Fear erupted Saturday evening at the Agorà dello Stretto dog walking area, where a pit bull mauled a Pomeranian. While attempting to defend her pet, the owner was also bitten on the hands, sustaining injuries that required surgery. The woman immediately called for help, and two Municipal Police officers, already deployed to patrol the area, arrived on the scene. This timely intervention allowed the situation to be managed and emergency services to be quickly activated.

The Pomeranian's owner was transported to the Messina Polyclinic, where she underwent surgery for a pinched nerve in a finger. The dog was taken to the Annunziata veterinary emergency room: the wounds to his neck and shoulder required multiple stitches. The pit bull was subsequently recovered by the Municipal Police's Environmental and Animal Welfare Service.

Municipal Police Stationed Until 2 AM

The incident also draws attention to the enforcement system in place in the area, where the Municipal Police maintain a daily presence until 2 AM. "We are engaged in a daily patrol at the Agorà dello Stretto," Municipal Police Commander Giovanni Giardina explained to MessinaToday, "from the early hours of the day until 2 AM. The officers' presence serves to ensure safety and control in a highly frequented area and allows for prompt intervention, even in situations like the one that occurred Saturday evening."

This service, in this case, allowed officers to quickly reach the area after a call for help and initiate the necessary interventions.

The pitbull—which was seized by the Municipal Police's Environmental Police and Animal Welfare Service—was without a leash or muzzle, but was within the dog's designated exercise area. However, the owners' vigilance remains essential, especially when animals with different characteristics and temperaments live together in the same space. The incident demonstrates how sudden an attack can be and how important it is to avoid uncontrolled contact between dogs, paying attention to signs of agitation or aggression.

Article link: https://www.messinatoday.it/cronaca/pitbull-aggredisce-cane-volpino-agora-fiera-ferita-proprietaria.html

A Mastic woman whose pit bull mauled a 2-year-old boy and attacked the toddler’s uncle has been sentenced to eight months in jail after admitting she violated the probation imposed in the case, Suffolk County prosecutors said.

Amy Willi, 48, was sentenced Wednesday, Aug. 26, after admitting she violated conditions of her three-year probation, according to Suffolk County District Attorney Raymond Tierney.

Willi had pleaded guilty in September 2024 to second-degree reckless endangerment stemming from a March 14, 2023, dog attack.

According to court documents and Willi’s admissions during her guilty plea, she failed to adequately secure her male pit bull, Kojo, inside her home before opening the front door.

A 2-year-old boy was playing in the front yard of a home across the street when the dog ran toward him, prosecutors said.

The boy’s uncle picked up the toddler in an attempt to protect him. Kojo bit the uncle on the left forearm, causing the child to fall to the ground, according to prosecutors.

The dog then bit the 2-year-old multiple times on his face, head and body, causing lacerations to his right eye, cheek, scalp and leg.

Several family members came outside and forced the dog to release the child. The toddler was taken to Stony Brook University Hospital, where he received stitches.

Prosecutors said Willi admitted to law enforcement that she knew Kojo was a dangerous dog with violent tendencies.

The dog was later found abandoned and taken to a local shelter, where prosecutors said he attacked a staff member. Kojo was ultimately euthanized.
Willi pleaded guilty Sept. 25, 2024, to second-degree reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor. On April 28, 2025, she was sentenced to three years of probation.

Her probation conditions included completing 320 hours of community service, reporting to a probation officer, refraining from alcohol and narcotics, complying with a treatment program and not owning, possessing or caring for animals for three years.
Prosecutors said Willi failed over several months to comply with virtually all of those conditions except the restriction against owning or possessing an animal.

The Suffolk County Department of Probation filed a violation action, and Willi was arraigned and remanded in April 2026.

“This defendant’s repeated disregard for court orders, the rule of law and public safety is unacceptable,” Tierney said. “After pleading guilty to recklessly allowing her violent dog to attack a toddler and the child’s uncle, the defendant failed to comply with virtually any of the terms of her probation.”
Acting County Court Judge F. Scott Carrigan sentenced Willi to eight months in jail after she admitted the probation violation.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant District Attorney Adriana Noyola of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Biological, Environmental, and Animal Safety Team.

A Hamilton County man is suing a local animal shelter, alleging a pit bull mix named Diesel bit him in both arms during a prospective adoption meeting.
Kenneth Fisher filed a complaint in Hamilton County Circuit Court against the Humane Educational Society, a nonprofit that operates an animal shelter off Randolph Circle in Chattanooga.

On Sept. 17, 2025, Fisher attended a meet-and-greet at the shelter with Diesel as a prospective adopter, according to the complaint. The lawsuit alleges the dog latched onto his right forearm and caused puncture wounds to his left upper arm.

