RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

'Blood was flying everywhere'



Toolbox

By PATRICIA MINICHIELLO Staff Writer - Published: July 2, 2009

A recent trip to the Green Mountain Plaza in Rutland Town ended in bloodshed for a Connecticut man with a second home in Ludlow.

Curtis Stewart, 64, was attacked from behind by a pit bull in front of Hannaford supermarket. The dog knocked him down, bit his legs and right shoulder and latched onto his right elbow, refusing to release.

The attack happened around 3 p.m. June 25 as Stewart walked from PETCO toward Hannaford supermarket with his 25-pound sheep dog, Jeannie, who was on a leash.

As he and Jeannie walked, Steward heard a snarling to his right. He looked over and spotted a black pit bull and another dog chained to a picnic table.

"The pit bull was straining, snarling and lunging against its chain," Stewart said. "The next thing I knew, a lady yelled, 'Oh my God look out.' I went to bend down to pick Jeannie up because I didn't know what was coming from behind and I was hit right in the middle of the back and knocked to the ground."

Stewart said with his arms around Jeannie, he tried to get up as the pit bull gnawed his left shoulder, then his right, then both his knees, finally clamping onto his right elbow, refusing to release.

"The dog was literally tearing his arm and blood was flying everywhere," a report filed with the Rutland County Sheriff's Department said.

Stewart said he began slamming the dog against a cement pillar in front of Hannaford.

"I was swinging the dog's body against the cement column and it was clamped onto my elbow and I repeatedly swung him against the column," Stewart said.

At the same time, a bystander grabbed a shopping cart and started ramming the cart against the pit bull's body. Stewart said a combination of being slammed against the cart and the cement post finally got the dog to release.

"As soon as the dog was off me, a couple of people who had been inside Hannaford — I think they were afraid to come out, understandably so — they came rushing out and grabbed me and Jeannie and rushed us into that entranceway."

"I remember just sitting there, soaked in blood and I think I probably went into shock, because I was having difficulty breathing," Stewart said.

An ambulance was called to the scene and Stewart was transported to Rutland Regional Medical Center.

Stewart sustained injury to his knees, legs and right arm and elbow, and literally had flaps of skin where the dog had torn his arm. One of the wounds took 13 stitches, the sheriff's report said.

The pit bull's owner, Richard Holman, was shopping in Hannaford supermarket at the time of the attack. Holman came out after the incident and Stewart's wife, Jill, approached him to try to get as much information as she could. She asked to see the dog's tags and the name on the tag, "Anoki," did not match the name Holman called the dog, "Bugsy."

A few minutes later, Deputy David Fox, arrived on the scene to interview Holman.

Holman, from New Jersey, was described in the sheriff's report as "homeless" and "hiking the Long Trail." He produced a New Jersey photo ID verifying his identity and also verified his pit bull had a rabies tag from a Robbinsville, N.J., veterinary clinic.

Although the name Holman used for the dog, "Bugsy," and the name on the rabies tag, "Anoki" didn't match, Sheriff Stephen Benard said he spoke to an employee of the veterinary clinic in New Jersey who described the pit bull down to his exact coloration and was confident the vaccination tags belonged to Holman's pit bull.

Holman and his pit bull were free to leave from the scene that day.

The next day, Stewart started a rabies vaccination protocol to be safe.

Stewart said after the attack, his wife got all the names of the people who helped him and he plans to thank them in the near future.

He said he hopes the laws in Vermont change, so that this type of incident doesn't happen again.

"It seems like there should be stronger, more immediate action when a dog attacks in a situation like this," he said.

"If I had been a little kid, I'd be dead. I am a pretty fit guy, and I am comfortable around dogs, I am pretty strong. It took me smashing his body repeatedly into the post and another man ramming him with a shopping cart to get him to let loose," Stewart said.

Stewart was planning to play trumpet for the Vermont Symphony Orchestra in a performance slated for 8 p.m. at Okemo's Jackson Gore in Ludlow the day after the attack. The VSO performed that night without Stewart.

As of Wednesday — the start of the new fiscal year — Rutland Town will no longer be using the sheriff's department to handle animal control calls. Instead, the Select Board recently voted to have the Rutland Town Police Department handle the calls.

patricia.minichiello@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


BOTTOM LINE---this is a fine example of Law Enforcement at its WORST! Not bad enough that proper procedures according to the laws of the Town were not followed (which is what the Town is paying the Sherrifs to do) , but to compound the matter, having the stupidity to release a dangerous animal that almost killed a man to go merrily into the forest and the Long Trail----where an attack like this could clearly result in death before any emergency personnel could respond????? Really. There has just got to be more to law enforcement than handing out tickets to "dangerous criminals" doing 10 miles over the speed limit, or---God forbid----not wearing one's seatbelt!!!! Earn your money----TRULY PROTECT AND SERVE.
-- Posted by Townguy on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, 9:10 am EST

report this comment


None none that the ATTS as a source. Maybe you missed my comment about the ATTS here in the U.S. is run by a PIT BULL breeder and has nothing to do with the TTS institute in Germany where it started.

