Hanson Select Board Votes to Put Down Dog After Vicious Attack on Owner
Decision made with "regret" as neither owner nor keeper appears to defend animal
HANSON, MA - May 7 - The Hanson Select Board voted 3-1 Tuesday to declare a dog dangerous and order its euthanasia following a severe attack on its owner, despite neither the dog's owners nor keeper appearing at the hearing to speak on its behalf.
The decision came after a lengthy discussion about the April 20 incident, where an Australian Shepherd attacked and severely injured Brian Keefe at his home on Ocean Ave. in Hanson, Mass.
Animal Control Officer Joe Kenney described the scene as "pretty bloody and messy" when he arrived. The police report detailed that Keefe's arms were "covered in blood and had deep bite marks," with additional injuries to his upper chest.
The attack occurred during an argument between Keefe and his teenage son. The dog, described as a 6-year-old Australian Shepherd, was found "covered in blood" in a corner of the living room after the incident.
Board members expressed frustration and concern over the absence of the dog's owners at the hearing. "Not being present at a hearing about a dog speaks volumes about the level of engagement with the welfare of that animal going forward," said Board Chair Laura FitzGerald-Kemmett.
The board grappled with the decision, citing a year-long history of aggressive behavior and the owners' apparent unwillingness to address the issue. Kenney reported that Keefe had previously expressed concerns about the dog's aggression and wanted it removed from the house.
"It's been an ongoing issue between them and who owns the dog," Kenney explained. "They've had issues with the dog being aggressive in the house before."
Complicating matters, the dog's ownership was unclear. While last registered to Mrs. Keefe, who now lives in Rockland and cannot take the dog, it had been living with Mr. Keefe and the children in Hanson.
Board member Ed Heal voted against declaring the dog dangerous, expressing concern about the circumstances surrounding the attack. "If there was a fight going on in the house at the time, a dispute of some type, and the dog felt it was protecting the child from the father, I don't think that's unprovoked," Heal said.
However, the majority of the board felt compelled to act based on the severity of the attack and the potential risk to public safety. Board member Joe Weeks described the decision as "gut-wrenching," stating, "This is a very finite decision, and this is the first time I've ever had to make a decision like this."
Town Counsel Steve Chaplin outlined seven options available to the board after declaring a dog dangerous, ranging from restraint and confinement measures to euthanasia. Given the circumstances and lack of owner engagement, the board ultimately decided euthanasia was the only viable option.
"I don't think that dumping this dog back off at this residence is going to achieve anything because they have already indicated that there's an unwillingness to engage," FitzGerald-Kemmett said.
Chaplin advised that the decision is subject to a 10-day appeal period, during which the owners could come forward to challenge the ruling or propose alternative solutions. If no appeal is filed, the town will need to seek a court order to proceed with euthanasia.
The board's decision highlights the challenges faced by local authorities in addressing dangerous dog situations, particularly when owners are uncooperative or absent from the process. It also underscores the importance of responsible pet ownership and early intervention in cases of aggressive behavior.
As the meeting concluded, board members expressed hope that the owners might still come forward during the appeal period to propose a solution that could save the dog's life. However, they acknowledged the difficult reality of the situation and the need to prioritize public safety.