 2A, and 4, of the town of Marshfield, and Precincts 1, 2, 3A, 4, and 5, of the town of Pembroke, all in the county of Plymouth.
What you can do: Reach out to your state senator and state representative and let them know your position on these two measures. Ask them to reach out to the conferees to share your opinion. If one of your legislators is on the conference committee, your voice is especially important!
More information:
Rodenticide (Section 74 and 75 of S. 3064) The Senate included in their version Sections 74 and 75 that state that cities and towns would be able to ban anticoagulant rodenticides as bylaws or ordinances within their municipal borders, including private property.
We support the language included in section 74 and 75 to allow cities and towns to determine their own anticoagulant rodenticide bylaws; however, we believe state-wide restrictions should be put in place, as animals do not abide by municipal limits. Protections from these poisons should be in every city and town in Massachusetts so that no matter where our wildlife, pets, and children decide to be, they do not become accidental victims.
The poison remains in the dead or dying rodent’s system for days. These poisons are broken into two categories: first generation known as FGARs (Chlorophacinone, Diphacinonon, and Warfarin) and second generation known as SGARs (Brodifacoum, Bromadiolone Difenacoum, and Difethialone). First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides last for approximately 7 days in an animal’s system, but SGARs are more potent and generally last for 4 weeks, making them more dangerous to other animals who ingest poisoned prey.
ARs impact non-targeted pets and wildlife populations, such as birds of prey, who rely on the poisoned rodents as a food source. As a result, the cats and dogs, hawks, eagles, owls, and bobcats who are exposed often suffer the same fatal hemorrhaging as their meal.
While ARs are prohibited for residential consumer purchase in the Commonwealth, commercial use is allowed for licensed pesticide companies. Instead of using these poisons, people can:
Learn more about rodenticides (mspca.org page) Learn more in the Toolkit from Mass. Audubon (google document)
Hunting on Sundays (55A of H. 5518) Simply, opening Sundays to hunting won’t kill enough deer to do anything other than stimulate population growth.
For Massachusetts residents, Sundays are a day to enjoy activities such as hiking, bird watching, horseback riding, mountain biking, and other wildlife-related activities without concerns about conflict with hunting activity. In addition to this concern and the refutation of the rationale for making this change detailed below, we have concerns about this specific attempt/language — that is in the Mass. Ready Act and allows hunting on all Sundays (not limited to species or in any way).
Bills have been filed on this for decades and not advanced. An independent poll authorized by the MSPCA, found that less than 50% of Massachusetts residents support hunting on Sundays. While materials published by the administration refer to widespread support at MassWildlife hearings, it is not surprising given these hearings were held by the agency that licenses hunters and receives funding for doing so.
Experts estimate that in order to reduce a deer population to a targeted density, at least 40% of does would need to be culled annually for several years in a row. Looking at recent MassWildlife data, hunting would not make any appreciable difference on Massachusetts deer population. For example, MassWildlife data shows that 1,334 deer on average were killed on Saturdays during archery season from 2013 through 2018. This amounts to about 1% of the estimated current deer population — not enough to appreciably reduce the deer population or mitigate conflicts.
Given that some rationale for this change is related to tick-borne diseases, it is important to note that according to leading Lyme disease experts, human risk of exposure to Lyme disease is correlated more so with the abundance of immature rodent hosts and other factors, rather than deer numbers or densities. Some have cautioned that a dramatic reduction of a deer population could have unanticipated short- and long-term effects on the broader Lyme disease enzootic cycle — possibly increasing human risk of contracting the disease. Others have determined that even if deer were completely eliminated from a particular area, “alternative hosts could maintain a local population of blacklegged ticks and an enzootic cycle of the Lyme disease bacterium.” Recent studies report that “[a]lthough deer may play a role in the tick life cycle, studies point to a limited association of deer populations with human TBD [tick-borne disease] risk,” and “[o]verabundance of deer is also found in areas of low LD [Lyme disease] risk.” Thus, simply managing deer populations and densities (e.g., by hunting) has not been shown to be effective in reducing human Lyme disease risk. As one key study concludes,
… the scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of deer control as a means of preventing human Lyme disease is weak. … Furthermore, evidence linking deer reduction to reduced human Lyme disease risk is lacking. Robust, reproducible scientific evidence should support any recommended public health intervention, let alone one that is both costly and controversial.
It is for this reason that, despite exploring a possible link, no major health or Lyme disease organization, such as the CDC, NIH, American Lyme Disease Foundation, or Lyme Disease Association, has identified hunting as an effective means of addressing Lyme disease, or advocated for deer culls.
In addition to non-consumptive outdoor users, some hunters themselves oppose lifting the Sunday hunting ban. One reason for this opposition is that because hunters can enter private property to hunt without landowner permission (unless signs are posted) and, if Sunday hunting is allowed, more private land may be posted “no hunting” in response.
Proponents of repealing the Sunday hunting ban often note the lack of known injuries or deaths to non-hunters. Yet, it is also important to note that numerous firearm and bow hunting accidents have happened. Incidents include one hunter shot and injured another in Wareham, even though both were wearing the required “hunter orange” for safety; errant shots from hunter firearms on two separate occasions damaged vehicles in Tyngsboro; a father and son hunter were shot by another hunter with birdshot; in Barnstable a hunter mistook a man and his dog for a herd of deer, shooting him in the neck, back, and hand; a woman was shot when her dogs were mistaken for deer in Norton; a high school runner was shot in the leg in Mattapoisett; and a hunter accidentally shot a man with a shotgun on Nantucket. Tragically, beloved pets have also been injured or killed by hunters’ bullets. And a growing number of incidents have been between a shooter and victim from the same hunting party during group hunts, which — as just two recent events in Edgartown (2025) and Blanford (2023) illustrate — have involved both bow hunting and the use of firearms. Recently, the Environmental Police have noted there were a number of violations of hunting laws and education/safety concepts. With Massachusetts being the third most densely populated state in the country, it is likely because we have this ban that more such incidents have not occurred. Indeed, MassWildlife prudently advises that non-hunters reserve hunting-free Sundays for their outdoor activities:
“Sunday hunting is not permitted in Massachusetts…Research the place you plan to visit to learn when hunting is allowed. If you are worried about visiting during a hunting season, find places to visit where hunting is not allowed, or visit on Sundays and on other dates outside of hunting seasons”
From an economic perspective, opening Sundays for hunting is not sound policy. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data show that non-hunting nature lovers not only outnumber, but also outspend, hunting constituencies by fourteen times each year in the Commonwealth. In Massachusetts, they spend $1.28 billion on wildlife watching and other non-consumptive activities while hunting constituencies spend a fraction of that total — just 7%, or $87 million. An article focusing on expenditures in the broader New England region determined that in 2016, hunting accounted for less than 2% of the approximately $88 billion total consumer surplus value of wildlife-related activities. Removing Sunday hunting restrictions in Massachusetts would likely have a significant negative impact on non-consumptive activities and spending. The economic losses from the reduction in these activities—much larger economic drivers in Massachusetts than hunting activity — would not offset any economic gain generated from Sunday hunting opportunities.
Given the protection and relief that the Sunday hunting ban provides to the more than 99% of Massachusetts residents who do not hunt, we urge upholding the Sunday hunting ban. It is entirely reasonable for a state as densely populated as Massachusetts to uphold a law that allows non-consumptive nature users to enjoy our natural resources with their families, friends, and companion animals without risking conflicts with hunting activity.