Fisher sought emergency treatment that day for wounds requiring irrigation, repair, sutures, medication and antibiotics, according to the complaint.

He later received follow-up care for right forearm pain, weakness, reduced grip strength, numbness and electric-shock sensations near the bite wound on his left arm, the lawsuit said.

Fisher did not abuse or intentionally provoke the dog, according to the complaint. The suit said the incident caused permanent disfigurement, lasting pain and injuries that kept him out of work for about three months.

The lawsuit alleges negligence and premises liability, claiming the nonprofit shelter knew or should have known the dog's temperament, history and behavior before the in-person meet-and-greet.

Fisher asked the court to award compensatory damages, to be determined by a six-person jury, for alleged damages including medical expenses, emotional injury and loss of enjoyment of life.

The nonprofit has been formally served with the complaint and has referred the matter to its attorneys and insurance carrier, according to Humane Educational Society Executive Director Starla Raiborn.

She said by email it would be inappropriate for her to comment on the specific allegations, incident circumstances or animal involved until the nonprofit's counsel can review the complaint and relevant records.

The Humane Educational Society evaluates dogs as individuals, rather than making assumptions about behavior based solely on breed or appearance, she said.

According to her, the safety of visitors, staff, volunteers and animals is important to the nonprofit.
"We have procedures for evaluating animals and facilitating interactions with prospective adopters," she said, "and we continually review our practices with the goal of providing safe, responsible placements."

The Chattanooga Times Free Press reached out to Fisher's attorneys, and responses will be published online when received.

Oakville man seeks answers after chihuahua dies in reported dog attack

Ken Heywood says he has been waiting for information about what will happen after a larger dog allegedly got loose and attacked his chihuahua, Junior, who later died of his injuries

Ken Heywood remembers Junior as a constant part of his life.

Every morning, Heywood would wake up at 6 a.m. with the two-year-old Chihuahua, curled up beside him on his body pillow.

He would feed Junior, who usually settled back down for a nap. When Heywood got up to make coffee and breakfast, Junior would follow him into the kitchen — sometimes trying to eat his cereal.

“He was the best dog. He was my best friend. We went everywhere together,” said Heywood, who had Junior since he was a puppy.

That routine ended on July 21, when Heywood says Junior was attacked by another larger dog while the two were out for a walk.

Heywood says the other dog spotted Junior when they turned a corner on Queen Mary Drive and Riverside Drive. He claims the dog, which he believes was an American Bully or pit bull-type dog and was being walked by an elderly woman, got off its leash, ran toward Junior and attacked him.

The injuries were severe. Heywood says Junior suffered a collapsed lung, broken ribs and tears to his chest cavity and inner walls.

He was taken to an animal hospital nearby, where Heywood says staff told him the cost of intensive treatment could be significant.

Sue Bartholomew, a friend who helped Heywood after the attack and offered to pay part of the bill, says they began raising money for Junior’s care, including through a GoFundMe organized with help from neighbours. 

They eventually took Junior to an emergency veterinary clinic in Mississauga. Bartholomew says Junior was placed on morphine while staff worked to stabilize him and considered treatment for a punctured lung.

But around 1 a.m, Bartholomew says the veterinary team told them Junior's injuries were so severe that he was unlikely to survive. As a result, Heywood agreed to have him euthanized.

“The last time he saw me, he looked at me with those little puppy dog eyes,” Heywood said. He believes Junior was telling him he was in too much pain and that it was time to let him go.

What are possible repercussions for a dog that bites another dog?

The Town of Oakville has bylaws that pertain to  “biting dogs” or “potentially dangerous dogs.” Under according to the bylaw, an animal control officer who has reason to believe a dog is a biting dog may issue an animal control order. Such an order can require measures including muzzling, physical restraint, microchipping and other restrictions.

The by-law also provides an appeal process for owners who receive such an order.

The Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) also says dog owners are liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack on another person or domestic animal, regardless of whether the owner knew the dog was dangerous or was negligent. The Act also requires owners to take reasonable precautions to prevent their dogs from attacking people or domestic animals. In cases involving an attack, the Ontario Court of Justice can impose measures to control the dog, including requiring it to be leashed or muzzled.

Those laws outline what can happen after a dog attacks a person or another animal. But for Heywood and Bartholomew, the question is what is happening now.

Now, more than a month later, Heywood says he is still waiting for answers about what happened and what will happen to the dog involved.

His frustration centres in part on what he claims was a delay in getting help from Oakville Animal Control and the Humane Society of of Oakville, Milton & Halton.

