In an abrupt about-face from a decision made just a week ago, the West Tisbury selectmen unanimously voted on Wednesday to destroy two dogs that had killed a neighboring farmer’s chickens. It was the first order to do so in the town in at least 20 years.
Last Wednesday the selectmen voted to enter into an agreement that would have banned the dogs from the Island indefinitely. But that decision was reversed this week when one of the owners attempted to retrieve one of the dogs, named Zion, which was being kept at the town pound at the Animal Health Care facility at the airport.
The two Akitas belong to Taggart Young of West Tisbury and Anna Bolotovsky of Newton. The other dog, Sensi, is living in Newton with Ms. Bolotovsky and her family and probably will not be pursued for euthanization.
According to the selectmen, Mr. Young made an attempt to take Zion out of the pound last Thursday morning. At this Wednesday’s meeting, they said they had lost trust in the owners to stick to the agreement.
“We were quite clear at the end of [last Wednesday’s] hearing that we were going to hold the dog until an agreement was reached, and you were also clear that you didn’t like it, but I don’t think anyone in this room would dispute that that was the understanding . . . and you attempted to get the dog the next day knowing that,” selectman Cynthia Mitchell told Mr. Young. “Our responsibility . . . given the number of incidents, is now to protect the farmer. You’ve not demonstrated that you can be trusted to keep an agreement, and it pains me to say it.”
“Why enter into an agreement when I don’t know you wouldn’t come back here?” she added. “I don’t necessarily trust that you’re telling the truth.”
Both Ms. Bolotovsky and Mr. Young responded, emotionally, that they would make sure the dogs would be kept in a place where they could not hurt any other animals again. “I don’t want any chickens or livestock or the dog to get hurt or be punished by mistakes of a human, namely myself,” Ms. Bolotovsky said. “No doubt this experience is probably going to change me forever.”
Last week, animal control officer Joan Jenkinson recommended the dogs not be euthanized and instead be sent off-Island. But in a subsequent e-mail to the board, Ms. Jenkinson described the Thursday morning incident and recalled a phone conversation she had with Mr. Young when he was at Animal Health Care.
“I said, ‘Taggart, you know that last night you and Anna were told that Zion had to stay at the pound until the settlement agreement was typed up by town counsel, which won’t happen until at least next Wednesday, and your lawyer heard this as well,’” she wrote. “Taggart just doesn’t get it.”
This Wednesday, the selectmen first voted to rescind last week’s approval to enter into an agreement that would have sent both of the dogs to Newton and require the owners to pay $4,000 in damages, lawyers fees and costs associated with holding Zion.
Then, selectman and chairman of the board Jeffrey (Skipper) Manter 3rd, who voted against entering into last week’s initial agreement, made the final motion to euthanize the dogs. Ms. Mitchell seconded it, and with little discussion the order was passed.
The new agreement calls for both dogs to be euthanized but does not seek compensation for loss of livestock or pound fees. The selectmen are expected to sign the order for the dogs to be destroyed at a special selectmen’s meeting Saturday afternoon. Mr. Young and Ms. Bolotvksy will then have 10 days to appeal the decision in Edgartown district court.
Because Sensi is currently living in Newton with Ms. Bolotovsky, the board has no jurisdiction over that dog. In order to have Sensi destroyed the selectmen would have to obtain a court order to bring the dog back to the Island, and yesterday afternoon selectman Richard Knabel said the board was not planning to do so.
He called the euthanization order “the most distasteful thing I’ve ever had to do” as a selectman.
The order stems from three separate incidents when the dogs got loose and killed a total of 14 chickens and two geese belonging to Cleveland Farm owner Richard Andre. After the first incident in January, a hearing was called, and Mr. Young and Ms. Bolotvsky were ordered to construct a pen at Mr. Young’s home and not to allow the dogs off leash. The pen was built, but the dogs escaped twice more.
Sensi is registered to Mr. Young, who lives here full-time and grew up on the Island, while Zion is registered to Ms. Bolotvsky, who lives full-time in Newton and visits the Vineyard on occasion.
At the meeting Wednesday night, Mr. Knabel said he too had doubts about the owners living up to the agreement, and their attempt to retrieve the dog made it appear as though the settlement was “problematic” to Mr. Young.
“I was really quite disturbed to hear what happened Thursday morning,” he said. “You went to the pound and tried to get the dog out, knowing full well that was not something we authorized the day before. You felt justified in doing that because we were holding the dog, in your mind, inappropriately. What can you tell me to give me a sense of confidence that you’re going to live up to this agreement?”
Mr. Young, promising to move the dog off-Island, said the dog was a family member and in no circumstances would he plan to bring either dog back to a place where they could be killed.
“If there’s one thing you can trust in me is we care about our animals,” he said. “In no circumstance in caring about our animals would we want to bring them back here into harm’s way . . . I will give my personal word with every promise that I can that they will not return here. This is not a place we want to bring them ever again.”
