Hurley discusses animal control ordinance with BARC

By Lynn Janes

The town of Hurley had a workshop September 2, 2025. Mayor Ed Stevens, Mayor Pro Tem Reynaldo Maynes Robert Candelaria and Pete Ordonez attended. Aron Phillips did not attend.

Stevens said no decisions would be made at this time and the meeting would just be for discussion.

Archi Padilla, New Mexico BARC (border animal rescue coalition) vice president, had asked to address the council with changes their organization would like to see made to the Hurley animal control ordinance. She started by introducing the people involved in the organization that had attended. Many had been involved in volunteering at the Hurley shelter for years and one had purchased the trees to put around the shelter.

Padilla started with a history starting in 2012. In fifteen months, the old shelter had 120 dogs come through and of those 30 had been adopted, 79 returned to owners and 11 transferred out. At the new shelter she and Scott Seville had worked a number of years. She had worked there from 2014-2019 and with the two of them they had made it a no-kill shelter. They only euthanized five dogs in five years. The definition of a no-kill shelter does not mean none will be euthanized. It means 90 percent of animals that come to the shelter will leave alive.

Padilla remembered back when Stevens had run for mayor the first time and he had asked for her support. She had told him what her plan for the shelter would be and Stevens said he could not support it but would not get in the way.

In 2019 Padilla worked on an animal ordinance committee along with Stevens, the animal control officer (AOC) at the time, judge and another volunteer. It had taken a number of months to come to a consensus. The ordinance remains the same today.

Today she had provided a few changes she wanted the council to consider. She had come to introduce the implementation of TNVR (trap, neuter, vaccinate and release) and only for cats. It will be a new protocol that needs to be implemented in the ordinance. It would change some of the language and define a community cat, feral cat and its caregiver. She had provided a document to the council a few months ago for them to review. BARC would trap the cats and also the AOC could do so,  if inclined. They would be taken to be neutered and vaccinated then released.

Padilla said statistics have shown that overpopulation of cats cannot be controlled by killing them because cats live in colonies. It has been proven in places like Los Angeles that TNVR works by eventually eliminating themselves through time because community cats don't live as long as house cats.

This would be a legal action, but the town does not have any protocol. Back in 2019, the AOC had decided to trap cats and her report she made to the town council said she euthanized 33 cats in one month. Padilla commented that would not be humane and the TNVR would be the most humane. The importance of having the protocol BARC has proposed would stay intact no matter who held office as the mayor, AOC or police chief.

Stevens asked her to go over the definitions in the changes.

A community cat would be a free roaming cat that may be cared for by one or more residents in the immediate area. A community cat may not be feral. When the cat has been sterilized, they have the tip of the ear clipped so they can be identified easily. These cats will be exempt from licensing and the caregiver must make every effort to feed the cat to minimize the impact on local wildlife. She continued with other provisions.

A companion animal would be an owned domesticated animal considered a pet.

BARC would take care of the cost to TNVR the cats. Padilla continued to go over the changes with a great deal of interruptions.

She went over the definition of a nuisance animal and the need for two unrelated  members of households to make complaints for it to be addressed. The ACO would investigate and take reasonable measures to resolve. The issue on the requirement for two sworn complaints went into a long discussion and the pros and cons of it.

Next discussion came to the outcome if an animal had been deemed a nuisance. They went over the holding period and why they had all settled on 90 days.

Padilla went back to the 120 dogs that had come through the shelter back in 2019 and because of volunteers it had not cost the town anything. The ordinance had been written to make the shelter a no kill. Padilla said, "Back then we had euthanized about one dog a year, and it was because they were sick." Some had been too aggressive because of being tied up too long and unsocialized. When BARC has been given 90 days it provides time to train and socialize them for adoption.