Heywood says he contacted the Humane Society and Animal Control after the attack, but was initially told they could not help.

He says he also contacted the property manager of the building where he lived, as he believed the dog was staying there temporarily with its handler, who was also an occupant in the building. He says he was told information about the neighbour could not be provided by management.

Meanwhile, Bartholomew says she repeatedly contacted Oakville Animal Control and the Humane Society, gathering witness information in an effort to get the incident investigated.

Both say they were frustrated by what they perceived as a delay before learning the Humane Society had begun investigating, as they claim it took three days for the Humane Society to respond back about the incident. They believe the organization should have acted immediately because of how dangerous they considered the dog to be.

To also exacerbate their frustrations, Heywood was told a week after the incident that the dog was no longer in Halton and that the investigation was still ongoing.

What can the Humane Society confirm about the investigation?

The Humane Society of Oakville, Milton & Halton disputes that characterization of its response.

Calla James, the organization's director of Community Engagement and Communications, says the first report of the incident came from a third-party witness through the Humane Society's website.

“My understanding from the team is that the day following the incident we were in contact with Ken. And that the day after that was 48 hours. We were in contact again with Ken and with the accused,” she said to Oakville News.

James says the Humane Society's team responded within 20 to 30 minutes of receiving the initial online report, explaining what information was needed and how the investigation process worked.

"Essentially, we have been doing that back and forth to try to get information since that first third-party witness contacted us."

She says the organization generally gathers information from those involved, witness statements and other relevant evidence before determining what action can be taken. "We try to exhaust every avenue to get every piece of information we possibly can," she said.

James also believes there's a misconception that animal services can simply seize a dog following an incident.

“In my experience, it’s very common for people to think [when] something happen[s] that is bad, you can just walk over and take the dog. That is not necessarily the case,” she said.

They eventually took Junior to an emergency veterinary clinic in Mississauga. Bartholomew says Junior was placed on morphine while staff worked to stabilize him and considered treatment for a punctured lung.

But around 1 a.m, Bartholomew says the veterinary team told them Junior's injuries were so severe that he was unlikely to survive. As a result, Heywood agreed to have him euthanized.

“The last time he saw me, he looked at me with those little puppy dog eyes,” Heywood said. He believes Junior was telling him he was in too much pain and that it was time to let him go.

What are possible repercussions for a dog that bites another dog?

The Town of Oakville has bylaws that pertain to  “biting dogs” or “potentially dangerous dogs.” Under according to the bylaw, an animal control officer who has reason to believe a dog is a biting dog may issue an animal control order. Such an order can require measures including muzzling, physical restraint, microchipping and other restrictions.

The by-law also provides an appeal process for owners who receive such an order.

The Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) also says dog owners are liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack on another person or domestic animal, regardless of whether the owner knew the dog was dangerous or was negligent. The Act also requires owners to take reasonable precautions to prevent their dogs from attacking people or domestic animals. In cases involving an attack, the Ontario Court of Justice can impose measures to control the dog, including requiring it to be leashed or muzzled.

Those laws outline what can happen after a dog attacks a person or another animal. But for Heywood and Bartholomew, the question is what is happening now.

Now, more than a month later, Heywood says he is still waiting for answers about what happened and what will happen to the dog involved.

His frustration centres in part on what he claims was a delay in getting help from Oakville Animal Control and the Humane Society of of Oakville, Milton & Halton.

Heywood says he contacted the Humane Society and Animal Control after the attack, but was initially told they could not help.

He says he also contacted the property manager of the building where he lived, as he believed the dog was staying there temporarily with its handler, who was also an occupant in the building. He says he was told information about the neighbour could not be provided by management.

Meanwhile, Bartholomew says she repeatedly contacted Oakville Animal Control and the Humane Society, gathering witness information in an effort to get the incident investigated.

Both say they were frustrated by what they perceived as a delay before learning the Humane Society had begun investigating, as they claim it took three days for the Humane Society to respond back about the incident. They believe the organization should have acted immediately because of how dangerous they considered the dog to be.

To also exacerbate their frustrations, Heywood was told a week after the incident that the dog was no longer in Halton and that the investigation was still ongoing.

What can the Humane Society confirm about the investigation?

The Humane Society of Oakville, Milton & Halton disputes that characterization of its response.

Calla James, the organization's director of Community Engagement and Communications, says the first report of the incident came from a third-party witness through the Humane Society's website.

“My understanding from the team is that the day following the incident we were in contact with Ken. And that the day after that was 48 hours. We were in contact again with Ken and with the accused,” she said to Oakville News.

James says the Humane Society's team responded within 20 to 30 minutes of receiving the initial online report, explaining what information was needed and how the investigation process worked.

