To the [Boxford Select Board/Court/Relevant Authority],

We, the undersigned, respectfully request a fair and unbiased hearing for the two dogs involved in the recent incident in our Boxford, Ma.  It is essential to emphasize the following points in our appeal:

### 1. **Understanding the Incident Context**
The dogs in question were accidentally let out of their securely fenced yard by a third party—a pool worker—who was unfamiliar with the home setup. This was a single, unplanned escape rather than a repeated or habitual occurrence. During the time they were loose, the dogs tragically killed a smaller dog. While this is deeply regrettable, it is important to recognize that it happened within a narrow timeframe and did not involve multiple escapes or repeated attacks.

### 2. **Behavioral Characteristics of Dogs with High Prey Drive**
The dogs' actions are consistent with a high prey drive, a trait seen in many breeds, not just specific ones like Akitas. It is critical to acknowledge that dogs with a high prey drive may display aggressive behavior towards smaller animals, but this does not automatically translate to aggression towards humans. Incidents involving prey drive are unfortunately common but often go unreported, especially when they involve breeds not typically associated with aggression.

### 3. **No Threat Posed to People**
Throughout the entire incident, there were numerous interactions between the dogs and community members, yet not a single person was harmed. They did not bite or attempt to attack any individuals, including children or adults. Their behavior indicates a clear distinction between their response to small animals (due to prey drive) and their interactions with humans. To label these dogs as a danger to the public based on this single incident is not supported by the evidence.

### 4. **Unreasonable Expectation of Certainty**
It is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect any Animal Control Officer (ACO), under oath, to guarantee with absolute certainty that a dog will never bite a person in the future. Such a demand would be akin to asking someone to swear that a swimmer entering the ocean will never encounter a shark. Just as no one can definitively predict the behavior of wild animals, no one can predict a dog’s response to every potential scenario throughout its life. Forcing an ACO to provide a definitive "yes" or "no" under oath puts their job and professional integrity at risk. Instead, assessments should focus on the dogs' behavior history, their interactions with people, and the specific context of the incident.

### 5. **Misinterpretation of Incident Frequency**
The town's characterization of this incident as "multiple attacks" is misleading. The dogs were loose for a brief period, during which they engaged in one continuous sequence of actions. This should not be viewed as separate incidents but rather as a single, unfortunate event. Labeling this as multiple attacks distorts the reality of what occurred and unfairly biases the outcome of the case against the dogs.

### **Conclusion**
We believe that every case should be assessed based on accurate and fair considerations of the facts. In this instance, the dogs did not display aggression towards humans and were loose due to an error by a third party. The incident was an isolated one, driven by prey drive rather than general aggression. To make a fair decision, it is crucial to consider the circumstances, the dogs' behavior history, and the specific context of the event without relying on unfounded assumptions or impossible guarantees.

We, therefore, urge the relevant authorities to conduct a fair hearing that takes into account all these points. These dogs deserve a chance to remain in their home under conditions that can ensure their containment and prevent future incidents without imposing undue penalties based on mischaracterizations or unrealistic expectations.

Sincerely,

Katie Casparian 
Kcasparian85@gmail.com