Travis Vold admits he made a mistake in forgetting to latch a door that ultimately let two of his dogs get outside and bite a woman walking by the Fort Collins property in August.

But he points blame directly at the Larimer Humane Society for euthanizing the two dogs despite what he says was a plea agreement specifying that the dogs would be given a second chance in a new home.

“It’s more like the inhumane society,” said Vold, who now lives in Loveland.

A representative of the Humane Society, however, asserts that its officers were always clear that because of the severity of the attack, they never believed it was safe to adopt the dogs to a new home. They said it was clear that the dogs would be euthanized unless the court specifically ordered against it.

Yet, Vold and Tanya Lee, another owner of the dogs, believe the plea agreement was just that — an order to save the dogs’ lives — and their attorney agrees that was the intent.

A tale of two dogs

Larimer County animal control officers responded to a report of two dogs attacking an elderly Fort Collins resident on Aug. 15 and impounded the dogs.

Ayden was a 2-year-old Australian shepard and Diesel a 3-year-old cane corso.

To Vold and Lee, Ayden and Diesel were their children, sweet animals with big personalities, a part of their family. They snuggled with the pups and loved them dearly; they had raised Ayden, the shepherd, since birth, and described how he always seemed to be smiling and would roll up their bodies to get some love as they lay in bed in the mornings.

“These are my children,” Lee said in a phone interview. “These dogs are my children. I love these dogs more than anything in the entire world.”

Vold said the dogs got out when he mistakenly forgot to latch a door and it blew open. He said they bit someone who was walking by their property in a trench coat and with a hat obscuring her face; he said they were protecting their territory from what, to them, appeared to be a threat.

Though the dogs were impounded, Vold and Lee paid thousands of dollars to make sure they were cared for and tried to visit them at the Humane Society, though they were never allowed to see the dogs.

And they hired attorney Andy Gavaldon to make sure that, no matter what happened, the dogs would not be euthanized.

Facing two charges of owning a dangerous dog, Vold decided to plead guilty to save the dogs’ life. Both he and Lee insist that the plea agreement he took, admitting one count while a second was dismissed, specified that the two dogs would not be euthanized and instead would be given a new home.

They describe conversations — an assertion backed up by an email and court filing from Gavaldon — about what type of new home would be acceptable to Capt. Bill Porter, head of the animal control division.

Gavaldon argues, in a court document, that he spoke with Porter about how to accomplish “the transfer of these animals to a new home,” and that “Mr. Porter outlined specific conditions for said transfer.” He later accuses Porter of reneging on that agreement and euthanizing the dogs.

Vold and Lee worked hard to find a new home that met those specific requirements, but believe that the couple that agreed to take their animals was the perfect solution. One was a veterinarian, and they lived on a large ranch in southern Colorado where the nearest neighbor was miles away.

But then, they learned that the Humane Society did not intend to allow the dogs to go to that or any new home, saying that the severity of the attack made them unsafe for any home.

Vold tried to withdraw his Sept. 13 plea and asked the judge to prevent the dogs from being euthanized.

In the written request to withdraw the plea, Gavaldon wrote: “Mr. Vold would have never entered into a plea agreement that would subject the dogs to be euthanized” and “With regard to the relinquishing of both dogs, it was understood that the dogs would not be euthanized and that the dogs would be transferred to new ownership.”

The judge did not allow him to withdraw his plea, denying the motion, and on Nov. 5, both dogs were euthanized at the shelter without Vold or Lee knowing in advance or even being able to visit them one last time to say goodbye.

They are sad and angry at not only the outcome but what they see as a flawed process and runaround that led to injustice.

“You can’t euthanize the dogs when that goes against the plea agreement,” Lee said. “The only reason that Travis pled guilty was to avoid euthanasia.”

A much different tale

The Humane Society’s account of the incident, however, is much different.

Kara Pappas, community relations director, said the Humane Society made it very clear from the beginning that the severity of the bites posed too much of a risk for a new home. She said the attack on an elderly woman was unprovoked, and the woman was hospitalized and needed extensive and ongoing treatment.

The attack was classified as a Level 5, the highest rating short of death; for that level, the attack must involve “a series of bites” by a dog that is “extremely dangerous,” according to information from Pappas.

“In communications with the owners, their attorney, and the Larimer County deputy district attorney, Larimer Humane Society made clear that based on the severity of the attack, neither dog would be a candidate for adoption, and posed a clear and present risk to both people and animals,” Pappas wrote in an email.

“As a result, both dogs were humanely euthanized at our facility. The decision involving both dogs in this case was not made without fully evaluating all aspects of the attack and resulting injuries.

“We fully acknowledge that this is a heartbreaking situation for all.”

While Porter and other representatives of the Humane Society did communicate with Vold and Lee as well as the attorneys on more than one occasion, they were not involved in the actual plea agreement. That was worked out between Gavaldon and the prosecuting attorney, Aaron Brunskill.

In a court filing opposing Vold’s request to withdraw his plea, Brunskill clarified that he would not oppose the dogs being transferred to a new home, but that the dogs were to be relinquished to the Humane Society, which would have the sole authority to determine their fate.

The judge, Mary Joan Berenato, agreed with Brunskill and, in a Nov. 1 decision, denied Vold’s request to change his plea agreement, giving the decision on the dogs’ fate to the Humane Society.

Four days later, on Nov. 5, the dogs were euthanized.

Different interpretations

Vold and Lee are insistent that they only accepted a plea agreement with the stipulation that the dogs would not be euthanized, and that intention is supported by emails and documents by Gavaldon. They believe they were misled and, in short lied to throughout the process.

The Humane Society says Porter and others with the agency were clear that they would comply with finding the dogs a new home only if ordered to do so by the court but recommended against that outcome.

And the judge’s Nov. 1 order says that final decision would rest with the Humane Society

“Prior to taking the plea, the court did explain to the defendant that the court has no authority over the Humane Society and that the final disposition of the dogs was between the Humane Society and the defendant,” Berenato wrote. “It was after this advisement that the defendant accepted the plea.”

Yet Gavaldon asserts in court documents that plea was an agreement to save the dogs and the Humane Society “reneged” on that agreement — an assertion the agency strongly disputes.

“Judge, jury and executioner,” added Vold, “that’s what they are.”

Pamela Johnson: 970-699-5405, johnsonp@reporter-herald.com