Ms. Bolotovsky apologized through tears.
“I’m sorry that this happened. Unfortunately I wasn’t in direct control of it. That doesn’t excuse it; it only makes me feel worse,” she said. “I [will] do what you guys ask . . . All of this has been very difficult to deal with. I’m going to have some attachment issues and never let him [Zion] out of my sight . . . I can give you my word and that’s all I have to say.”
Zion will continue to be in the custody of the town until a final decision is rendered.
This article appears in February 10, 2012.
I have been doing summers on the Island for t5he better part of 45 years. With all the bad going on in the world you folks can’t find anything better to do then kill a couple of dogs? Of course the owner didn’t like the idea of sending the dog off island but what dog owner would like it.
I say this with all do respect, you guys really got to join the 21 century at some point!!!
I fully understand that these animals killed livestock. But a week ago the selectmen were willing to allow these animals to be moved off island. And this week, with no other wrong doing or issues with the dogs, they have voted to euthanize them because of a stupid mistake of the owner. Even with leash laws and fences etc., sometimes animals get loose. Mine escapes on occasion. Killing the dogs because the owner came to try and get him back seems a bit extreme. They should still be given the chance to live – off island. They haven’t harmed humans. I know the farmer has suffered and that needs to be addressed. Simply removing the animals from the area would hopefully rectify the problem and the farmer can be reimbursed for his losses. Killing the animal is only a matter of an eye for an eye and is not the right thing to do. I understand all of the ramifications involved here and understand everyone’s point of view. But I do believe that killing them is too extreme this early in the game. They deserve a chance to live.
I just read about this story for the first time and I’m appalled that the town changed it’s mind and voted to kill this dog because the owner tried to take his dog out of the kennel. You are punishing the dog and killing it because the owner was trying to get it back and get it off this island as you discussed, but he didn’t do it on the right day? He’s heartsick and wants his pet back. Do you REALLY think the owner is going to keep the dog on island? They are out of here! Too often town administrators get lost in their own power trips. If you made a decision the previous week not to euthanize the dog and now you have changed your mind and are killing the dog because the owner tried to get the dog and stepped on your toes in doing it, your actions are ego based and seriously flawed. I hope the owner appeals this decision. Let the dog go. The owner wants to take it to the city where these issues won’t exist. But the reason for not euthanizing the dog should not have changed because the owner was so anxious to get his dog back. This is a family member. Send him and his dog packing, see them off on the boat yourselves. There is no way he will ever bring the dog back. I hope the owner appeals this and wins. I’m sickened that the town members are acting out of ego and punishing this dog unfairly for the owner’s anxiety and techical mistep out of that anxiety. They want to leave. Let them and let go of your power trip. I don’t know any of the parties involved, but this makes me sick because the decision was made for the wrong, ego based reason, and you are punishing the dog unfairly for the owner’s effort to retrieve it and leave. I’m really disappointed in the Town of West Tisbury. Let the dog go. Seriously, this is disgusting. This isn’t a battle of the egos. This dog is loved and wanted. Set it free.
So, you punish the dogs instead of the owners. That makes total sense. Can the selectmen be euthanized when they make poor choices then?
People, Mr. Young’s attempt to get Zion out of the kennel was not an isolated incident. It’s the latest in a long string of incidents that demonstrate his complete inability and/or unwillingness to keep the dogs under control. Neither of the dogs is neutered either, and Mr. Young has expressed interest in breeding them. Excuse me? He can’t control 10-month-olds and he wants to raise a litter?
I totally agree that euthanasia is not the answer, but I also believe that these dogs need to be rehomed, either through their breeder(s) or through an Akita rescue group. If Mr. Young and Ms. Bolotovsky really love these dogs, they will admit that they’re in over their heads and the dogs deserve more responsible owners.
These people have pushed their Liberal envelope until it fell right off the table! They were given so many chances that I was getting totally frustrated with the selectmen’s undeserved leniency toward them. See, their Liberal actions and arrogance has finally come full circle! They only have themselves to blame! Tisbury had a very similar problem for years with the Gardes and Tisbury residents are still upset at their selectmen for allowing it to get so out of hand.
The selectmen should have given this sentence out two steps before and they should also now include a big $$ Fine $$ and make them pay big time for the animals they killed on their several killing sprees. Did they even apologize each time? They still have not learned their lesson, wont accept responsibility, lied to everybody and continue to be arrogant. Hopefully this will be a lesson to the selectmen to be more strict right off the bat, throw away their liberal hats and send a message to all the other irresponsible dog owners. I would have thought they would have had a good feel concerning those West Tisbury dog owners as they had to deal with them over their dogs destroying their beach after many many warnings and those people could care less about their neighbors, the little children or visitors! When I was young growing up in Edgartown if a dog killed a chicken first time – Killed, their owners would have to pay and the owners who lost the chickens could shoot them on site if they were caught in the action that was a great idea and the problem was over in a flash never to happen ever again!