California: Man walking his Chesapeake Bay Retriever is attacked by loose pit bull

CALIFORNIA -- So proud of our boy- we were attacked by a loose pit bull while walking last night. Our boy showed that pit bull that he chose the wrong people and dog to attack.

Although we spent the night in ER for the injuries to my husband's hand, it could have been much worse.

When I saw Ryder's mouth full of blood, I expected the worst. But Ryder did not get one single mark on him - blood was from the other dog. Love our big brown dog!!

 

 

Maryland: Judge orders pit bull to be returned to Jeffrey Mayhle

MARYLAND -- When Wicomico County Sheriff's deputies responded to a disturbance at a home on Grant Street in Parsonsburg on Aug. 27, they concluded there were two aggressors: one human, one canine.

Jeffrey Mayhle, 45, had gotten into a physical fight with his ex-girlfriend, according to police reports. During the fight, Mayhle took the muzzle off one of her dogs, a male pit bull named Bruiser, knowing it would attack her other dog.

It did. Deputies found the dog, a 98-pound Chesapeake Bay retriever mix named Shyloh, bloodied with a severely injured front leg. Shyloh had been muzzled throughout the incident, unable to fend Bruiser off.

From there, Mayhle's and Bruiser's fates diverged.

Mayhle was arrested that night and charged with second-degree assault and animal cruelty. He is scheduled for a district court trial Oct. 12.

He faces up to 10 years in jail for the assault charge. The animal cruelty accusation brings up to 90 days behind bars and a $1,000 fine.

Three days after the attack, the Wicomico County Health Department deemed Bruiser a dangerous dog and placed him in quarantine at the Humane Society of Wicomico County, where he awaited the canine version of the death penalty: euthanization.

But the owner, whom DelmarvaNow will not name because she reported as a victim of domestic violence, appealed the decision.

Bruiser had his trial  Wednesday, Sept. 21. To witness the proceedings of the relatively obscure Animal Appeal Board is to see human drama meet animal instinct. And the stakes couldn't be higher: life or death.

The judge and jury
Room 301 of the Wicomico County Government Office Building in downtown Salisbury was sparsely peopled for the dog's hearing. Seven people filled the seats in the audience, across from members of the Animal Appeal Board, who sat along a panel on the other side of the room.

The board  was created in December 2008 by the County Council after a yearlong study of rural and metropolitan animal-control techniques across the country, board member Jack Elliott said in an interview. Having served on the board since its inception, Elliott said what came about from that study was a "pretty darn good system."

"I'm an animal lover," Elliott said. "I'm a private citizen who doesn't have any affiliation with the county. But everyone who has been involved with this board has brought with them a care for animals, so it's worked well. When the county executive had us sit down a few years ago to figure out how this would work, we were given a blank sheet of paper."

From the study came the five-member panel, consisting of a private citizen, a member of the sheriff's office, a health department representative, a licensed veterinarian and a dog trainer. The board advises the County Council on changes to the county's animal control laws and makes recommendations for schedule of fines and penalties for violation of the code.

On Wednesday evening, the board was called for its third-duty: to determine if a dog should be classified as dangerous.

The trial 
An Animal Appeal Board preceding is much more informal than a court of law. There is a swearing-in of the witnesses and a county attorney on hand to make sure everything stays in order. After hearing from the health department official who issues the classification, usually based off the observations of the animal's "arresting officer," the board hears from the owner.

Then the victim of the attack testifies. From there, the board goes into a closed deliberation and decides whether the animal needs to be euthanized or other sanctions could be put into place.

In Bruiser's case, health department official Allison Marine testified, saying that the animal control officer who evaluated Bruiser and proposed the "dangerous dog" classification had told her the Aug. 27 incident was the fourth time Bruiser had bitten Shyloh.

The county's protocol for dangerous pets may be a "pretty darn good system," in Elliott's view, but it isn't perfect. Marine's testimony pointed to one flaw: Although the health department is responsible for making a determination on how much danger an animal poses to the community, no staff member has any training in animal evaluation. So,  the recommendation is usually given based off the observations of the animal control officer.

During her testimony, the owner said she had adopted Brusier from Cambridge Animal Control in October 2014 because the 76-pound pit bull was having a hard time finding a home. His smile looked fierce, she said. She already had Shyloh, but the two got along wonderfully.