Also, when a breed is "black listed" by trainers for guard and working dogs nationwide they might have a point and they only black list 2 breeds, pit bull mixes and chows. source"American Working Dog Association"
-- Posted by Jacob Miller on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, 7:36 am EST

report this comment


It's amazing!

Why did this issue become one of "Which breed is at blame, or best", wrather than the issue at hand?

The fact is that a person was seriously attacted by A DOG, period!

The fact is that the dog and owner were alowed to leave with NO RETRIBUTION!

And the fact is that the dog (NO SPECIAL BREED) SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELT WITH AT THE SCEEN!

Quit arguing which breed is best, or at falt, or any other history of any breed of canine and get back to the point! A human was attacked by a dog on public property unprevoked resulting in serious injury.

What is being done about THAT?
-- Posted by Personal Opinion on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, 9:01 pm EST

report this comment


Congratulations citizens of Rutland Town, you now own a vicious dog!

Being that agents for the city, the Sheriff's Office, let the man and his dog go on their merry way, the next individual that that dog attacks will, probably, sue Rutland Town for negligence in allowing a known public menace to go free and attack again.

Now the good citizens of Rutland Town have all of the financial responsibility for this dog's actions and NO authority to restrain it's behavior, because the Sheriff's Office let it prance right out the front door.

Citizens of Rutland Town, how do you like owning a vicious dog?
-- Posted by Joe Bradley on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, 1:48 pm EST

report this comment


Any dog that attacks a human for no reason like this should be put down. Unbelievable that the dog and owner were just allowed to go.
-- Posted by Dr. Gonzo on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, 8:23 am EST

report this comment


The solution to problems such as these is fairly simple.

1) Destroy the animal, which is clearly a menace to people and other animals, and can never be trusted again.

2) Fine the owner (suggested amount - $1,000 per offense).

3) Make the dog owner liable for all medical costs/property damage, etc., and utilize property confiscation if the owner is destitute.

Such a combined legislative approach sidesteps (somewhat) the contentious issue of which breeds are more or less dangerous. I suspect that if a couple of high profile cases ended up with the owner shelling out thousands of dollars to cover the damage done by their dog, breeds like Rotweillers and Pit Bulls would suddenly seem much less attractive to status-seeking individuals.

Lastly, from my own observations, mixed breeds, in general, are more stable, healthy, and suitable for pets than many pure breds, largely due to the combination of large amounts of inbreeding in pure breeds(a standard part of line-breeding techniques), as well as the goal-oriented nature of breeding, which always prioritizes a certain set of skills/traits, usually resulting in the loss of one or more desirable traits (and genetic loss). We forget that most pure-bred dogs were originally "work" dogs - bred for a purpose - and are not really happy unless performing such work. As a result, many pure breeds are less suitable as family pets.
-- Posted by Todd Fillmore on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, 8:14 am EST

report this comment


http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

"During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people
died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At
least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238
human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull type
dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of
these deaths."

Note where it says Pit Bull Type.



http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

"According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two thirds of the cases included in the study, the life threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. "

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

breaks it down by specific type of breed.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, 6:26 am EST

report this comment


The Pitbull is not to blame for any attacks, ever.

The Pitbull should be illegal to breed or own, period.

Confused?

The Pitbull was bred by Man and is not a natural breed. IT was designed by Man who decided to play with Nature to create and animal that would be suitable for fighting, hence the Pitbull. So do we blame the Pitbull for doing what Man designed it to do or do we blame man for thinking that his by product of Nature can also be a loving animal.

I blame the owner for even thinking that his Pitbull would break the inbred pattern of wanting to fight and kill. Ask the owner why he picked a Pitbull instead of a Boston Terrier or a Springer Spaniel and see if he bought it for the soul purpose of having a loving pet or if he bought with the idea it would protect him because of its reputation. If the latter, then hold the owner solely responsible for this attack was not on the owner's property and the dog had been abandoned on strange and unfamiliar turf. Do I blame the dog for being what it was breed to be? NO! Man played with nature and created a killer and there is no way that dog can be trusted near children or strangers.

