Penny was mostly behaved during the session. The board voted unanimously to drop the complaint but reminded dog owners their animals must be leashed. Selectwoman Christine Hoyt recused herself from the hearing.
ADAMS, Mass. — Charges of aggression against Penny the hound were dropped on Wednesday after her appearance at the Board of Selectmen resulted in licking faces, and a little whining.
However, all board members emphasized that dogs should always be leashed or fenced in when outside.
Complaints had been filed against Penny and Mason, both Catahoula leopard dogs, for "aggressively" charging at a family out walking with their dog.
The dogs' owner, Jonathan Moffat, was unavailable at the hearing held in February, so the board voted to continue it to Wednesday.
After meeting Penny, Animal Control Officer Kimberly Witek withdrew her recommendation to classify the dogs as a nuisance and to require them to be muzzled and leashed when outside the home.
"The original recommendation was to put a muzzle order in place. I would like to withdraw that, because the dog that was the biggest aggressor is no longer in the picture. Moffat brought the dog to me at the police station so I could meet her, I do not know how she is around other dogs," she said.
"My recommendation is, when he's taking his dog from his house to his car, to have it on a leash or have a harness and just have a good hold in case there's another dog coming by, because I don't know how she is with other dogs."
Moffat submitted the dogs' vaccination and licensing records, although Penny is not spayed.
Brianna Shepherd, at February's hearing, stated that last November, two dogs chased her, her children (ages 1 and 4), her sister, and her own dog.
On Wednesday, the board reopened the February hearing on dangerous dogs. After reviewing the case, they dismissed the complaint because of uncertainty about the events in question and concluded that neither dog was a nuisance or dangerous.
Mason was recently euthanized because of progressive epilepsy that could no longer be controlled with medication.
The day of the incident all dogs involved were off-leash, which is a violation of the town's bylaws. All parties paid the fees associated with this.
The penalty for dogs not physically restrained by leash when not on the owner's property is $50 per citation. Hunting dogs when being used for hunting or training are exempt.
Shepherd claimed they were four houses down from the owners' property on Grandview, when the dogs, left their yard, "aggressively" charged at them unprovoked, and began to bite her dog.
She provided the board with a written affidavit of her experience, letters from neighbors who expressed similar experiences of the dogs leaving the property unleashed, and photos of cuts on a neighbor's dog, allegedly from an incident in 2023 involving Mason and Penny.
Moffat claimed that Penny and Mason ran up to the petitioner's off-leash dog in the driveway to play and had "quite a lot of energy."
He stated he remained in his truck and observed the entire incident, explaining that leaving the vehicle would encourage the dogs to run around and avoid getting in, as they often treat it as a game when both owners are outside.
"Penny is not dog aggressive, nor is she person aggressive … she still has quite a lot of energy and was wanting to play with a dog who just did not want to play with her. That's really what this boils down to–Penny wanted a friend, and that dog did not want to be her friend," Moffat said.
"It's an unfortunate situation, but no one was hurt, and I certainly don't think it's cause to bring this board together and set a finding of nuisance or dangerous dog."
The complainant and respondent presented conflicting accounts of the November incident, which could not be independently verified, and no physical evidence was provided.
"Essentially this situation comes down in my mind to it, 'he says, she said,' in terms of what actually, truly happened," said Selectman Jay Meczywor.
"[It's] similar type stories, but in terms of the outcome and who's the aggressor, it just seems like there's a lot of gray area here."
Although the board dismissed the complaint, Meczywor cautioned that the owners be mindful of their neighbors, noting concerns raised in the numerous letters submitted.
"Even if we do find that this isn't a dangerous or nuisance situation, this is on people's minds," he said.
If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.
Your Comments
iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.
No Comments
Adams Planning Board Cited for Open Meeting Law Violation
By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
ADAMS, Mass. — The state Attorney General's Office has determined that the Planning Board violated Open Meeting Law by continuing to deliberate on a matter after adjournment.
According to the determination, the violation occurred after adjourning the Jan. 27, 2025, meeting when three board members stayed to discuss permitting concerns for Aisling Mountain Farm, a 22-acre equestrian facility on West Road owned by Kathryn Foley.
The board was ordered to amend its meeting minutes within the next 30 days, to include a summary of the discussion that occurred after the meeting was adjourned, to certify to to the AG's Office that it has done so, and to comply with the Open Meeting Law going forward.
The ruling stems from a complaint filed by Catherine Foster on Aug. 22, 2025, alleging that the board violated the Open Meeting Law during and after its Jan. 27 meeting.
Although filed nearly seven months after the January meeting, the Attorney General's Office said it met the 30-day filing deadline because Foster did not become aware of the situation until it was raised at a July 23 Select Board meeting.
"The Open Meeting Law requires that complaints be filed within 30 days of the alleged violation, or if the alleged violation could not reasonably have been known at the time it occurred, then within 30 days of the date it should reasonably have been discovered," Assistant Attorney General Matthew Lindberg said in the determination.
"The complainant could not reasonably have discovered that the Board deliberated after adjournment of the January 27 meeting until the issue was raised during public comment at the July 23 Select Board meeting. Because the complaint was filed within 30 days of the July 23 Select Board meeting, the complaint was filed timely as to this allegation"
Hoosac Valley Middle and High School students lined the hallways with handmade signs and artwork on Monday as they welcomed local veterans with applause, high-fives, and words of appreciation during the annual Veterans Day celebration. click for more
Farm owner Kathryn Foley purchased the 22-acre property at 185 West Road in 2019 to establish an equestrian facility at the base of Mount Greylock. click for more
Senior Patrick Holland Saturday finished in fourth place to lead the Mount Greylock boys cross country team to a Western Massachusetts Class B Championship at Stanley Park. click for more
Work on the paving and sidewalk improvement project along Smith, Randall, and Cherry streets was underway and is expected to continue in the spring. click for more
In a news release posted on its website tuesday morning, the Northwestern DA said, "prosecutors determined that no criminal conduct occurred," citing Massachusetts General Law Chapter 269, section 17. click for more