A sign put in a walking area near Bloods Pond questions the beaver situation there. PHOTO/NICK SCHOFIELD
Residents are expressing frustrations with what they believe are “inhumane practices” after beavers were removed from Bloods Pond last month.
Between June 3-15, the Department of Public Works applied for an emergency permit and contracted a problem animal control agent to set traps at Bloods Pond. A number of beavers subsequently were removed from the pond and euthanized.
The trapping and removal of the beavers was initiated to maintain the integrity of the dam in Bloods Pond, according to DPW Director Kerry Reed. She explained that her department had received a call from a resident regarding irregularities in water flow out of the pond.
When engineers went to investigate, they reportedly found an abundance of debris accumulating in the dam’s spillways. Reed noted that some of this accumulation is normal, but the engineers determined that beavers were exacerbating the issue.
In order to avoid further degradation of the dam, the decision was made to remove the beavers.
“If that [dam] fails, it’s a huge safety concern,” said Reed.
The dam at Bloods Pond, according to an inspection report from 2022 by the Pare Corporation, is a “earthen and gravity dam structure.” The dam initially was built to supply Perry’s Mill, and was constructed in the early 1800s, according to information on the Hopkinton Area Land Trust website.
In its report, Pare classifies the Bloods Pond dam as a Class II (significant) hazard potential dam under the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation classification rules. The report states that “a failure of the dam at maximum pool may cause loss of life and damage to home(s), industrial or commercial facilities, secondary highways(s) or railroad(s) or cause interruption of use or service of relatively important facilities.”
“In order to maintain that dam and keep it operating properly … we’re going to have to deal with the beaver population,” Reed said.
“The beaver was trapped to protect the integrity of the dam and the integrity of the roadway,” echoed Health Director Shaun McAuliffe. The Health Department issued the emergency permit to remove the animals.
McAuliffe explained that should the dam fall or collapse, several roadways would be compromised and two or three homes could be swept away. A nearby commercial property could be damaged as well.
“Public safety has to come first,” Reed asserted.
Reed further described a history of reports to the DPW regarding flooding of abutters’ properties. The Independent obtained written complaints dating back to 2017, and Reed said at least one or two calls about flooding in the area come in annually.
“We have to appreciate also that it has to get to a really bad point where someone calls into the DPW,” Reed said.
Residents concerned about beaver removal, private property access
Community members living near Bloods Pond have expressed frustration and dissatisfaction with the decision to remove and euthanize the beavers.
Hopkinton resident Allison Palacios, in a letter to the editor, claimed that the trapper contracted to remove the beavers had left one of the animals in the trap for days on end until it died. She called on the Board of Health to “enforce humane guidelines surrounding beaver trappings and … revoke trapping licenses when prohibited practices occur.”
An email from the trapper to McAuliffe obtained by the Independent pushed back against this assertion.
“I can assure you that I have been checking my traps daily and removing any trapped beavers,” the email stated. The trapper went on to note he removed over a dozen beavers from the pond in an 8-day period. Therefore, “it would appear the beaver seen in the trap might be the same beaver day after day” while actually being multiple animals.
McAuliffe also asserted that neither he nor the trapper engaged in submerging the traps to drown the beavers.
Neighbors had further concerns with where traps were placed along the dam. Sections of the dam are part of the properties along Peter Porcaro Drive. In a statement responding to Palacios’ letter, Hao Ban explained that no one had asked permission before setting up the traps.
“This all took place on our private property,” Ban stated. “We were never consulted, notified or asked for permission.”
Another resident, Heather Marusa, confirmed Ban’s assertion. “Despite the fact that private land directly abuts South Mill Street, none of us was contacted,” she stated in an email to the Independent.
Ban and Marusa also took issue with the safety of the traps themselves. “We were never notified of literal death traps being placed on private land,” claimed Marusa, noting that families with children and domestic animals visit the area in which the traps were placed.
Regarding the placement of the traps, McAuliffe explained that the emergency permit he approved allowed access to portions of the dam not owned by the town.
“[The permit] allows us to act in the best interest of the public who is downstream of the dam and/or who live on South Mill Street and might be at risk of losing access to the roadway,” he said.