Insurance Companies will not cover damage created by Pitbulls. Pitbulls and Rotweillers are responsible for more human deaths than all other species combined. To even listent to a fool try and convince anyone that these dogs are safe around children are trying to convince you that playing around Dynamite is ok as long as you don't smoke.They have been outlawed in many states for a reason, they are unpredicable and deadly. Yet! people still buy them with the dream that they will be able to change what has been intentionally bred into them. They are only dreamers to think they change a breed by command and not by generations of unbreeding.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, 6:06 am EST

report this comment


pitbull or no pitbull get bitten by your own dog and go to the hospitol and your dog will be impounded for ten days
and testes for rabies
-- Posted by jerry carleton on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, 12:59 am EST

report this comment


I agree with you on all counts. The sites I posted addressed a post claiming that most pit bulls are vicious. I refuse to discriminate against any breed, nor would I put any breed on a pedestal. The point is that, like humans, we can judge only individual dogs and how they're handled by individual people.

Important things to remember: A "pit bull" can be any one of a number of breeds. Stocky dogs with square jaws are often mistaken for pit bulls (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html). Also, media analysis shows underreporting of dog attacks by breeds other than pit bulls (or dogs misidentified as pit bulls). And they rarely make big headlines.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 10:19 pm EST

report this comment


Looking through the internet you will find numerous sites promoting pit bulls, numerous sites which try to show the positives, and numerous sites stating the negatives about pit bulls. I think it is safe to say everyone has their own opinion of the breed and even if it is different then yours it should be respected, as adults I think we are capable of acceptance of one another. I have been exposed to many wonderful and outstanding pit bulls. Some of which were simply a family pet and others which were used as therapy dogs or in law enforcement, on some level. While some people have the breed for the wrong reason, be it for dog fighting or as a status symbol, and there are many good hearted, kind indivuals who have them simply because they like them. I have also seen the mean, evil pit bull which the media reports about. No matter what the breed, if a dog attacks it does need to be taken quarantined and evaluated. This should be done for the safety of the public as well as for the well being of the dog. If a dog is being neglected or abused it has a huge impact on its attitude and how it reacts to situations. Do I think the answer is to kill all pit bulls? No, I think the guidelines for who adopts one need to be stronger so as to try and limit the number of unsavory people who have them. All dogs do deserve a chance at a happy, loving home. Generalizing isn't fair to the good people who have them or the dogs themselves. Like any breed they just want love and positive attention. Do I like the breed? Yes, I do. But I also liked Sheperds, Dovermans, and Rotties when everyone hated them. The individual who owns this dog that attacked at Hannaford's should have faced some sort of fine for having a vicious dog but he should have no matter the breed. No matter who writes about how wonderful pit bull's are or the facts they post someone or many someone's will always have a negatve comment or a put down. For those of you that own a pit bull for the right reason, thank you for providing a good home to a member of this breed. They can make wonderful companions and too often are given a bad rap. I also encourage you to not be mad or upset about opinions from people who don't like the breed. It can be disapointing I know but continue with making sure your pit bull is setting the positive example we wish they all did.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 4:29 pm EST

report this comment


How BDL (Breed Discriminatory Legislation) Hurts Everyone:

"Sioux City, IA, councilman defends his Labrador for biting a neighbor--but wants all pit bulls banned from the community."

http://network.bestfriends.org/stopbsl/news/35162.html
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 4:21 pm EST

report this comment


http://www.savingamericasdog.com

"Dogs identified as pit bulls include more than 20 breeds and an ever-increasing group of mixed-breed dogs. Because of this, short-haired muscular mutts, brindle dogs, and any dog someone thinks is a pit bull is at risk in America today.

'Profiling' dogs in this way implies a simple solution that does not address the real problem. The problem isn't with a particular breed, but with uninformed or careless owners.

"Best Friends Animal Society is working throughout the country to help pit bulls, who are battling everything from media-driven bad reputation to legislation designed to bring about their extinction. Best Friends hopes to end discrimination against all dogs. Dogs are individuals and should be treated as such.

"More details about the campaign are available in the Pit Bulls: Saving America's Dog Fact Sheet:

http://www.savingamericasdog.com/downloads.pitbulls_factsheet.pdf "
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 9:37 am EST

report this comment


http://www.dontbullymybreed.org

"According to the American Canine Temperament Testing Association, 82.5% of the American Pit Bull Terriers that took the temperament test passed, compared with a 77% passing rate for all breeds on average. In the test a dog is placed in a series of confrontational situations. The first sign of aggression or panic is a failure of the test. Pit Bulls have achieved the fourth highest passing rate of all 122 breeds tested."
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 9:24 am EST

report this comment


http://www.dontbullymybreed.org/
"According to the American Canine Temperament Testing Association, 82.5%of the American Pit Bull Terriers that took the temperament test passed, compared to a 77% passing rate for all breeds on average. In the test a dog is placed in a series of confrontational situations. The first sign of aggression or panic is a failure of the test. Pit Bulls have achieved the fourth highest passing rate of all 122 breeds tested."
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, 9:08 am EST

report this comment


The majority of pit bulls in the US are dangerous. They have been inbreed and mostly for fighting. My family has been in the dog breeding business for 4 generations(specializing in show and hunting breeds) and most of the breeders of pit bulls I have met are nothing but puppy mill'rs. A "pure" bred pit bull with papers doc'ing 4 generations will run around $1500 . 97% of the available pitbulls in this country cross breeds and inbred and breeders have a hard enough time telling you who the mom was.