Their relationship changed, however, after the owner inherited a small, female dog named Lucy from a friend who  died in March.

"I take full responsibility for this because I apparently was doing a lot of things wrong," the owner said.

When a female dog enters a home with male dogs, according to the testimony of dog trainer Lenore Bennett, there is a honeymoon period of about three months. After that, the male dogs have a "reshuffling" in the hierarchy wherein they may attack one another to establish dominance, Bennett said.

At the end of July, the owner said she noticed Brusier and Shyloh would growl at one another.

"Then they started fighting," she said. "I was able to break them up a few times and take them outside to run them off. At night, I would alternate which one would sleep with me so they wouldn't fight in the middle of the night; apparently that was wrong because it looked like favoritism in the dogs' eyes."

But the owner had a solution lined up. Jennifer Campbell, her daughter's girlfriend, had offered to take Bruiser in at her home in Harrington, Delaware. Campbell, an animal technician, said she built a $4,000 fence to keep Bruiser separated from other animals.

"I've watched this dog use cats as pillows," Campbell said. "If I get him home and I think he's dangerous, I will euthanize him. Sometimes two dogs, like two people, just don't click. This seems to be what happened here. Plus, it was a high-tension situation, with the domestic (incident) going on, so it's not a surprise a dog would act like that."

The Verdict 
After a brief time to deliberate, the board called the meeting back to order.

Elliot motioned to reverse the dangerous dog designation for Bruiser, finding that the dog had attacked another dog owned by the same owner on the owner's premise, an exemption from the county's dangerous dog statute. Bruiser was ordered released from the Humane Society of Wicomico County's kennels.

The owner and Campbell exchanged hugs, fighting back tears of joy.

"It feels amazing to know he'll be coming home," the owner said. "I feel like I can sleep now that my boys are safe."

Shyloh, the owner said, has made a full recovery and is expected to be back home next week after a stay at Peninsula Orthopedics.

While Bruiser will live to see another day, Bennett said pit bulls don't always get a fair shake.

"Pit bulls are automatically written off as aggressive dogs and, a lot of times, when people see dogs injured by another dog, the emotions get up," she said. "They want to punish that dog for what it did, but dogs don't think like people. Breeds like pit bulls and Rottweilers get a reputation because they are bigger dogs — and when a bigger dog bites, it can cause a lot more consequences and damages."

The law on pit bulls in Maryland
In Maryland, Prince George's County has had a ban on  ownership of pit bulls since 1997. A few other small municipalities in the state have them as well. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in 2012 that landlords were liable for the damages caused by a dog owned by a tenant if they know it to be aggressive. The ruling also stated that if the landlord knew the tenant owned a pit bull, then he or she was automatically liable if the dog were to bite someone.

The state legislature struck down the breed specific ruling in 2014 by passing legislation that made landlords liable for damages extending from a dog bite case regardless of breeds.

(Delmarva Daily Times - Sept 22, 2016)

Earlier:

• Maryland: Police say Jeffrey Mayhle, 45, released aggressive pit bull during domestic assault on victim

Maryland: Marcus Stauffer, 20, shoots park ranger's dog then slits its throat and kills it

MARYLAND -- A St. Mary’s County man was charged Tuesday with two counts of animal cruelty after he shot a dog and cut its throat at Newtowne Neck State Park on Christmas Day, the Maryland Natural Resources Police said.

Marcus S. Stauffer, 20, of Leonardtown was deer hunting from a tree stand when he saw the dog, a year-old Chesapeake Bay retriever, and shot it twice with a muzzleloader. He climbed down from the stand and cut the dog’s throat.

"He then shot the second dog with his muzzleloader at a distance of 25 to 30 yards. Since his first shot had not killed the dog, he reloaded and shot it again," according to court documents.

The dog and another retriever are owned by the ranger who lives at the park. The dogs, which wore collars and tags, were confined to a porch while the ranger patrolled the park but broke free.

According to court documents, "Later that day, the ranger was again canvassing the park when she made contact with hunters near a horse-drawn buggy. At that time, one of the hunters stated he had shot her dog."

The ranger found the one dog and, with along with a Natural Resources Police officer, searched the park for the second dog without success.

Hours later, the ranger encountered Stauffer, who said he thought the dog was a stray and that he “shot it for the public.”

