Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board orders leash, training and secure confinement for dog at center of neighborhood complaint
Summary
After testimony from neighbors and the owner, the Foxborough Select Board closed a public hearing and ordered that the dog known as Nala be leashed off‑premises, complete professional behavior training within 60 days, and be kept within a secure yard with a second safeguard if the electric fence fails; animal control will verify compliance.
The Foxborough Select Board on Sept. 9 closed a public hearing stemming from an Aug. 27 animal complaint and voted to impose conditions on a dog known in the record as Nala.
The order requires Nala to be restrained on a physical leash whenever off the owner’s property, to be enrolled in and complete professional obedience or behavior training focused on reliable recall within 60 days, and to be kept in a secure fenced yard or locked dog run when outdoors on the owner’s property. If an electric fence is insufficient to prevent escape, the order requires a second safeguard such as a tethered run or maintaining the dog on a leash. The town’s animal control officer may conduct periodic checks to verify compliance.
The hearing drew multiple neighbors who said Nala had repeatedly left the yard and charged at other dogs. “She came charging right out from behind their house. Slammed right into us. I picked him up immediately. He screamed,” said resident Lark Gallen, describing injuries that required veterinary care. Animal control officer Casey summarized prior contacts and a quarantine placed on the dog after an August incident and said, “I don’t feel that Nala rises to a dangerous level. It is a nuisance,” recommending leash and training requirements.
Owners Penny and Eric Safler disputed the suggestion that Nala is a danger to people and emphasized steps they have taken. Penny Saffler said the electric fence wire had been knocked loose on the night in question and that Nala is otherwise “a love.” Eric Safler said the family had engaged a behaviorist, paid vet bills and would continue training and containment measures.
Select Board members discussed enforcement and verification on the record, noting animal control can issue fines for repeated noncompliance and that continued violations could be handled through the courts. The board’s motion passed on the record; the clerk noted the conditions and directed that proof of training enrollment and completion be submitted to the town manager’s office or the animal control officer.
The board’s order is a regulatory condition arising from a public hearing conducted under the town’s animal control process; it does not impose criminal sanctions directly but preserves enforcement pathways (fines, further hearings, court filings) if the conditions are not met.