I like "none none"'s cut n'paste of the "pitbullawareness.com" defense of the breed and the citation from the ATTS website. Hey, did it ever come to mind that both websites are maintained by the same company?

Also, that ATTS is only licensed in Missouri but are located in Texas and funny enough, the same town as one of the largest breeders of pit bulls in North America?
Is it just a coincidence???????????

It is kind of like "Ice House" beer is made by the Plank Road Brewery Co., which it's address is the back door to the Miller Brewing Co. located on Plank Road.???!

Great Citation!!!!!!! Better check your sources again.

If they are sooo friendly, why does the American Dog Owners Association( largest dog owners group in the U.S.) recognizes the breed as "dangerous"?

Why did 13 countries in the world outlaw the ownership of the breed, including Australia and the U.K.

Oh, and the American Working Dog Association, the associationfor K-9 patrol for police and military, has advisories out against the use of pitbulls as working dogs.."because the breed is unstable and prone to uncontrollable/predictable bitings."
-- Posted by Jacob Miller on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 1:24 pm EST

report this comment


The response by the RCSO is appauling. What a waste of tax payers dollars!!! Once a gain, another fleecing fo the taxpayers all be it $9000.00. The Dog should have been quarintined!! Once again, the S.O. making decisions regarding vicious animals when they haven't a clue!

TOWN OF RUTLAND

DOG ORDINANCE



Section 1. Statutory authority



Pursuant to 20 V.S.A. § 3549, 24 V.S.A. § 2291(10) and 24 V.S.A. § 1971 the following ordinance is promulgated in order to regulate the keeping of dogs in the Town of Rutland. This ordinance is designated as a civil ordinance pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 1971(b).

Dog Creating a Nuisance: A dog which causes damage to personal property, harasses a pedestrian, bicyclist or other passer-by, obstructs traffic, barks excessively, or repeatedly scatters refuse, or otherwise becomes a nuisance or creates a disturbance.


Dog Running at Large: A dog which is not on the property of its owner or keeper and is not (1) on a leash, or (2) on or within a vehicle, or (3) clearly under the verbal command of its owner or keeper, or (4) engaged in hunting with its owner or keeper.

Issuing Municipal Official: A constable of the Town of Rutland, the town attorney, town grand juror, poundkeeper and any other person designated by the Board of Selectmen to issue and pursue before the Traffic and Municipal Ordinance Bureau a municipal complaint to enforce this ordinance.

Vicious Dog: A dog which causes reasonable fear of bodily injury by attacking or threatening to attack any domestic animal or any person, except a person who is in the act of committing unlawful (criminal) trespass or other criminal act upon the private property or person of the owner or keeper of the dog.

Section 4. Nuisances prohibited


An owner or keeper shall not permit a dog to create a nuisance as defined in Section 2(B).




Section 5. Running at large prohibited


An owner or keeper shall not allow a dog to run at large within the limits of the Town of Rutland as defined in Section 2(C).



Section 6. Vicious dogs prohibited


A person shall not own or keep a vicious dog as defined in Section 2(I), except upon such terms and conditions as ordered by the Board of Selectmen.

Section 8. Complaint procedure; hearing


(A) A person who claims that a dog is a vicious dog or is a dog creating a nuisance may file a written complaint with the Board of Selectmen. The complaint shall contain the name, address and telephone number of the complainant, the time, date and place of each occurrence relied upon in support of the claim, an identification of the domestic animal threatened or attacked, the name and address of any victim or victims and any other facts which may assist the Board of Selectmen in conducting the investigation required by Subsection B of this section.


(B) The Board of Selectmen, upon receiving the complaint, shall investigate the charges and hold a hearing on the matter. The Selectmen may also hold such a hearing on their own motion, without receiving a complaint, if they have reason to believe a dog is vicious or is creating a nuisance. If the owner or keeper of the dog which is the subject of the hearing can be ascertained, the owner or keeper shall be provided with a written notice of the time, date and place of hearing and the facts of the complaint.