[Editor’s note: This story has been updated with additional information regarding the emergency permit.]
An abutter supplied the Independent with a copy of the emergency permit signed by McAuliffe to authorize the beaver trapping. Language on the permit states that it does not allow “permittee(s) or their authorized agent” to trespass on private property.
The Independent followed up with McAuliffe regarding the language of the permit. He stated in an email that “Specifically, in cases of emergencies that threaten public health and safety … administrative agents, including health agents, may enter private property for inspections and in this case emergency beaver dam and removal.”
McAuliffe went on to assert that Massachusetts General Law addresses the permittee’s authority regarding beaver removals, and that a resident on Peter Porcaro Drive who submitted the initial complaint feared for the safety and integrity of their septic system and private water supply.
Short list of options for handling ‘nuisance’ beavers
Abutters to Bloods Pond have expressed dismay over the decision to euthanize the beavers that were trapped. Comments on Palacios’ letter note that families have come to enjoy the animals being in the pond, going so far as to give them names.
Marusa, who has lived on Peter Porcaro Drive for 11 years, noted that the beavers have lived in the pond since she moved in.
As well, Marusa described how Bloods Pond has measures in place to dissuade the beavers from building dams in areas that would clog up the spillways. “A beaver deceiver was installed at the large culvert in order to maintain flow,” she said.
Beaver deceivers are a form of water flow device installed in beaver dams or culverts. They allow water flow to continue without disturbing the beavers. Reed noted that the one installed in Bloods Pond has been there as long as she has served as DPW director.
“As long as these [beaver deceivers] are cleared out, they are guaranteed to work,” Marusa stated.
Added Marusa: “We were never asked as private landowners to help maintain the device or clear the vegetation. However, we would be happy to clear the vegetation and help with maintenance, but we were never approached.”
Reed maintained that the level of debris impacting the spillways posed a threat to the operation of the dam, despite the presence of the beaver deceiver. She also noted that the work to remove and euthanize the beavers was conducted in accordance with state law.
According to the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, it is illegal to relocate a captured beaver. The only available option to deal with a beaver trapped due to a threat to public health and safety is euthanasia, both Reed and McAuliffe explained.
“At this time there is no alternate, humane way to deal with nuisance beaver populations,” Reed said.
McAuliffe expressed optimism about potential solutions. He told the Independent that he has reached out to the Central Massachusetts Mosquito Control Project about obtaining interceptors or diverters that would draw water beyond the outlet of the spillway. According to him, these would prevent the beavers from hearing the water flowing in.
“If we can get these diverters installed, it would further reduce the risk of human-beaver conflict in the future,” he said.
Abutters would prefer the nonlethal options for dealing with the beavers be prioritized.
“Leave them alone,” Ban stated in a follow-up email to the Independent.
Marusa expressed a desire for the town to make sure the beaver deceiver is maintained regularly and more work be done on the dam and nearby road to curb the issue.
“It seems that, because of delayed maintenance, the beavers were killed as a way to pretend that the town is working on the dam,” she alleged.
Reed said DPW likely would need to go back to Town Meeting to get additional funding for dam repairs. In the meantime, she emphasized that the safety of abutters and other residents would remain her department’s focus.
“Our priority is public safety,” she said. “We’re doing things to keep the public safe in terms of the dam and the road.”
Maybe instead of that ridiculous bike lane, Hopkinton should have fixed this dam. These poor animals.
I don’t understand why we are removing these beavers from their natural habitat. Maybe it was the town’s responsibility to repair the dam instead of killing innocent wildlife? This is so upsetting. Let the swingers have their parties on this street that lines the entire road with vehicles causing a driving hazard but god forbid the poor beavers should live in peace.
To be fair, the pond isn’t natural. It only exists due to an under maintained 200 year old man-made structure that not longer serves its intended use for a mill and is now used for aesthetic pleasure of a limited number of private property users. Maybe the best solution for nature and the town would be to remove the dam altogether and re-establish a natural stream where beavers could then build a natural dam. There are grants and groups like Trout Unlimited that help support such efforts in areas where there can be real conservation benefits.
