Adams Selectmen Continue Dog Hearing

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
ADAMS, Mass. — The Selectmen continued a public hearing on whether two dogs are a danger until Wednesday, March 4, because the owner was not present to provide his side of the situation at last week's board meeting.
 
The town will inform the owners via email and certified mail of the March 4 date, and police will serve them a notice.
 
The hearing was prompted by a complaint from Brianna Shepherd, who testified that on Nov. 25, 2025 the two dogs chased her; her children, ages 1 and 4; her sister, and her dog.  
 
Shepherd said they were four houses down from the owners' property on Grandview, when the dogs, Penny and Mason, left their yard, "aggressively" charged at them unprovoked, and began to bite her dog.
 
Shepherd said her sister quickly put the 4-year-old into the stroller with the infant. As they attempted to get away, the dogs persisted in their attack on Shepherd's dog, which sustained multiple bruises, a broken toenail, and a cut paw.
 
Additionally, Shepherd's sister, who was eight weeks pregnant at the time, was also bitten, however the bite did not break the skin. The police were notified of the incident the following morning.  
 
The animal control officer informed her that because this was an isolated incident and no skin was broken, that Shepherd should try to videotape the next time she sees the dogs off leash. 
 
Shepherd claimed she has not walked through that part of her neighborhood since the attack because she is fearful of it happening again. 
 
Following the incident, Shepherd spoke to other neighbors, who also filed complaints claiming of similar incidents where the dogs have escaped the yard and been off leash, and have witnessed the owners struggle to gain control of the dogs. 
 
The animal control officer was out sick the day of the hearing so interim Police Chief Timothy Sorrell spoke in her stead. 
 
"The [animal control officer] did look into things, and as we said, there were no bites to the dog, no bites to the people, nobody went to the doctor [and] the dog didn't go to the vet," Sorrell said. 
 
"All the letters that came in were after the fact. It would have been nice if when this was going on, we had been notified, then we could have acted on it." 
 
The ACO made several attempts to contact the dogs' owner, Jonathan Moffat to assess the dogs' temperament. She was unable to reach him by phone, and he was not home when she went to the house, Sorrell said. 
 
The animal control officer thoroughly investigated the situation, frequently visiting the area and checking for violations, but found none, he said. 
 
If the board seeks a recommendation from the officer and the animals are deemed a nuisance, she would advise that the dogs be muzzled and leashed whenever outside the home, whether traveling to and from a vehicle or going for a walk, Sorrell said.

Tags: dangerous dog,   dogs,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Complaint Withdrawn Over Adams Park Street Christmas Display

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
ADAMS, Mass. — The Christmas display at Dr. Martin Bush's dentist office no longer has a violation against it after a complaint was withdrawn. 
 
On Jan. 15, Bush received a correction order from David Rhinemiller, the code enforcement officer, after he received a phone complaint of sound emanating from the front of the building from the end of November until early January. 
 
The sound likely refers to the music coming from Bush's longstanding "Polar Express" display in the window of his office, located at 9 Park St.
 
The violations cited were "holiday decorations with sound that generates a high [sound level] that [is] 10 decimals above normal surrounding noise at the property line.” 
 
In addition, "noise interfering with the normal operation or occupant's health of adjacent or abutting properties or atmosphere."
 
The display is not against local sound ordinances because from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. the town does not have sound restrictions, Rhinemiller said. 
 
The violation was unrelated to decibel readings because no measurement could be taken — the complaint was received on Jan. 2, after the noise had already stopped.
 
View Full Story

More Adams Stories