(C) Following the hearing, the Board of Selectmen shall issue a determination as to whether the dog is a vicious dog as defined in Section 2(I) or is a dog creating a nuisance as defined in Section 2(B). Upon so finding, the Selectmen may issue an order for the protection of persons, domestic animals, and/or property as the facts and circumstances of the case may require; including, without limitation, that the dog be muzzled, chained, confined or disposed of in a humane way. If the owner or keeper of the dog can be ascertained, the order shall be sent to the owner or keeper by certified mail, return receipt requested.


(D) Nothing contained in Section 8 shall require proceedings before or an order from the Board of Selectmen as a precondition to enforcement of this Ordinance by an issuing municipal official pursuant to Sections 10 through 14 (inclusive) of this Ordinance.


Section 9. Failure to comply


A violation of or failure to comply with an order of the Board of Selectmen issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall itself constitute a violation of this Ordinance.


Section 10. Impoundment


(A) Where an issuing municipal official finds a dog to be in violation of this Ordinance or of an order of the Selectmen, the issuing municipal official may impound the dog at the Town pound and/or may issue to the owner or keeper of the dog a municipal complaint pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 1977.


(B) Upon the filing of a complaint under Section 8(A), an issuing municipal official may impound a dog which is claimed to be a vicious dog pending a determination of the Board of Selectmen pursuant to Section 8(C).


Section 11. Reasonable methods for capture authorized


An issuing municipal official may use all reasonable methods, including the use of tranquilizing and marking apparatus, for catching and impounding dogs claimed to be vicious pursuant to Section 8(A) or found to be in violation of this Ordinance or of an order of the Selectmen.

The above excerpts are from the Rutland Town Code.
-- Posted by Russell Goodrich on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 11:57 am EST

report this comment


I don't understand the cocksure attitude that a dog's temperment is all up to its owner. I'm not a biologist, but aren't these traits of aggression and viciousness matters of DNA, and having little to do with owners?

Someone below posted a numbered list of stats-- did that list include the number of known aggressive breeds turning on their owners? Did it include the number of fatalities per year by such dogs?

While it may be true that all dogs can turn vicious (like all people), I am pretty sure there is yet a biological distinction to be made. And no matter of presumption on the part of such a dog's owner will change that DNA.
..
-- Posted by mark on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 1:22 am EST

report this comment


It was lucky for the dog as well as Holman that it was not some one like myself that was attacked! I learned long ago that if you are attacked by a dog, attack back. I am not a small or totaly unfit person. After the dog stopped breathing I would have gone for Holman next!

As some one else stated the animal should not have been in public and should have been put down imediatly! What if it were a child the dog got?

Prosecute the owner!
-- Posted by Personal Opinion on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 11:25 pm EST

report this comment


it dosent matter if its a chawawa, jack russle, or a pitbull. if a dog bites somebody it HAS TO BE HELD FOR 10 DAYS AT THE R.C.H.S. and observed for any health issues. what happened here is somebody dropped the ball. policies and procedures were not followed. and I hope that someone elts dosent end up paying for the mistakes that were done.
-- Posted by John Smith on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 10:58 pm EST

report this comment


Hiking the Long Trail with pit bull? He (in)conveniently stops off the Trail to go to Hannaford? YGTBKM
-- Posted by Wendy Wilton on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 8:45 pm EST

report this comment


It is the owners fault, not the dogs'. If you don't train an animal, if you don't keep it well fed and cared for, if you don't teach it to have respect for humans and other animals, you should not have a dog.

Then again, if you substitute the word "child" for "dog" the same concept applies...
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 6:31 pm EST

report this comment


I take my dog out for walks on a leash and have twice been attacked by different German Shepards. I have since started to carry a 2 ft. [billy] club to fend off attacking dogs and if that fails I am also carrying a snub nose .357.
-- Posted by Billy Bob Rubarle on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 6:21 pm EST

report this comment


How horrible. I'm glad Mr. Stewart will be okay and I love that he saved his dog Jennie.

I also think it's horrible that the dog who attacked was left chained and unattended. A ridiculous number of dog attacks happen with dogs who are unneutered males AND chained. As usual, it's a human's irresponsibility that led to this dog being in a situation where he would attack.