He and a family member retrieved the dog’s body from a marshy area.

The charges of animal cruelty, aggravated animal cruelty and destruction of property under $1,000 were reviewed and approved by the St. Mary’s County State’s Attorney and Stauffer was served with a criminal summons yesterday.

"He (Stauffer) stated that he shot the ranger's dog 'to take it out of the public'," according to court documents.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Feb. 26 in St. Mary’s District Court. If found guilty of all three charges, Stauffer faces a maximum sentence of three years and a fine of $6,500.

The Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service has rescinded Stauffer’s permit to hunt on southern Maryland public lands that require a permit.

The investigating officer, in this case, was Ofc. S.Grice of the Natural Resources Police.

(The Bay Net - Jan 15, 2016)

Judge in Madison vicious-dog case rules against suppressing information from animal control officer

WISCONSIN -- A motion to suppress evidence was denied Wednesday in the case of a Madison County man facing multiple felony charges of owning a vicious dog.
 
M. Christopher Martino, 59, appeared in Madison County Circuit Court for a pretrial hearing in his case involving six charges of owning a vicious dog — each a Class 6 felony.

In March, Martino pleaded not guilty to all the charges, which stem from a July 14, 2014, incident in which a pack of his dogs, Chesapeake Bay Retrievers, allegedly attacked a minor who was swimming in the Robinson River.

Defense attorney Charles Bowman, who took over the case following Samuel Higginbotham II’s retirement, argued that any evidence or statements Annette Dodson, a deputy Madison animal control officer, obtained should be suppressed.

Bowman alleged Officer Dodson violated Martino’s Fourth Amendment rights by going to his home without a warrant.

When Interim Madison County Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Reid called on her to testify Wednesday, Officer Dodson said Martino at no time asked her to leave when she arrived at his house to inform him of the attack. The spoke on his porch, she testified, although he invited her inside.

In his arguments against Bowman’s motion, Reid said there wasn’t a Fourth Amendment violation because Officer Dodson was there to inform Martino of the attack and verify that his animals were contained, since the animals could have been at large and a danger to the public.

“There was no time for a search warrant,” he said. “She had a duty to the public to ensure there were no further attacks and ensure the animals were pinned up for the safety of the victim. She went there to speak to Mr. Martino. There was nothing she was looking for at the time.”

Circuit Judge Daniel Bouton said there was nothing to show that Officer Dodson conducted any search under the Fourth Amendment. Had she conducted a search, Bouton said, exigent circumstances would have applied since there was urgency and a concern for public safety after the reported attack.

Martino’s bench trial is scheduled for Sept. 16.

His six dogs remain at the Madison County Animal Shelter.

(Daily Progress - July 15, 2015)

Owner Charged after Dogs Allegedly Attacked Criglersville Teen

VIRGINIA -- Wednesday, the man police say owns six dogs that allegedly mauled a Criglersville teenager in Madison County is facing six felony charges. Martin Martino is accused of owning vicious dogs, reckless ownership, and causing serious injury.

The charges stem from when his dogs allegedly attacked a 16-year-old girl while she was swimming on July 14.

Martino has a kennel in Criglersville with dozens of Chesapeake Bay retrievers that borders the Robinson River. Neighbors say his property doesn't have fencing on the river side, and that's how the dogs got out.

At least four of those dogs allegedly attacked a 16-year-old girl who was swimming, biting her dozens of times. According to police, she is still recovering from those injuries - which include 3-inch gashes on her arms and legs.

Police say they have had several calls about Martino's dogs from concerned neighbors over the past five years.

Martino is currently out on bond. He is scheduled to appear in Madison County General District court on Thursday, July 31.

Madison County Sheriff’s Office Press Release
On July 22, 2014, Martin C. Martino was charged with 6 Felony’s; Code Section 3.2-6540.1

Each charge is described as: Short Offense Description: (not a legal definition): Vicious Dogs, Owner Reckless, cause serious injury.

These charges were issued as a result of a continuing dog bite investigation that occurred on July 14, 2014 in Madison County.

Martino was taken before a Magistrate and released on an unsecured bond.

His court appearance is set for July 31 in the Madison County General District Court.

This is an on-going investigation and if anyone has any information on this case please contact the Madison County Sheriff’s Office at 540-948-5161.