New Mexico BARC will be willing to help with everything as long as the chief of police and ACO would be agreeable. She had spoken to the chief, and he had many concerns on why it would not work for him. Even when Padilla had not been volunteering at the shelter, she worked spaying, neutering, vaccinating, providing dog houses and finding homes for animals in the area. Now they have BARC and a large group of volunteers to help do more.

In the discussion they went back and forth on areas that they could change or take out in the proposed changes BARC had made.

Stevens wanted to hear from the ACO. Doug Miranda, code enforcement/animal control officer said he wanted animal services to say animal control because the other would be too broad and who would that be. He said that term could translate to the volunteers or anybody. Padilla said animal services meant Miranda ACO and would not be anyone else. Stevens wanted to clarify that it did not take authority away from municipal policy and Padilla said no. Animal services versus animal control became a long discussion.

Miranda posed another concern he had. If they trap a cat and do the TVNR and the cat attacks someone what would be the liability of the town.

Ordonez spoke to how they could address the animal services and animal control concerns. He suggested just naming both with a slash in between. Everyone agreed that would be a good way to address it.

New Mexico BARC has been working with Best Friends a large no-kill shelter in Kanab, Utah. They have been around since 1984 and have committed to the whole country being no kill by 2025 and made great strides in the endeavor.

Padilla said, "It takes time and commitment for TVNR, but we have the power to do that." TVNR will be a very important part of being a no kill shelter. Currently BARC has about 30 volunteers.

Melissa Clayton, director of New Mexico BARC operations C, had the statistics of the number of animals that had come through the shelter and BARC had facilitated adoption and foster care until adoption for both cats and dogs. BARC had paid for the spay and neuter of 35 dogs and 14 cats. Currently they have 10 dogs and 8 cats in foster care. BARC has paid 100 percent of the food and veterinary care for these animals. She had other stats on how many dogs they had adopted out in the mining district.

The goal has been to keep as many animals out of the shelter as possible. Sometimes they do need time to work with the animal because some take longer to adopt than others. Some examples would be they might be old, black, big or a pit bull.

Stevens asked if they wanted TVNR for dogs also. Padilla said it would only be for cats. Dogs must have a home.

Padilla said they also have what they call a good neighbor program. Some people will call and say they have too many dogs or cats and need help rehoming. It has been about half of what they have been doing so it has not just been about rescue. "We're helping people in the community as well as helping the animals."

Liz Pendleton, New Mexico BARC treasurer, "We are putting our money where our mouth is." She provided a profit and loss statement since inception of the nonprofit group. They had taken in a total of $34,108,37. This had come from donations and events to raise money. Most of the ladies involved have had business careers and have brought their business sense to the organization. With the income they had spent $7,689 on veterinarian expenses in Hurley, Santa Clara and Bayard. The volunteers pick up the animals and take them for care and vaccinations. The small communities don't have the funds to provide this.

Stevens said he assumed that as they moved forward it would come to need an agreement between BARC and Hurley for perhaps the utilization of the dog pound to achieve the objective of no kill. Padilla said no, the animals that come through the shelter would be the ones Miranda brought in. This would be for the organization to be able to support him in caring for the animals. BARC would take the animal right away to be spayed or neutered and vaccinated. Padilla said one sick animal can contaminate the entire shelter. "We don't want to take part in the shelter." If the shelter has animals and the ACO will not be working the volunteers could step in and care for them.

Padilla did add it would be nice if the facility could be used as a staging area for the TVNR and could take three to six days. It provides time to determine if the cat would be adoptable, needed foster care before adoption or move them to another shelter to be adopted. Currently they don't have a facility for that.

Stevens asked, "So our shelter would be the housing unit for your objective?" He asked if they would have 20 – 30 people entering and exiting the facility and who would be feeding the animals. He continued with questions about BARC and the municipality policy on authorization. He wanted to know if at the time the 90 days been reached his understanding would be BARC would take that animal.

