Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Dog Attack topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Templeton animal control quarantines dogs after attack; owner later reports rehoming one via Craigslist
Summary
Animal control reports that two unlicensed, unvaccinated dogs escaped a yard on Lake Avenue, attacked a dog and injured its owner; citations, quarantine, and follow-up including rehoming and a court date followed.
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Dog Attack topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two unlicensed dogs from 18 Lake Ave in Templeton escaped their yard on June 15, 2025, pushed open a gate and attacked a passing dog, injuring the dog and its owner, according to the animal control incident report. Animal control quarantined the two dogs, issued citations for lack of a license and rabies vaccination, and later ended the quarantine for one animal after the owner said she would rehome it.
The incident matters because it led to criminal or civil enforcement through local court and raised neighborhood safety concerns. The owner of the attacked dog required surgery; witnesses and neighbors asked animal control about further steps, including a dangerous-dog hearing.
According to the report, resident Brian Fitzpatrick was walking his dog, Bailey, past 18 Lake Ave on June 15 when the two dogs jumped the fence gate and attacked Bailey. Fitzpatrick and the dog were taken for medical care: Fitzpatrick went to Haywood Hospital that evening, where he was diagnosed with a fractured left middle finger and lacerations on his right hand, received antibiotics and later required surgery with pins to repair the broken finger. Bailey was taken to Tufts Veterinary Hospital with several lacerations and puncture wounds to the head and neck and a broken dewclaw; the dog received wound care, a rabies booster and medication.
Animal control officers who responded say the attacking dogs, identified in records as Daisy and Sprinkles, were not wearing collars and were initially not known to be current on rabies vaccination; the dogs were not licensed at the time the citations were issued. The reporting officer noted neighbors intervened to separate the animals.
The incident report records a series of follow-ups: the town clerk confirmed the dogs had previously been licensed in February 2024 and provided rabies information. Officers notified Fitzpatrick about the option to request a dangerous-dog hearing through the town manager. Witnesses Amy Miller and Sam Mason agreed to prepare written statements; Stan Mason later emailed a statement to animal control. Neighbors expressed ongoing safety concerns to officers when they followed up at the property.
On June 28 the quarantine on Daisy and Sprinkles was ended. Animal control records show the owner, Melissa Austin, said she planned to rehome Sprinkles and agreed to provide the new owner’s contact information. Officers made multiple attempts to contact Austin through July to confirm payment of citations, licensing of the dogs and the rehoming status. On Aug. 2, the reporting officer observed both dogs at the property, left a notice to call animal control, and a neighbor, Lisa Arceneaux of 15 Lake Ave, told the officer she and others were worried about safety if the dogs got loose again.
The citation was processed to Gardner Court and a virtual hearing was scheduled for Sept. 11, 2025. On Aug. 3 Austin emailed animal control that she would vaccinate and license the dogs that week, but by Aug. 14 the dogs remained unlicensed in town records. On Aug. 18 the town clerk notified animal control that Austin had licensed Daisy, paid the citation and rehomed Sprinkles. When animal control followed up, Austin told officers she had given Sprinkles to a person she met through Craigslist roughly three weeks earlier and said she did not have that person’s contact information; she believed his name was Mark or Mike. An officer identified in the report as Animal Control Officer Caden and another staff member advised Austin that the board’s order applying to Sprinkles would also apply in the dog’s new home and urged her to provide the new owner’s information.
The report records that officers advised Austin of the dangers of rehoming dogs through online classifieds and asked her repeatedly to provide a contact for the new owner; the owner did not supply confirmed contact information to animal control. The processed citation and scheduled court hearing remain formal enforcement steps in the record.
Officers and neighbors flagged public-safety concerns and the option of a dangerous-dog hearing; the report does not show that a dangerous-dog hearing was requested or held. The court date for the licensing/vaccination citation is scheduled for Sept. 11, 2025, according to the report.
Key follow-up items in the file include the unresolved status of Sprinkles’ location and contact information for the new owner (not confirmed in the record), the upcoming Gardner Court hearing on Sept. 11 and Fitzpatrick’s additional medical follow-up for rabies shots and post-operative care.