Next time you have some party, I hope some neighbour call on you… How is that hazardous if it is done with local police approval. In fact they do check and there are no hazard. There is a comet shower tonight.. That’s a hazard too.. I wish you had something better to do than complain..:)
There are a few facts missing, so here they are:
Fact 1: McAuliffe admitted that more beavers would be back to set up residence in the pond within 2 months- proving that trapping them clearly is not a long term solution.
Fact 2: the permit, which we pulled a copy of, specifically states that it does NOT permit the trapper to go in private property.
Fact 3: the DPW has NOT maintained the roadway S.Mill (that is on top of the dam) in years and has allowed it fall into such disrepair that it was deemed unsafe for school bus travel several years ago- they have still not done anything for the road/ dam.
Fact 4: the beavers have been in the pond for over a decade and they have not posed a “threat to safety” this whole time- why now?
Fact 5: The DPW typically has in previous years and is supposed to keep the debris clear from the spillway and the culvert- this year they did NOT
Fact 6: there have been 5 complaints logged over the course of 8 YEARS with the most recent one being in 2022.
Fact 7: The traps were set up right where my son and my next door neighbor (and plenty of others) go fishing and kayaking. Another butter has pet geese that are often in the pond, there was absolutely no focus from DPW on our safety.
Beaver trapping is inhumane and not a long term solution. The DPW, BOH and abutters all need to work TOGETHER to come up with a long term solution that considers all stakeholders. The property owners and abutters believe the town had no idea that Bloods pond was private property because they carried out this heinous, short term, ineffective, and unsafe task as if it weren’t. Furthermore, there was no regard to the SAFETY of all the people that use this pond.
I want you all to know, that the beaver trapping permit does NOT give any authority to go onto private land. It actually states that neither the permittee nor its agent is to place a trap on private land or to trespass.
Ms Reed states that public safety is her concern, but clearly she does not care for the safety of certain residents, only some.
There are so many lies given in this article, I can’t stand it. Neither should any of you. These are our tax dollars. I am outraged and I will be following up.
Dam! It is a beavergate.
These same residents would be upset if the town undertook a rebuilding of the dam with a modern structure. The answer here is simple the town should let the beavers stay and when the dam fails and their homes and property are flooded and or lost the resident should move because they are living on land that belongs to the beavers.
JR- I’m one of the residents and your point of view on this couldn’t be further from the truth. We would welcome maintenance to the fam and road. Also, Our property would not be impacted if the dam failed but those downstream would, and we care about that as well. We have co existed with the beavers here for over a decade and have had a routine every spring to clear the culvert and spillway. This spring, the DPW did not clear it until late June. There have only been 5 complaints logged over the course of 8 years, the most recent being in 2022. 2 of those “complaints” were my next door neighbor asking the DPW to come clear the spillway like they are supposed to do.
The Dam was built over a 100 years ago and is earthen structure. It’s on an endangered dam list because it is showing signs of stress. I have to trust the town DPW removed the beavers because they were endangering the perilous state of the dam as it is. They may also have directives from state laws or departments on how they have to treat this situation. The town has a hard time getting the money approved for the fixing of drainage problems on the roads in Hopkinton with costs of only 1 to 2 million dollars. Where is the money going to come from to rebuild this dam. If it’s between the removal of the beavers and the preservation of a dam and peoples homes and property I think at this moment in time the town did the right thing.
JR it appears you are not entirely informed on this situation and only have the surface level of information. You are also misrepresenting the feelings and perspectives of people you don’t know and have not spoken to (the landowners in this case) All are inaccurate btw. We now have all the documentation, which you apparently do not, because if you did, you’d be singing a different tune.
JR, I’m one of the residents and that’s now how I feel at all. Please don’t speak for me over your keyboard.
I have not seen any maintenance done on that dam in 11 years. Do you live nearby? Do you know something I don’t? If you do, I’d love more knowledge.