(WVIR - July 23, 2014)

Boy flown to hospital after attacked by family dog

CALIFORNIA -- A 6-year-old boy was taken by helicopter Thursday evening to Children's Hospital Oakland after a family dog attacked the child's face, officials said.

The boy was playing in the backyard of his family home on Amesbury Drive about 7:30 p.m. when a family member's chocolate-brown Chesapeake Bay retriever bit the boy, said Rick Golphin, deputy director for Contra Costa County Animal Services. The boy was taken by ambulance to a nearby medical helicopter, which flew him to the Oakland hospital with serious facial injuries.

The boy's condition was unknown as of Friday, Golphin said. Authorities were still investigating what may have prompted the family pet to attack the boy.

The dog was taken from the home by Animal Services, which will hold it in rabies quarantine for at least 10 days, Golphin said. After that time, a hearing officer will make a recommendation about whether the dog should be considered a threat to the family and others.

"We offer a hearing process that will determine whether he'll be designated as potentially dangerous," Golphin said. "It's something we commonly do with dog bites, and the recommendation will take between 10 and 30 days."

No information was available Friday regarding the dog's temperament or history of threatening behavior, Golphin said.

(Mercury News - Oct 11, 2013)

Attacked over backyard fence, Portage woman recalls dog bite trauma

MICHIGAN -- One minute Lynda Stewart was leaning against the 4-foot chain-link fence, chatting with the neighbor in back of her house.

The next, "I was being attacked," she said.

Kalamazoo County Animal Control handles 400-500 reports of dog violence a year, director Steve Lawrence said.

Reading about National Dog Bite Prevention Week, which was May 19-25, prompted Stewart to recall her own experience as a victim, and to advise others: Report dangerous dogs.

The Chesapeake Bay retriever that attacked Stewart never left its own yard that day in 2007. It had no history of biting complaints.

But the dog tore a chunk from her left arm, and nailed her right elbow, too, Stewart said, before she was able to break free.

Aggressive dogs
Brody, the dog that attacked her, belonged to Stewart's next-door neighbor's roommate. The animal was accepting of her when she was visiting at the neighbor's house, but barked aggressively at the fence between the properties when she was outside working in her own yard or garden, she said.

The dog's owner assured her the animal didn't bite.

But months earlier, Brody had attacked her own dog, Madonna, a shepherd mix, over the fence, tearing at that dog's face when Madonna jumped up and put her paws on the fence. 

In hindsight, Stewart regrets not reporting that fight between dogs. Lawrence, the animal control director, said reporting such acts of aggression toward people or other dogs can help authorities establish a pattern of behavior, to establish a record of an animal's behavior.

A new dangerous dog law being drafted in Lansing by state Rep. Sean McCann, D-Kalamazoo, may help officers use that kind of information to assure that owners of aggressive animals take extra steps to control their animals and prevent attacks, Lawrence said.

The attack
The day of the attack on her, Stewart was in the corner of her lot at the back fence, speaking to the woman who lived behind her.

"He came out of nowhere, grabbed my arm and was ripping it back and forth," Stewart said.

She screamed at the dog and struck it on the head several times, but he would not release his grip. So, with her free hand she squeezed her thumb into the corner of the dog's mouth to force its jaws apart -- and he let go, but then grabbed her other arm.

The neighbor ran to call 911.

At that point, Stewart said, her own dog realized what was happening and rushed to her defense, attacking the dog over the fence.

"As I grabbed my dog and pulled her down, my next-door neighbor came out," scolding the dog for attacking her dog, she said. When he saw her bloodied arms and realized she had been attacked, he told her he would take her to the hospital.

"I went into the house, grabbed some kitchen towels to put over my arms, as I was walking out the police and ambulance arrived," she said.

They took over her first aid, and as she lay in the ambulance, with IV tubes in place, she said she began to go into shock.

Stewart said she was in surgery for two hours, and her left arm was bandaged for a month. There was some nerve damage, she said, that affected use of her arm for almost two years.

While she was being patched up, animal control officers were visiting the dog's owner. It was the animal's first documented attack on a person, and the dog never actually left its own property.  But  the dog's owner voluntarily had the animal euthanized, saving Stewart the anxiety of meeting it every time she went into her yard, she said.

She sued the landlord's homeowner's insurance company to get her medical bills paid, she said. She would not say how much the bills were or the amount of the settlement.