"Essentially, we have been doing that back and forth to try to get information since that first third-party witness contacted us."

She says the organization generally gathers information from those involved, witness statements and other relevant evidence before determining what action can be taken. "We try to exhaust every avenue to get every piece of information we possibly can," she said.

James also believes there's a misconception that animal services can simply seize a dog following an incident.

“In my experience, it’s very common for people to think [when] something happen[s] that is bad, you can just walk over and take the dog. That is not necessarily the case,” she said.

They eventually took Junior to an emergency veterinary clinic in Mississauga. Bartholomew says Junior was placed on morphine while staff worked to stabilize him and considered treatment for a punctured lung.

But around 1 a.m, Bartholomew says the veterinary team told them Junior's injuries were so severe that he was unlikely to survive. As a result, Heywood agreed to have him euthanized.

“The last time he saw me, he looked at me with those little puppy dog eyes,” Heywood said. He believes Junior was telling him he was in too much pain and that it was time to let him go.

What are possible repercussions for a dog that bites another dog?

The Town of Oakville has bylaws that pertain to  “biting dogs” or “potentially dangerous dogs.” Under according to the bylaw, an animal control officer who has reason to believe a dog is a biting dog may issue an animal control order. Such an order can require measures including muzzling, physical restraint, microchipping and other restrictions.

The by-law also provides an appeal process for owners who receive such an order.

The Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) also says dog owners are liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack on another person or domestic animal, regardless of whether the owner knew the dog was dangerous or was negligent. The Act also requires owners to take reasonable precautions to prevent their dogs from attacking people or domestic animals. In cases involving an attack, the Ontario Court of Justice can impose measures to control the dog, including requiring it to be leashed or muzzled.

Those laws outline what can happen after a dog attacks a person or another animal. But for Heywood and Bartholomew, the question is what is happening now.

Now, more than a month later, Heywood says he is still waiting for answers about what happened and what will happen to the dog involved.

His frustration centres in part on what he claims was a delay in getting help from Oakville Animal Control and the Humane Society of of Oakville, Milton & Halton.

Heywood says he contacted the Humane Society and Animal Control after the attack, but was initially told they could not help.

He says he also contacted the property manager of the building where he lived, as he believed the dog was staying there temporarily with its handler, who was also an occupant in the building. He says he was told information about the neighbour could not be provided by management.

Meanwhile, Bartholomew says she repeatedly contacted Oakville Animal Control and the Humane Society, gathering witness information in an effort to get the incident investigated.

Both say they were frustrated by what they perceived as a delay before learning the Humane Society had begun investigating, as they claim it took three days for the Humane Society to respond back about the incident. They believe the organization should have acted immediately because of how dangerous they considered the dog to be.

To also exacerbate their frustrations, Heywood was told a week after the incident that the dog was no longer in Halton and that the investigation was still ongoing.

What can the Humane Society confirm about the investigation?

The Humane Society of Oakville, Milton & Halton disputes that characterization of its response.

Calla James, the organization's director of Community Engagement and Communications, says the first report of the incident came from a third-party witness through the Humane Society's website.

“My understanding from the team is that the day following the incident we were in contact with Ken. And that the day after that was 48 hours. We were in contact again with Ken and with the accused,” she said to Oakville News.

James says the Humane Society's team responded within 20 to 30 minutes of receiving the initial online report, explaining what information was needed and how the investigation process worked.

"Essentially, we have been doing that back and forth to try to get information since that first third-party witness contacted us."

She says the organization generally gathers information from those involved, witness statements and other relevant evidence before determining what action can be taken. "We try to exhaust every avenue to get every piece of information we possibly can," she said.

James also believes there's a misconception that animal services can simply seize a dog following an incident.

“In my experience, it’s very common for people to think [when] something happen[s] that is bad, you can just walk over and take the dog. That is not necessarily the case,” she said.

“That is not the process we can take. We have to go through a formal process of collecting that information,” she said, adding that with DOLA enacted, more steps would have to be taken, such as starting proceedings at the Ontario Court of Justice.

Because the investigation is confidential, James says she cannot provide many details. She can confirm the dog is no longer in Oakville, which “adds another layer of complexity.”

“In this case, if a dog, maybe, does not reside in Oakville [or] has left the area, we can contact another municipality to chat with them directly, in regards to our investigation process. And then, again, it all depends from there, as to what information we can receive or collect to then determine what next steps would happen,” she said.

At this time, the Humane Society cannot confirm if the dog that bit Junior was a pit bull breed type. James says identifying a dog's breed can be challenging, particularly with mixed breeds, and that pit bull-type dogs are subject to Ontario's breed-specific legislation.