A beaver deceiver was installed to maintain the flow of water, and to allow the beavers to still live in the pond, but if it’s not properly maintained and cleaned out, problems can occur. We residents have cleaned out the deceiver and spillway before. We don’t mind, as we enjoy living with the wildlife. If they want to put in a modern structure, and leave my wildlife alone, have at it.
Again, please don’t speak for people you don’t even know.
I have lived within the vicinity of Bloods Pond for nearly a decade, and I share the same concerns as my neighbors about the extermination of the beavers. I have seen beavers in Bloods Pond for as long as I can remember, and it has always been a joy to see them at work. I understand that beavers play a role in shaping the environment, but it is shocking to learn that town leaders responded to some of their work near the dam at Bloods Pond by secretly exterminating them. It is only through the efforts of my neighbors to uncover the truth that I even know why the beavers disappeared.
I encourage people with concerns about the dam at Bloods Pond to reconsider their assumptions. It is unclear what the major challenge is to the dam at Bloods Pond, if there even is one. All the article notes is that “engineers” found “an abundance of debris” near the dam, which presumably could have been removed. It’s hard to understand why town leaders made the drastic decision to exterminate the beavers rather than remove the debris, which has been done in previous years. If there is a genuine concern about the dam being so old, then why aren’t town leaders focusing on that issue? Second, there is never any evidence presented for what kind of effect, if any, the beavers were having on the dam. Town leaders claim that there was degradation, but all that the article indicates is that there was debris. If there is degradation, then what is causing it, and how do we know it is due to beavers as opposed to natural aging or a lack of maintenance? The dam was first built in the early 1800s, after all. Third, it’s hard to understand the dire warnings that town leaders are making about the consequences of the dam collapsing. Are town leaders really worried about such a possibility? If so, then why aren’t they doing more to look into it? Why haven’t they shut down the road by the dam or tried to rezone areas so that homes don’t get swept away, as they are warning could happen?
My neighbors have made the point that town leaders should have considered alternatives to exterminating the beavers, and I agree with them. Not only are there many possibilities for co-existing with beavers, but we might reconsider how we view beavers in general. Beavers are extraordinary little engineers. They play a role in shaping the environment in ways that can make it more resilient to flooding and other forms of extreme weather. It is their work that can make our neighborhood more resilient to future environmental challenges. People may have concerns about some of their work in Bloods Pond, but that does not make them a nuisance population. It just means that we need to understand what they are doing and find ways of working with them. The town already had put measures in place, and they had been working. Rather than scaring people about possible catastrophes or blaming beavers for infrastructure challenges, town leaders should start from the position that it is human beings who can do better. Beavers are not responsible for the environmental or infrastructure challenges that we are facing, but they can be our allies.
When new beavers move into Bloods Pond, as they surely will, town leaders should think twice before engaging in fearmongering or making decisions that are based on faulty assumptions or limited information. At the very least, town leaders should consult with experts who value beavers, understand the work they do, and understand how we can co-exist with them to the benefit of everyone.
Thank you, Edward for your support and well thought out comments and suggestions! I couldn’t agree with you more.
With what we pay in property taxes, there should be money in the budget to replace a 200 year old road/dam. Ive lived in town for 50 years and have NEVER seen any maintenance on South Mill. Its really disturbing what the town did. Public safety?!!!! What a load of hogwash.
How about fixing the road instead of spending THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of our taxpayer funds to murder keystone species and destroy an entire ecosystem. Those beaver were just scapegoats, for a poorly managed Town and DPW. And we paid for it.
It looks like this article was updated with more false information. The town appears to be in CYA mode. What they did was illegal. For the record, My next door neighbor never filed a complaint or concern for her yard or septic system this year, which is what this article is claiming. The last time she called the DPW (we pulled all the records) was 3 years ago and she was asking them to clear the spillway, which they typically do in April or May. This year it was not done until June and was only done to create flow to bait the beavers into the traps. The permit issued by BOH was illegally executed against. Gross negligence on the DPW’s part with maintaining the road, dam, and spillway. Gross negligence with obtaining and following through on the permit. Even IF it were legal, the way it was carried out was incredibly dangerous to residents, landowners, children, and pets. The entire thing is unacceptable.