By K.B. Sherman, Community Reporter
Shrewsbury – The fate of “Casey,” a black German shepherd, hung in the balance at the June 23 Shrewsbury Board of Selectmen in June 23, 2015. The dog, owned by Seamus Shanley, 29 Summer St., had been accused by several neighbors as being dangerous.
The June 23 hearing had been called because of a written complaint from the Richardson family, 17 Summer St., who said their small, elderly, disabled Bichon dog died as a result of Casey’s unprovoked attack on it in May 2015. The owners told the board that “Cocoa” had to be euthanized at Tufts Veterinary Clinic shortly after the attack because of its injuries.
As a witness for the Richardsons, Theresa Convey, 36 Summer St., told the board, that she too, feared Casey after a similar event occurred with her own Chihuahua, “Oliver.” She stated that in 2012, as she was walking her dog along Summer Street, Casey had rushed out of the front door of its house, grabbed Oliver by the neck, and “shaken him like a toy.” A woman came out of Casey’s house and grabbed him by the fur, dragging him back across the street, Convoy said. Oliver suffered no lasting harm, but Convey said that she no longer feels safe near Casey’s house.
A third witness, Randy Brown, 35 Grafton St., told a similar tale. He owns two small Maltese dogs and told the selectmen that when walking them on Summer Street, “Casey” has repeatedly “threatened them” from an open window.
Next to testify was Shrewsbury Animal Control Officer, Leona Pease. To the surprise of some, she testified to the events as told by the individual witnesses but then suggested that Casey was simply a “nuisance” dog rather than “dangerous,” as spelled out in state law Chapter 140, section 157 which defines problem dogs and then prescribes specific remedies.
Casey’s owner, Seamus Shanley, 29 Summer Street, testified next. He agreed with all previous testimonies, but insisted that these attacks occurred only when he was at work and Casey was home with his children and his mother-in-law. He insisted that the dog was well behaved at home, an observation to which Selectman Henry Fitzgerald agreed, and noted that he had paid the Tufts bill for the Richardsons. Shanley offered no solution to the continuing problem of Casey’s unprovoked attacks, however, which led Selectman James Kane to observe that such continued dog behavior over a period of years showed that Shanley had no idea on what to do to stop the dangerous continuing situation.
The board then closed the public hearing and one by one, they deemed the dog “dangerous” rather than a nuisance and voiced surprise that Pease would label the dog only a nuisance. Pease explained that the dog’s behavior was a case of “small prey response,” wherein it only went after small animals that fit its inbred sense of hunting small prey. However, Kane noted that a small child might fit this criteria, and labeled the dog a danger. One by one, the rest of the board agreed.
The discussion then moved to remedies, which are spelled out in detail under state law. In summary, Casey is to be restrained either in the home in a locked enclosure or an enclosure in the back yard at all times. If he leaves the property, he must be on a leash and wear a muzzle. If the dog escapes again, further action will be taken, up to and including having the dog humanely euthanized. The board voted unanimously to issue this order.