Both sides of the law
Lawrence said of the 400-500 reports of dog violence his department documents each year, only one or two a month result in serious injuries to people or other dogs. Of those that do, most owners voluntarily surrender their dogs to be put down, Lawrence said, a less costly alternative than paying the county to house the animal during the long weeks a show-cause hearing may require.

Lawrence said he has worked with lawmakers for years to try to come up with a system for holding owners more accountable for controlling dangerous pets before incidents occur that end in injury.

Stewart said she's not sure how she feels about the current legislation being drafted to tighten laws against vicious dogs. On the one hand, as a victim, she knows the hardship one bad dog can cause, and she believes owners of aggressive dogs need to be extremely vigilant.

So many say their dogs would not bite anyone, she said -- and yet, they do.

But as a dog owner herself, she knows how quickly dogs can attack, often with no history of  aggressive behavior. She said her own pit bull mix, Lourdes, had played happily at the dog park with other animals until one day when Madonna, its friend, began to romp with another animal. Perhaps fearing for Madonna's safety, [according to Stewart] Lourdes jumped in and attacked the other dog.

 

 "I paid (that dog's veterinary) bill, and now Lourdes is on the dangerous dog list," she said, with a documented attack.

"But I know that, and I don't want to take chance, I don't want to lose her," Stewart said. So Lourdes's days at the dog park or off leash are over.

According to a news release from the U.S. Postal Service, nationwide 5,879 postal employees were attacked last year and annually 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs.

The Postal Service, medical community, veterinarians and the insurance industry work together to educate the public that dog bites are avoidable during National Dog Bite Prevention Week.

(MLive - May 27, 2013)

Idaho: Nampa police release video of dogs attacking officer prior to Monday shooting

IDAHO -- Nampa Deputy Police Chief Craig Kingsbury said a review board is investigating an officer’s decision to shoot and kill a pit bull/mastiff mix that was attacking him earlier this week but also said it appears the officer was exposed to great bodily harm — and released two videos Wednesday to illustrate his point.

Kingsbury said Nampa officers are authorized to use deadly force when their lives are threatened or they are exposed to great bodily harm. That is what police say happened Monday when two dogs attacked an officer as he knocked on a partially open door at a home at 2nd Street North and 13th Avenue North.

“That’s what I would have felt (too) in this particular situation,” Kingsbury said Wednesday, after showing reporters video of the attack, which took about three seconds and ended with one dog being shot and the other moving away. “That’s a call he had to make in less than three seconds.”

Kingsbury also said Wednesday that the officer involved, who has been with Nampa Police for about a year, did not want to shoot a dog.

“He is not heartless ... this bothered him,” Kingsbury said. “This was done out of self-defense. We empathize with the family ... they lost their pet.”

The two officers sent to the home shortly after 5 p.m. Monday were both wearing cameras, which capture audio and video, on their shirts after getting a anonymous call about an hour before from someone asking police to check on some kids living at the home.

Nampa officers are expected to audio and videotape their interactions with the public. Each patrol officer wears the camera, called a CopVu. Nampa Police have been using CopVu for more than a year, officials said.

The cameras show the officer, holding a flashlight, knock on the door and ask if anyone is home for several seconds. You can hear a dog barking in the background a few times before both dogs bound out of the door. The officer had to back up several feet, with both dogs on him, before he pulls out his gun and fires three times at the light colored pit bull/mastiff mix. The other dog moves away at the time of the shot. That whole encounter took less than three seconds. The attack also caused the officer to drop his flashlight prior to the shooting.

The other video is from the officer who was attacked. It shows a flurry of teeth and claws prior to the shooting.

On Wednesday, Kingsbury showed reporters the officer’s pepper spray holder and bottle, which were on the officer’s right hand side — opposite his gun holster — and both had teeth marks from the dog that was shot.

Police officials released the videos Wednesday so the public could see exactly what the officers went though at the time of the shooting, Kingsbury said.

The report that led police to do a welfare check in the first place turned out to be “unfounded,” Kingsbury said.

The second dog involved, a pit bull/Chesapeake mix ran away after the shooting. The dog was not located as of early Wednesday morning.

The Nampa Police review board will examine all the circumstances to make an official determination if the department’s use of deadly force policy was used correctly.

