Selectboard revokes death sentence for much-discussed dog
Toolbox
By David Delcore TIMES ARGUS STAFF - Published: June 3, 2009
WILLIAMSTOWN – Luchia, the Husky-mix accused of killing one of Selectman Christopher Peloquin's pet rabbits, had her death sentence commuted this week,
The selectboard agreed to offer the animal what might be described as a new leash on life.
The board voted 4-0, with Peloquin abstaining, to notify Newton Blaisdell that his dog "… must be restrained at all times" or risk being "seized" by the town and "euthanized" in keeping with its earlier order.
The decision capped a bizarre meeting during which Luchia finally faced her accusers – in the library of Williamstown Middle and Elementary School. And her owners – both past and present – pleaded for her life, even as three tiny kittens pranced around the "vicious dog."
However, it wasn't Luchia's largely docile demeanor, or the fact that she didn't give the kittens so much as a second look during what turned into an hour-long wait for her owners to be heard, that ultimately swayed the board. It was a two-page letter from the town's lawyer that did the trick.
The May 27 letter from Brian Monaghan, which was the subject of a 30-minute executive session at the tail-end of Monday's meeting, essentially concluded the dog wasn't provably guilty of anything.
Even if it was, Monaghan, who was consulted after Blaisdell refused to surrender his dog to a deputy sheriff in keeping with the board's month-old order, opined that the board ignored the "progressive discipline" approach called for in the town's "dog and pet ordinance" when it ordered Luchia be humanely destroyed.
"… After reviewing the evidence … I believe there is insufficient evidence for the dog to be euthanized," Monaghan wrote, noting some of the allegations against the dog were unfounded and the most recent – the killing of Peloquin's rabbit – was not witnessed.
According to Monaghan, Luchia shouldn't be held responsible for the bad acts of a pit bull that was banished from town two years ago after it killed a cat on Baptist Street. Although both dogs were owned at the time by Melody Harvey and both were present when the cat was killed, Monaghan suggested the incident shouldn't be considered a strike against Luchia.
"… My understanding is that Luchia may have participated in chasing the cat, but did not kill it," he wrote. "Another dog did."
Monaghan indicated the same was true of Carol Hebert's claim that Harvey's dog once "challenged" her horse, making Luchia's lone indiscretion an allegation she killed Peloquin's pet rabbit.
"… However, the only evidence of this, as I understand it, is that the dog was seen near the rabbit's cage shortly after the rabbit was found," he wrote. "I do not believe this is sufficient evidence to prove Luchia killed the rabbit."
Monaghan went on to note that even if Luchia did kill the rabbit, the board should follow the three-step penalty process outlined in the town ordinance. That ordinance enables the selectboard to order a dog to be euthanized if it bites a person, or repeatedly attacks other animals.
"… Based on the evidence I have seen there has been no dog bite of a person, and there hasn't been any proven bite or attack of an animal," he wrote. "There is only the possibility that the dog may have killed a rabbit."
Board members reviewed Monaghan's letter in private after hearing from Blaisdell, Harvey and an occasional whimpering and whining Luchia during the public portion of Monday's meeting.
Blaisdell arrived at the meeting with Luchia on a leash and a box filled with tiny gray kittens that roamed around the library while he waited to discuss the dog's fate.
Asked why he brought his pets to the board meeting, Blaisdell, the town's former animal control officer, explained he wanted board members to see the animal they had sentenced to death.
"You labeled it a 'vicious dog' and I wanted you to see what a 'vicious dog' was," he said mocking what he described as the board's characterization of his pet.
"A 'vicious dog' is … snarling, growling, foaming at the mouth, and she's not," he said.
Blaisdell told the board he has reinforced Luchia's pen and – despite Peloquin's claim to the contrary – said the dog hasn't been off his property since.
"She hasn't even attempted it," he said, suggesting Luchia was sleeping behind his bed on the day Peloquin claims the dog was spotted on his property last week.
Blaisdell accused Peloquin of a conflict of interest in the case given his multiple roles.
"You can't be judge, jury, prosecutor, executioner and everything," he said. "It's not right."
Monaghan raised that same issue in his letter, noting that two board members – Peloquin and Hebert – had "some connection to the events that spurred the dog hearing."
"I would caution those board members that, if the board is going to move forward with the prosecution of this dog, they should not participate in any vote to punish the dog," he wrote. "It is an obvious conflict of interest and would only give ammunition to the dog owner for a lawsuit."
Blaisdell and Harvey left Monday's meeting before the board made its decision, but they left little doubt where they stood on the issue. Both agreed it had been blown out of proportion.
"I just don't think it's right to put the dog down because of one stupid rabbit," Blaisdell said.
Harvey agreed, vowing to stand by the dog she gave to Blaisdell following the incident involving her son's pit bull two years ago.
"This dog is not going down," she said. "Nobody's going to put it down. She's going to live her life out as God intended her to live her life out."
42