I don't understand why the dog's owner wasn't made to take some responsibility. I dearly hope no one else is hurt when he once again leaves his dog in a position to harm others.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 5:39 pm EST

report this comment


First of all let me begin by saying that as much of a dog lover that I am, I believe this dog should have been put down. If something that simple causes that dog to go ballistic he is a danger to society.
I appreciate the fact post by None None. We have a Pit Bull Terrier mix. He is by far the most lovable dog I have ever known. We are dog lovers and this dog fits perfectly into our family. I did A LOT of research before we got our dog. I read over and over again how the Pit Bull scores higher in temperament tests than even a Golden Retriever. We had a lot of people tell us not to get a pit bull, and most of those people now adore our dog and understand why we love him as much as we do. I understand the history behind the Pit Bull breed but people need to remember, any dog can be "vicious", it's all about the way they are trained and how they are socialized.
-- Posted by S Smith on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 2:06 pm EST

report this comment


well none none with the fancy facts, obviously there aren't any palm trees in Vermont, Second, Pitt bulls are thought to come from the Celts and were used for battle, and guarding as well as for herding bull, and the traits for herding bull were used in the rise of extremely bloody sports such as bull and bear baiting Not to mention they are the choice breed in dog fighting circles.

Nice try, twisting facts to make it look like a poor innocent dog, if that was the case why don't you see lassie in the ring fighting this dog?


Guess what guy, That 64 year old man could have been killed because of that piece of **** pit bull and you should be ashamed of yourself for promoting a violent deadly animal like it was a golden retriever.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 1:52 pm EST

report this comment


The Sheriff was called to a complaint about FiFi taking a dump on the neighbors lawn...that was a higher priority
-- Posted by My Comment on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 11:49 am EST

report this comment


Fact 1: According to the American Canine Temperment Testing Association, 82.5% of the American Pit Bull Terriers that took the test passed, compared to a 77% passing rate for all brreds on average. The first sign of agression or panic is a failure of the test. Pit Bulls have achieved the fourth highest passing rate of the 122 breeds tested.

2. Petey from the 'Little Rascals' was a Pit Bull

3. Helen Keller owned a Pit Bull

4. The American Pit Bull terrier was the most popular family dog during the first part of the 20th century.

5. Approximately 150 people are killed by falling coconuts. You are 60 times more likely to be killed by a Palm Tree then a Pit Bull.

6. Each year 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub then a Pit Bull.

7. It is estimated that for every Pit Bull that kills there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T.

8. The Pit Bull was originaly used to help farmers bring bulls in for breeding, castration, or slaughter. The dog would PROTECT the farmer by subduing the bull.

9. Pit Bulls do not have a locking jaw.

Why didn't None None put their name down? Probably for the same reason I am not. For fear of people who hate the breed why try and do something to harm their dog simply because it is a Pit Bull. I try time & time again to educate people and show them my dogs are good dogs but no one listens. I have faced so much hate because of the breed of dogs I own. I have been told my dogs and I should both be killed. I have been called a drug dealer, a thief, a murderer. I am a person who loves their dogs. I have done nothing illegal. My dogs are always on a leash when in public. I never let them go near other dogs unless the other dogs owner is confortable with it. I choose not to write my name probably for the same reason 'None None' didn't, we live in worry a Pit Bull hater or an uneducated individual will harm our dogs. There are people who have them for the 'status' but their are just as many who have them because they love them.

The United Kennel Club ahs an outstanding discription of the breed
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 9:54 am EST

report this comment


Anybody up for a nice hunting trip on the Long Trail?
-- Posted by Joe Kerswile on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 9:20 am EST

report this comment


KILL THE DOG!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- Posted by m e on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 8:57 am EST

report this comment


This dog should have been put down. No question about it. It has the taste of blood and will want it more. Maybe he will turn on his owner and take care of him. It was probably the owner that made the dog mean. Dogs learn to be mean, while pitbulls are a high risk dog, I have seen many that are very lovable and would never hurt a flee, but I wouldn't want to go after their owner. Most dogs will defend their owners. This dog should be a dead dog. It wasn't right to let him leave with his owner. Shame on you Rutland Sherrif's Dept. Yes if this was a child, it would have been a worse incident.
-- Posted by ch mott on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 8:46 am EST

report this comment


I'm quite surprised that the dog was not placed in quarantee. It is one thing to allow the dog to go home with the owner if the owner is local and the dog can be located for follow up. But when it and it's owner are transient how do you conduct any follow up investigation if it is needed.

Maybe I missed it in the story, But was the owner charged for having a vicious dog and for not controlling his pet? Isn't there something a little strange about calling the dog with a name other than the name on his tags?

How does the victim pursue any claim that he may have for damages against the dog owner.

It is true that any dog can be vicious and dangerous, however large dogs because of their size are especially dangerous. Breeds like pit bulls, dobermans, shepards etc., because of the traits that were bred into them, must be watched even more closely.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 7:07 am EST

report this comment


this is the single most chilling quote in this article
"If I had been a little kid, I'd be dead. ...."
-- Posted by 1087 None on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 6:49 am EST

report this comment


Here is a promise I make to all owners of vicious dog breeds:

If your dog attacks me or a member of my family in any degree, I will sue you for every penny you ever THINK you will earn in the remainder of your life. I will leave no legal stone unturned until I OWN you.