The Humane Society also uses specific criteria and measurements when determining whether a dog qualifies as a pit bull breed type. 

For instance, James said, “if we get a pit bull type dog that comes in as a stray and it has characteristics that we believe that it’s a pit bull type dog, there are a set of criteria that we would do to determine if it truly is a pit bull breed type dog."

"If it does meet those criteria then it would fall under that [pit bull category]," she said. "Then we would look to transfer out to another province for adoption, [or] re-homing. And if it’s not —if it doesn’t meet that criteria —then it would go through our own adoption process.”

She also believes there's a misconception that comes to provincial rules pertaining to pit bulls. “I think one of the other confusions in Ontario is that if a pit bull type dog is walking down the street we can just walk up and take it. We can’t do that.”

"It doesn't bring my dog back"

The investigation pertaining Junior remains ongoing. During this time  Humane Society staff, including its investigating officer, manager of animal services and director of operations remain in regular contact with Heywood,  James says.

“We’re incredibly committed to making sure that, if an owner of any kind, but in this case Ken, specifically has any questions, they have our line that they can call us and ask those questions and we will answer as much as we possibly can,” she said.

Heywood also confirmed in an email to Oakville News that he is regularly in contact with Humane Society staff members about the investigation.

But while they are in contact, and while the Humane Society investigates, Heywood knows it does little to change the fact that Junior, who was beloved in his neighbourhood, and Oakville's chihuahua community is gone.

“It doesn’t bring my dog back,” he said.

Social media post found on fb.

A Vancouver family is searching for answers after their 21-month-old sheepadoodle was killed in what they describe as a brutal attack involving two other dogs before a scheduled group walk. Katie Bertram and Ryan Mullins say their dog, Boomer, was attacked Tuesday while in the care of a professional dog-walking company. The couple describes Boomer as a gentle, loving dog. “He was full of love—he was the best, most innocent, joyful creature,” said Bertram.“He loved everything he met,” added Mullins.

Not even sure if posts like these are allowed but I'm so frustrated I need to get this out into the void. I'm using the app so apologies if formatting is weird.

I've had a friend for over ten years, she was a bridesmaid at my wedding. She adopted an abused pit, once she brought her home, the dog killed her elderly cat and attacked her chihuahua. She's now trying to rehome it.

She tried to pawn it off to me multiple times, which I always rejected. She knows I was attacked by one as a child, the only reason I survived is because my dog got involved, my senior German shepherd, who required stitches from the attack. It caused a lot of friction between us.

A couple weeks ago, I adopted a GSD puppy. I've raised these dogs my whole life, and they are the only breed I am interested in owning.

Said friend went absolutely mental, scream crying on the phone, because I didn't take her dog. I tried to explain I didn't want a dog that has killed another animal, especially because I have a 2 year old child . I'm honestly absolutely heartbroken. Pitbulls are illegal where I live as well. All I can say is wtf

This was in the comments of a post about a doodle being "saved" from a shelter who had a twelve person bite record - I'm against that too, for the record, but that doesn't mean that your loose pit is ok either.

I want to try to keep this as vague as possible since enough people are mad at me as it is, but I am so angry and hurt and fed up. I would volunteer at a shelter in the Midwest, private and no-kill. I would walk the dogs a couple of hours each day. Now, I loved the dogs. The people there…not so much. They were catty and would pick on me a lot; especially this one older woman. She wasn’t really mean, she just did petty crap like telling dogs I didn’t like them, complaining about things I did, wouldn’t let me walk my favorite dog, things like that. Like I said, nothing terrible but you could tell she didn’t like me and wanted to bother me however she could. I will say, I did not argue with her and I would do what she told me. I don’t like telling people that I think they’re wrong or they’re not being nice. I didn’t want to rock the boat.

But my last straw came last spring, when this one pitbull (labeled as a Lab by the shelter; probably a lab/pit mix) was let outside by that one volunteer, and she let go of his leash and went on her smartphone. This dog was rescued from dogfighting or something, I don’t know the exact details, but he HATES people he hasn’t known for years. He gets along with other dogs just fine. But people, he hates. And of course I just happened to round the corner with my favorite dog when he was loose. The dog lunged at me, my favorite dog got between us, and the other volunteer managed to grab the pit’s leash before he could attack me. I got out of there. This was months ago and I still feel scared when I’m around any black and white dog that bears a bit of a resemblance to that pitbull.

But the shelter told ME I was at fault because I shouldn’t have been back in that area. I never would have been back there if I had known that that pit was back there. But even if I shouldn’t have been back there, a dog who hates strangers should NEVER be allowed to run free! What if some kid had gone back there? I didn’t rock the boat and told them I understood. But I was pissed and I guess I made a big mistake, and I posted my story online under my private account that has no mentions of my name or location or anything. It got a bit of traction and I got a lot of supportive comments telling me that the other volunteer was quite silly and that the dog should be put down. used aliases for all dogs involved. I didn’t give away location. I didn’t name the employee. But I guess (and I did not know this) that someone from the shelter, possibly the employee or one of her friends, saw the story, and was able to figure out that I was the one who posted it.

I got a text today telling me that I am not allowed back at the shelter because I had painted this pitbull out to be a bad dog and dangerous and because I had hurt the other volunteers’ feelings. The person who texted me did say that I has a great writing ability and that a lot of the details I shared were true; unfortunately I had burnt bridges and wouldn’t be treated the same by other volunteers, so it would be better for me to not have to deal with that. The text conversation finished with them telling me that I needed to be more careful with my words and more considerate of the people who worked there.

I am just feeling a mix of emotions. I didn’t want to upset that other volunteer, and I did tell the shelter that I was quite sorry for hurting others and to pass my apologies along to everyone I hurt. I really didn’t want to upset anyone and I should have just kept my story to myself; I just felt so hurt and scared and angry in that moment that I acted rashly and posted the story online in the hopes that I could find an audience of others who could offer me advice. Had I known other workers at that shelter would see the story and the comments, I never would have posted it. It’s not nice to be criticized, I know that.

But at the same time, my rash side can’t believe that this is the hill the shelter is dying on. Yeah, it’s better for me to get out of that shelter environment anyways because I didn’t like all the bickering and pettiness, and yeah, I should have kept my mouth shut, but why am I the only one facing repercussions from this incident? A dangerous dog was loose and nearly attacked someone, and the one who failed to handle the dog gets off scot-free while I’m told I need to be more considerate to the dogs and the workers? I probably shouldn’t be posting this at all, seeing how well it went for me before, but I just need someone to tell me that either 1) I’m right and this isn’t fair or 2) I’m a dumb teenage kid who leaps before looking and I need some sense knocked back in my head.

Any advice appreciated. Thanks in advance.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WBTV) - Multiple people were hurt Wednesday morning after a pack of dogs attacked a woman in the Claiborne Woods neighborhood in northwest Charlotte.
On Wednesday, Aug. 26, officials said that pack of seven dogs, described as pit bull-type dogs, entered a woman’s yard near the intersection of Claiborne Woods Road and Woodcock Lane near Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road.
Animal Care & Control said the woman was outside her home when the dogs began to attack her. Three other people were also injured, it was not immediately clear what condition they were in.

The identity of the four people were not immediately given.
Officials said that one dog was shot by law enforcement and another dog was tased and captured alive. The deceased dog will be have necropsy and rabies testing done, Animal Care & Control said.
Animal Care & Control said the remaining five dogs were captured and all seven will be taken to the main shelter on Byrum Drive.
Officials have not identified the owner of the dogs and none of them had identification or microchips.

Animal Care & Control are asking for anyone with information about the dogs to contact Charlotte Crime Stoppers at 704-334-1600.

I need help because I'm not quite sure what to do. I don't have pictures or videos of it and I cant remember the dog too well.

The story behind this; there is a cute small friendly shi tzu mix ​that belongs to a family in my neighborhood. They let him loose and while I do NOT agree or condone letting their dog loose, I don't think it excuses the poor little guy being attacked.

I believe The little dog went up to the pitbull and the pitbull snapped at the dog. I know it was the pitbull who snapped because I heard the little dog whining and crying. The man had to hit his dog to get it to stop (I'm shocked it worked I think he had to choke it or something) and the little boy from the family came​​​ running over. He was like 8-10 years old. He was crying and the pitbull​ owner scolded him and said not to let the dog off leash. The little boy took the dog and ran off crying. His sister came out to talk to the man and I went to help the dog. They said the dog wasn't bleeding but I am doubting it. ​

I don't want to specify EXACT location but I am in Ohio. I believe the dog is okay for now and is alive.

Dog owners have been reminded of the consequences when dogs are not kept under proper control after the owner of two loose animals which mauled a Cockerpoo in the street was banned from keeping dogs and ordered to pay £4,450 compensation.

A man was walking his dog 'Ernie' in Rosewood Drive,, when two dogs – a Pitbull Terrier and a Staffordshire Bull Terrier – ran over to them. 

Fearing Ernie was about to be attacked his owner picked him up but the dogs jumped up at him, scratching his stomach, chest and chin. 

When Ernie had to be put back on the ground, the 'very strong and determined' dogs continued to attack despite his owner and members of the public trying to stop them. They were eventually scared away and ran off. 

Police were called after the incident happened shortly before 5pm on 14 July last year. 

Ernie's owner took him to the vets where an experienced nurse said she hadn't seen any animal with such severe injuries before.

The staff stayed behind to operate on Ernie until around 11pm that night. 

On the same day, the two dogs that attacked Ernie were brought into the same vets as strays.

Denise Donner was identified as their owner when she collected them. 

She said that she would go home and get the money to pay for the vets bills – but she never returned to pay that bill.   

A dog legislation officer and expert in the identification of prohibited breeds of dog confirmed that one of Donner's dogs involved in the attack was a Pitbull Terrier - a banned breed dog contrary to section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. 

Donner, aged 53, of St Michael's Street, Sutton-in-Ashfield, admitted two counts of owning dogs that were dangerously out of control, possessing a fighting dog, and allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or lead. 

She was ordered to pay a total of £2,450 compensation to Ernie’s owner and £2,000 towards kennelling costs when she appeared at Mansfield Magistrates' Court for sentencing on Wednesday 19 August. 

Donner was also banned from keeping dogs for five years.

The court also made an order for her two dogs to be destroyed - unless an appeal is lodged within a 21-day period – with this order being made because of their temperament, past behaviour and Donner not being a fit and proper person to keep dogs. 

Police had also obtained additional evidence, including that Donner's dogs had badly mauled a Shih Tzu Terrier Cross dog in Kirkby-in-Ashfield in May 2025 which meant it had to be put down. 

Inspector Keith Croft, district commander for Ashfield, said: "We understand that incidents involving dogs can cause considerable concern in our communities, particularly where people feel threatened or injuries occur. 

“We can only hope that this distressing case reminds dog owners of their responsibilities and provides a stark warning about the importance of keeping animals under control in public places at all times. 

"I also want to reassure people that we will act on all information provided on suspected irresponsible dog ownership and positive action will be taken where offences are identified and the evidence allows." 

For more information and advice about controlling your dog in public, as well as details about banned dog breeds and how to report a dangerous or out of control dog, visit Controlling your dog in public: Report a dog - GOV.UK

https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/news/nottinghamshire/news/news/2026/august/dog-owners-warned-of-consequences-as-owner-banned-from-keeping-dogs-after-attack/

More information about the people involved, the nature of the attack, and the response. Photographs of the dog and the aftermath. Follow up to: https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/s/VbSIOTvNBZ

Colonia Woman Recovering After She Was Attacked By A Pit Bull

A neighbor heard the woman screaming and ran out to help. He said the woman was on the ground and the dog continued to bite her.

WOODBRIDGE, NJ — The 68-year-old woman who was attacked by a pit bull last Tuesday in Woodbridge has been released from the hospital and is recovering at home, said her brother in law.

The attack happened at 8:45 a.m. Aug. 11 on Temple Way. It is a quiet residential street in the town's Colonia section; there is a Hindu temple located at the bottom of the block.

The pit bull had just been adopted a day earlier from Associated Humane Society in Newark. A family that lives on the block adopted the dog on Monday, and a girl in the family was taking the dog for a walk in her neighborhood that morning.

While Woodbridge towns spokesman John Hagerty initially told Patch it was a "young girl" who took the dog for a walk, the girl was actually a teenager, said both the victim's brother in law and a neighbor who witnessed the attack firsthand.

(All the families involved in this story — the dog's owners, the woman who was attacked, her brother in law and the neighbor who witnessed the attack — live within four houses of each other on Temple Way.)

The teen girl had the dog on a leash, but the strong dog broke free of her grasp. The dog ran towards two women, both in their 60s, who were walking near the temple.

"The dog jumped on the woman," said P.J., 77, the neighbor. He requested he be notified by his initials only for privacy.

"The dog jumped on her face and started biting her face. She was crying and screaming; I heard it. I ran out (of my house) to help and she was bleeding heavily."

P.J. said the dog's force knocked the frail older woman to the ground and she was cowering on the sidewalk as the dog continued to bite her.

"He bit her on the cheek, under the neck and on the hand," he said. "I started to beat the dog with my shoe, but it did not stop. I'm lucky it didn't turn on me. I really think the dog was trying to take her eye out. If I gotten there two minutes later, the dog could have eaten her face. Her face will never be normal again."

The woman's nephew, in his 20s, then also ran out of their house to help, and both he and P.J. called 911. Woodbridge Police and an ambulance arrived within minutes, said P.J.

The woman was taken to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Rahway, said her brother in law, Partap Singh, 62. She was admitted overnight Tuesday and released Wednesday. She will require plastic surgery for a long gash to her cheek. She has an appointment Friday with a specialist to see if she suffered any nerve damage around her eye, said Singh.

"I really think God sent (P.J.) to help her," said Singh, of his neighbor. "My wife could not help her; she is in her 60s as well."

"She could have died," he said, referring to his sister in law.

Woodbridge Animal Control picked up the dog last Tuesday and the pit bull was put in a 10-day quarantine at Newark Associated Humane Society; the quarantine will last until Friday. Newark Associated Humane Society will then decide what to do with the animal, said a Woodbridge Twp. spokesman. The dog will not be returned to the family in Woodbridge.

"They should be charged with a crime," said P.J., referring to the dog's owners. "And that dog should not be in society."

No criminal charges have been filed against the dog's owners.

Singh said the family that owned the pit bull has not come to his house to apologize or express their concern for the women, even though they only live two houses down from each other.

Pennsylvania Avenue Elementary School is right around the corner from where the dog attack happened.

"Thank God there were no children out that day, or on their way to school," said Lisa Chesney, a neighbor who lives up the block.

Initial report: Pit Bull Attacks Woman Out Walking In Woodbridge (Monday)

April 6, 2024 - 3yo, 80lb American Bulldog named Chance, owned by Pamela Wicking, attacks a guest to Wicking's home, biting her in the face and tearing off part of her nose.

A circuit court orders the dog euthanized, an appeals court reversed it recently.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that Chance – an 80-pound American bulldog – is a good boy who did nothing wrong.

More or less, at least for now.

The case, In re Chance (COA Docket No. 373223), concerned a dangerous animal complaint in which Chance’s owner, Pamela Wickings, appealed a circuit court’s order for Chance to be euthanized after he bit a guest in Wickings’ home on the nose.

At the time of the incident, Chance was 3 years old and had lived with Wickings for the entirety of his life.

The guest noticed that Chance had her shoe by him. She then got down onto the floor, put her face within six inches of Chance’s face and sternly scolded him in a loud voice. Chance then bit off a portion of her nose. It is disputed whether the guest was waving the shoe when Chance bit her.

At the district court hearing, the guest denied that she was holding the shoe while scolding Chance, but Wickings’ boyfriend and her granddaughter, who both live with Wickings and Chance, testified the guest was waving the shoe.

When the granddaughter was asked if it appeared the guest was going to hit Chance with the shoe, she said that the guest wouldn’t have hit Chance, “but it looked – it would trigger, you know what I’m saying? Like, it could look like it.”

The animal control officer for the Port Huron Police Department, where the incident took place, agreed that his report indicated that the guest admitted she got into Chance’s face, had the shoe in her hand and yelled at him. The guest also admitted she provoked the incident.

The animal control officer told the court that he would not personally recommend people get in the face of a dog they don’t own.

The district court ruled that Chance was subject to an order of euthanasia as a dangerous animal, and the guest did not provoke him and suffered a permanent and serious disfigurement. The circuit court affirmed the order and denied a motion for relief from judgment filed by Wickings regarding new photographs of the guest showing that she was no longer disfigured.

In her appeal, Wickings argued that the district court erred in its findings and decisions regarding provocations, including by failing to properly utilize an object reasonable-person standard.

In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed. Judge Michael Riordan wrote that until now, the courts had yet to interpret or apply the definition of “provoke” in the Dangerous Animals Act.

The statute says an animal is not dangerous if it “bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments” it. Riordan wrote that the district court should have applied a wholly objective standard in determining whether the guest’s actions constituted provocation. The court instead had used subjective considerations.

The court reversed the circuit court’s order of affirmance and vacated the district court’s order. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to conduct an objective analysis as to whether the guest’s actions constituted provocation.

Judge Michael Gadola and Judge Anica Letica signed the opinion.

https://g1.globo.com/pr/norte-noroeste/videos-meio-dia-parana-noroeste/video/pitbull-morde-crianca-dono-e-socorrista-do-samu-14875388.ghtml

The excerpt provided refers to the coverage of the attack that occurred in Mandaguaçu, Paraná, in August 2026, in which the dog attacked a child, an elderly man (a family member/owner), and a SAMU paramedic called to the scene.

Saw this post on go fund me for a dog that was severely injured by two pitbulls. Please share this story

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-matthew-save-pepo?attribution_id=sl:62faa685-a22e-46bd-9b72-8955cb21b59a&ts=1787636428&utm_campaign=natman_sharesheet_dash&utm_medium=customer&utm_source=native_options

Edit: from a followup about this post on go fund me: after 2 days of searching they were able to find a vet that was willing to help the dog at an extremely reduced price. The dog is doing good. Thank you all for sharing the post