Monday’s incident marked the third time over the past five years Nampa Police shot a dog during a call for service. In the two previous instances, the dogs were injured but not killed, officials said.

Boise police have shot at dogs four times since 2009 during calls for service, according to department records. In three of those cases, the dogs were killed.

BODYCAM FROM OFFICERS:

(Idaho Statesman - Sept 26, 2012)

Earlier:

• Idaho: Officer shoots pit bull in self-defense 

Idaho: Officer shoots pit bull in self-defense

IDAHO -- Nampa Police say an officer was forced to shoot a family's pit bull Monday evening after it attacked.

Nampa Police say they were conducting a welfare check on two children in a home on 13th Avenue North in Nampa.

 

Sergeant Rob Wiggins with the Nampa Police Department said officers knocked on the door of the home, but found the door was open.

Sgt. Wiggins says a pit-bull then came through the door.

“One of the officers was attacked by a dog,” said Sgt. Wiggins. “They attempted to fend-off the dog, but it continued to attack the officers.”

“It's our dog, it's our family dog,” sobbed Larry Carver on Monday night.

Carver lives at the home where the incident took place, and said he was there when Junior -- the 2-year-old pit-bull -- was shot by the officer.

“And Junior was right here, and the officer pushed the door, and Junior opened it the rest with his paw and he went after him,” said Carver.

However, Sgt. Wiggins said when the officer could not fend-off the dog, he made the decision to fire his gun at it.

Carver said the dog was shot more than once by the officer. “Basically he has a split second to make a decision,” said Sgt. Wiggins.

Junior the pit bull died.

“The dog was a great dog,” said Junior’s owner, Tony O’Hare. “He would never hurt anybody; he was just a real sweet dog.”

O’Hare says he's has never had a violent issue with his pit bull.

“We don't live in the best neighborhood, and I have two young daughters,” explained O’Hare.

However, O-Hare did say he trained the dog to protect his family.

“If I am not home, I know my wife is safe; I know my children are safe,” said O’Hare.

Mourning the loss of his dog, O’Hare said he does not believe shooting the dog was necessary.

“It's a family animal, and in some cases that is just like a family member,” said Sgt. Wiggins.

Wiggins said he understands the situation is unfortunate, but reiterated his message about the officer’s actions.

“Initially, like I said, he tried to fend it off -- that wasn’t working -- and so unfortunately, he had to elevate a little bit in order to protect himself,” said Wiggins.

Sgt. Wiggins said the officer who was attacked did not suffer any injuries. He also would not release the officer’s name.

The Nampa Police department will now perform what they call a “use of force” report. The report will then be reviewed by a “use of force” panel to see if the officer was justified in shooting and killing the dog.

BODYCAM VIDEO FROM OFFICERS:

(KTVB - Sept 24, 2012)

Canada: Pit bulls attack Chesapeake Bay Retriever mix at Davidson’s Pool. Owners grab their Pit Bulls and flee, leaving owner with the vet bill

CANADA -- Blaine Hallman, seeking refuge from the sudden summer heat, took his kids and his dog to Davidson’s Pool on Wednesday too cool off, as many have done in Maple Ridge for close to a century.

But rather than relax on the sandy banks of South Alouette River, he found himself wrestling with two pit bulls, trying to save his dog’s life.

Bailey, a 20-month-old Chesapeake Bay Retriever cross, was paddling out of the river when two pit bulls pounced on her.

One dragged Bailey to the shore by her neck, as Hallman tried to pry the dog off. It sank its teeth into the side of her head, splitting her ear.

When Hallman got one dog off, the second attacked. He punched the second pit bull in the face, then grabbed the first in a choke hold. He was bitten on his hand and face in the struggle.

PIT BULL OWNERS FLEE WITH THEIR MAULERS

The pit bulls were quickly taken home by their owners – a muscular man with brown hair and a tall blonde woman – after Hallman rushed bleeding Bailey to a veterinarian.

He’s now saddled with a bill for $270.

The Maple Ridge SPCA is looking for the owners of the pit bulls and asks anyone who can identify the dogs to call 604-463-9511 or RCMP at 604-463-6251.

The pit bull that did the most damaged to Bailey was black and called Diesel. The second pit bull was tan-coloured. The couple was seen with
another man, who had a dog called Pepper.

(Maple Ridge News - July 7, 2011)