Padilla said their policies and procedures would continue. The organization will be focusing on a specialized cat project and continued to explain that procedure again. She had an example of a person with fifteen cats in their neighborhood. BARC will go in and assess the situation, trap, vaccinate and spay or neuter. At that time, they will determine if they need to be put back or possibly have some adopted. "Rules of engagement would need to be defined and understood."

Stevens asked if it would be for Hurley animals only. Padilla said yes. Right now, Bayard and Santa Clara do not have a facility for cats but in the future BARC would like to do something similar. Currently Padilla said they had identified three areas in Hurley that could really use TVNR to reduce the populations and relieve the pressure. Stevens asked again if it only would be for Hurley and Padilla said yes again.

Miranda said he had concerns over the volume of cats they have talked about, and the facility has not been properly segregated in support of cats and dogs and would create issues.

Padilla referenced HB113 that provided infrastructure funding for shelters, and she hoped Hurley, Bayard and Santa Clara would apply. She spoke to the conversation earlier about the 90 days and said they will be committed to having the dogs out of there as soon as possible because they didn't want them to have to live in a shelter. She pointed out their volunteer labor would be worth $20 an hour for matching money. "We are providing a huge amount of volunteer labor." It could be beneficial to work in partnership.

Stevens addressed who would have keys to the facility to come and do the animal care. They needed some kind of control. Padilla said currently they have 5-6 volunteers that work in Santa Clara and not all have keys. Only a couple have keys and those have been responsible for letting in volunteers and locking up after. Maynes then addressed the liability issues with injury or dog bites. Padilla said they sign a waiver. They had already done that with Miranda. Maynes asked if they carried insurance. Pendleton referenced the profit and loss statement that had an insurance payment of $770. She added they also retain legal counsel. Ordonez said he personally would be very supportive of volunteers and thanked them. He thought it would be a good idea if before the next meeting ACO, police chief and someone from BARC come together and come into agreement of a MOA (memorandum of understanding).

The next meeting Best Friends will have a representative do a presentation and will touch on the TVNR and the MOU.

Kevin Vigil, police chief, said he had some concerns, and it had to do with the language in the documents Padilla presented. The definition between may and shall would be very different. The ordinance will be a legal document and went over the use of these words. He further cited state and federal animal laws. "No animals shall be released from an animal shelter. So, no animal can or will be released from a shelter. And I'm just using this as a reference. It's not exactly what's on there. I'm using that to define the term between shall and may. No animals shall be released from the shelter without being spayed or neutered. Okay, nowhere in there does it say that that an animal may be released, meaning it can be released as being spayed or neutered, or not. But that is the difference." Vigil wanted council to take into consideration when looking at this, the difference between may and shall. May being the animal may be held up to 90 days. Versus the animal will be held for 90 days. "I want council also to be advised this is an ordinance, it is a legal document."

He referenced the wording changes BARC wanted to make and referenced companion added in front of animal. Vigil said, "This is a legal document. The state has recognized that it is considered an animal, whether it be companion, whether it be feral, whether it be stray, it is an animal. That is a legal definition set by the state of New Mexici and I'm sure it goes further into federal as well." Vigil reiterated again that these would be legal documents and laws they will be setting into place.

Vigil added, "If New Mexico BARC would like things to be changed, that can be something that's changed once they have their own place, their own sanctuary, their own refuge, however they would like to see it, however council likes to see it. No, but this is a legal document. It appears, and I hope council sees this, that New Mexico BARC is wanting to make a legal document more fitting to them."

Vigil addressed the part of the document that speaks to public nuisance animals. It requires the complaint of two non-related individuals. He wanted the council to take into consideration one person might be offended but the other would not be by the barking dog. So, if that dog bothers one person and they have been the only one to make a complaint their voice will be unheard. The same does not happen with someone disturbing the peace. It only takes one person and action may be taken. He continued on with the problems of requiring two complaints with examples for some time.

The next regular meeting will be September 9, 2025, at 5:00 pm.

Meeting adjourned.