That is not a threat. Threats are not always carried out. This is a promise.

Why you think it is remotely sensible to own a dog that could literally be the cause of your undoing is beyond me, but still, I thought I'd give you a heartfelt heads-up.

..
-- Posted by mark on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 1:31 am EST

report this comment


"Most Pit Bulls are owned by trash. Social degenerates see these dogs as a status symbol the same way people like myself see a BMW. These wannabe gangster ignorant lowlife trash have neither the intelligence nor the comprehension of reprocussions required to own these dogs. ".... exactly. you just proved none none's point. its the owner not the dog! If you are going to train a dog to act in that manner or if your dog is not socialized you should not leave them unattended in public or even bring them in public.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 10:13 pm EST

report this comment


well what the sheriff did here shows how valuable their service is to victims.
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 7:20 pm EST

report this comment


It would be interesting to know just what the sheriff's department rules are in cases like this. Some times I wonder if we should be spending money on Sheriffs. Most are elderly semi retired, used for serving summons or to direct traffic around work sites. i question if they really should be allowed to carry a lethal weapon Generally they are not trained in the real dangerous work of law enforcement as are city police and state troopers.
-- Posted by Rob McWaters on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 7:17 pm EST

report this comment


None None.... First of all please use a name if you want to be taken seriously. The Herald does not publish editorials without a name attached. These comment forums should be shown the same respect.

You may be the exception to the Pit Bull rule but we'll never know for sure I guess. Here are my thoughts on the Pit Bull breed. Call them stereotypes if you will but there is a reason why stereotypes exist... because enough of a group fits the description. But that's a topic for another day.

1. Pit Bulls were bred for the sole purpose of killing each other for human entertainment. Therefore we know that they are predisposed to extreme violence.

2. Most Pit Bulls are owned by trash. Social degenerates see these dogs as a status symbol the same way people like myself see a BMW. These wannabe gangster ignorant lowlife trash have neither the intelligence nor the comprehension of reprocussions required to own these dogs.

3. See argument number 2 again. And please understand that the vast majority of dog attacks are by Pit Bulls, Pit Bull mixes, Rottweilers, Dobermans, and Chows. Your examples of a Boxer might happen in a very rare case but a Golden Retriever?? Wake the F up!

In closing many European countries as well as Australia have already taken legal measures to ban this breed. The following equation stand true in my mind.

Pit Bull Dirtbag = Potential Vicious Dog Attack.
-- Posted by Dan Anderson on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 5:51 pm EST

report this comment


Law enforcement officers have little to no interest in dealing with animal cases. It was easier for the deputy to let the dog and owner leave than it would have been for him to have the dog impounded as he should have. This dog will attack again, not because of his breed, but because of his temperament. This deputy has failed to protect the public from a vicious dog that may maime or kill his next victim.
-- Posted by S B on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 5:42 pm EST

report this comment


"Had I been there, and I am quite often, there would have been one less pit bull to worry about" What if the dog that attacked had been a Golden Retriever or a Boxer, would there have been "one less Golden Retriever to worry about"? Why couldn't the statement have been 'One less vicious dog whose owner didn't train it properly to worry about'? Your statement implies it is the breed that is the problem. It encourages the stereotype that all 'Pit Bulls' are bad and are to be concerned about. There are many wonderful 'Pit Bull' type dogs in the world that are doing wonderful things. Some are therapy dogs others are search and rescue dogs. Please don't generalize, it's not right to assume all 'Pit Bull's' would do this. There's an expression "Punish the deed not the breed". I agree that the 'owner' should not have been able to just walk away with his dog. An individual should be held responsible for the actions of their 'pet'. As a pet owner we are responsible for not only caring and providing for the animal but training it and teaching it proper socialization. A vicious dog, of any breed, as well as the owner, should not be allowed to just walk away after an attack. I have 2 'Pit Bull' mixes. I have worked extremely hard to train them properly as well as make sure they can 'socialize' with people and other dogs. I have worked very hard to make sure they represent the breed in a positive light and take pride in how well they behave in public and at home. I know many people have a negtive image of the breed because of all the negative publicity they receive but as a 'parent' of two I work twice as hard to make sure my 'kids' act just like any other dog. I don't want people to read this article and feel the attack happened just because the dog was a 'Pit Bull'. It happened because the owner did not do his job and did not teach and socializie the animal. Any dog can be bad just as any dog can be bad. This is just my opinion and I respect your right not to agree with me.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 3:35 pm EST

report this comment


I'm dumbfounded the dog wasn't impounded or seized after such a vicious attack. I can't believe no one in Hannaford's with all that security and I assume camera's around their entrances didn't catch this or try to do something to help. Where's their security? It was left to a brave passerby to try to intercede. it's terrifying to think it could happen to anyone, a child, a more fragile elderly or anyone of us. Thank God, Mr. Stewart was able to walk away, but the sherrif's bungle another one. How can anyone press charges, the owner of this killer dog is hiking the Long Trail and you mean to tell me Rutland Town or the State has no laws to deal with this kind of attack by immediate seisure of the animal in question.
-- Posted by Curious gt on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 1:22 pm EST

report this comment


Had I been there, and I am quite often, there would have been one less pit bull to worry about. Guaranteed.
-- Posted by Joe Kerswile on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 12:38 pm EST

report this comment


I'm completely disgusted that this jerk and his jerk dog were allowed to leave the scene after this vicious attack. That dog should have been seized by the police, tested for rabies, and slated to be destroyed. How incompetent can the Sheriffs be to let this guy go? He is homeless, a drifter... They will never be able to track this guy down again. Are you kidding me??? This has lawsuit written all over it. people need to be held accountable for their actions. This Holman character needs to be held accountable and the Sheriff's office needs to be held accountable for their apathy towards a vicious dog attack. BOOO! to the Sheriff's Department you guys really stunk this one up good!
-- Posted by Dan Anderson on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 12:33 pm EST

report this comment


What an awful thing to happen and because some retard didn't train his dog and brought him into town and left him unattended it will give another black eye to a breed that doesn't need any more bad press. An untrained dog, much less one left unattended, is a bad situation.
Dogs can be trained to be mean or trained to respect others. Just watch "The Dog Whisperer" he can train almost any dog that other people could not control. Don't blame the dog for the short-comings of the owner!
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 12:24 pm EST

report this comment


all this comment is correct but the "HOMELESS" man is off somewhere on the long trail looking for another person for the dog to attack? State police need to locate this man and deal correctly with the dog.What was David Fox,the deputy doing there? He surely was not protecting the public.
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 12:23 pm EST

report this comment


WHAT????? They were allowed to leave? That dog should have been impounded--and the owner held on charges. What were they thinking by letting them go!?! This whole think reeks of mishandling.
-- Posted by Justice None on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 12:22 pm EST

report this comment


Too bad no one had a gun to splatter that dog's brains all over the side walk. That man should be charged with a felony assault or attempted manslaughter.

That dog needs to be put down.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 11:51 am EST

report this comment


the 1970's incident was in JC, KS
-- Posted by chere tournet on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 10:43 am EST

report this comment


These situations are going to continue until a few people are killed. When my husband was in the service, we lived in Junction City, Kansas. It was difficult to walk anywhere with our children as there were loose dogs all about. I wrote a letter to the editor, requesting stricter pet control. This was in the early 1970's. A few years ago, national headlines reported that two brothers were attacked by a neighbor's dog, after getting off of their school bus. The older brother managed to push his younger brother into a tree - sacrificing his life. I remember how I felt, reading the article - how no one had listened and/or cared for all those years.
The news stated that the boys' parents HAD gone to the authorities for assistance but nothing was done.
What struck me the most about this incident in Rutland was that another shopper helped fight off the dog! That is/was unbelievably courageous.
Bottom line is that pets and shopping areas don't always mesh.
-- Posted by chere tournet on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 10:41 am EST

report this comment


That's incredibly horrible...Mr. Holman should not have been allowed to take his vicious dog..The animal should have been destroyed imediatly. I am an animal lover and would never want a pet destroyed. But, this "pet" almost killed a man! Lucklily Mr. Stewart is fit and strong and could handle the dog. If that were an elder person or a child, what would've happened? Talk about a good reason to use a taser.
-- Posted by SB None on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 9:18 am EST

report this comment


the pit bull was allowed to leave with his owner?
that dog should have been taken by animal control people and destroyed.A dog like that will attack again and one wonders if this was not the first time he attacked someone?
I'm sure the dogs owner will compensate the victim.
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 8:55 am EST

report this comment


What a scary and horrible incident. Kudos to the brave people who were there to help, like the man who rammed the dog with the shopping cart. I don't know if the situation would have turned out the same without his help. Glad you and Jeannie are ok Mr Stewart.
-- Posted by sam palumbo on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 8:30 am EST

report this comment


Mr. Stewart I am glad you are okay and I am glad that someone at least had the ability to help you.
I hope Jeannie and you are okay
-- Posted by Michelle Burnett on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 6:19 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout