> Giving permission for a person to stroke your dog is not giving a person permission to try and snog it.

As we often have people staying with us, from experience we were always concerned about small children & used to stipulate a minimum age. Unfortunately as we have found thoughtlessness & ignorance is not related to age, had a German couple staying who admitted they weren't dog people but always had something to say to them & one morning asked if they could stroke them - they are kept behind child gates - said yes & in the few seconds I'd turned away he had opened Lucas's mouth & was inspecting his teeth!!!! Now no one unless I really know them is allowed to touch them.

> How have you come to that conclusion?  The owner, in this instance, did not warn the woman.

I really don't think we can expect the general public to know that if they talk friendly to a dog, chuck it under the chin and the owner says nothing to the contrary that the dog will not be friendly in return.
When we know differently about our dog, or dogs in general if you like, as the person responsible for that animal, it is up to us to ensure their safety.>

I've come to that conclusion because everyone else who has a reasonable method of thinking has.

The owner of the dog is partly to blame because he didn't warn the woman - and the woman herself is partly to blame because she shouldn't have been shoving her face in the dogs face.

It's really that simple.

How many times have we all said the same thing regarding other news stories about dogs biting?  It's about education.  Any sensible person would NOT stick their face into a dogs face.  It's common sense. 

> How many times have we all said the same thing regarding other news stories about dogs biting? 

I don't know. I am pretty sure I have never blamed the victim.

One of the posters that I have the greatest respect for here has (perhaps unintentionally) proven that the owner is at fault by giving examples of how she handles and allows interactions with her mastiff. This dog is a similar breed and was definitely not protected in the same way by his owner.

> I don't know. I am pretty sure I have never blamed the victim.>

Gosh doesn't that make me look heartless?  Please keep what I typed in context Stooge.  I said it's about common sense and education, many, many of us have said that previously.  Not just about the GP, but about responsible ownership too.

But, if in this instance 'the blame is on the victim', then so be it. 

As I said, I believe that responsibility here is 50/50 here in this case.  The owner of the dog is responsible too.  I've said that all along.  No-one is right, no-one is wrong -  it's just an opinion.

However, hopefully the majority of people who watch that clip will get something out of it - i.e.  don't put your face in a strange dogs face, because there is a chance you might just get something you didn't expect.

> Gosh doesn't that make me look heartless?

I don't know what is in your heart and would not say that.  I have merely responded to what I took to be your suggestion that we have all agree it was the victims fault in the past as I would wish to exclude myself from that.

> It's about education.  Any sensible person would NOT stick their face into a dogs face.  It's common sense

I agree.
Even more shocking - the woman owns a dog herself. (according to this blog)

>> Gosh doesn't that make me look heartless?<br />I don't know what is in your heart and would not say that.  I have merely responded to what I took to be your suggestion that we have all agree it was the victims fault in the past as I would wish to exclude myself from that.>

It was a rhetorical question.

This is what I said... suggested, whatever you want to call it...  I'm afraid you have read 'what I took to be your suggestion' incorrectly :)

>I said it's about common sense and education, many, many of us have said that previously.>

NOT that we all agree it was the victims fault. 

And never the twain shall meet :)

Mastifflover, that does make me wonder what on earth the news reporter was thinking, it really does.

>We know that because, by the very nature of this board, we are all familiar with dogs.  Not everybody is.

Surely common sense dictates that if youre not familiar with something you treat it with caution and due respect?

>The owner, in this instance, did not warn the woman.

Do we know what was said before the filming began?

> Do we know what was said before the filming began?

I meant he did not advise her as she fondled the dog, he just tightened his grip.

> I meant he did not advise her as she fondled the dog, he just tightened his grip.

Which made it quite obvious that he and the dog were unhappy with what she was doing, the dog probably reacted to it's own discomfort and probably to the vibes it was getting from thr handler.

To some extent breed traits will tell here, there are many reactive types who would have nipped a lot sooner (many terriers and collies I have met).

We all know that our feelings travel down the lead.  A guarding breed is certainly going to react to perceived threat to itself and owner.

It has been called an attack, it wasn't, it was a warning nip (unfortunately the dog was large), such as many many dogs have given people or other dogs getting into their faces, usually designed to barely make contact as the other dog would back off before any contact, peoples reactions are not as fast as a dogs. 

We don't now what damage was done by the nip as of course a persons face is quite vulnerable.

I don't disagree with anyones explanation of what happened just who was responsible for allowing it.

>just who was responsible for allowing it.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other. The presenter did a stupid thing to a dog whose owner had allowed it to be taken too far out of its comfort zone so that it reacted instinctively, overriding its training.

> Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

So people keep saying :) I don't think we will ever agree on this :)
I'm sticking to owners taking responsibility for their dogs. 

Everyone has to take responsibility for their own actions too.

> I'm sticking to owners taking responsibility for their dogs.&nbsp;

British law allows for blame to be apportioned ie both the victim and the offender share responsibility

> British law allows for blame to be apportioned ie both the victim and the offender share responsibility

True, but the woman was not hurting the dog and the owner was present.  She, clearly, did not have an understanding of the dogs nature or she would not have gone anywhere near it.  I certainly wouldn't :)

>but the woman was not hurting the dog and the owner was present.

The woman was doing something the dog found unpleasant; luckily the dog 'pulled its punch' because if it had really meant to hurt her she'd had no face left.

> because if it had really meant to hurt her she'd had no face left.

Oh definately.

I agree Stooge that our dogs are our responsibilty and it is up to upto stop people doing things that could result in a incident like this.

> British law allows for blame to be apportioned ie both the victim and the offender share responsibility
> True, but the woman was not hurting the dog

But that still does not make her completely blameless.

> She, clearly, did not have an understanding of the dogs nature or she would not have gone anywhere near it.&nbsp;

But just because she lacked the comprehension of canine behaviour it still does not render her blameless.

> But just because she lacked the comprehension of canine behaviour it still does not render her blameless.

Yes, it does.  Why should the public train themselves up to deal with dogs like this one? 
Society would just say forget it just don't let people keep dogs, or only on a lead and muzzled.

> Yes, it does.&nbsp; Why should the public train themselves up to deal with dogs like this one?&nbsp;
> Society would just say forget it just don't let people keep dogs, or only on a lead and muzzled

I am not saying she should have "trained herself up" to deal with dogs. What I am saying is she should simply have erred on the side of caution as should anyone when dealing with a living creature. I am no expert in dealing with say cattle so if I walk across a field with cattle in it am I to be absolved of all responsibilty if those cattle charged me? 

I havent read all the comments, but this happened on live tv? or at least  filming, i imagine if the owner wasnt happy with ther doing that it would have been quite awkward to tell her not to when being filmed.

2 of my dogs would probably have reacted in a similar way, they are not 'other people' dogs and I would not expect them to tolerate what this presenter did to that dog, though mine would have probably been more meaningful in their warnings first.

I feel sorry for the dog getting the blame, the owner should not have put him in that situation, hopefully he will learn from his mistake (and the presenter too).

> I feel sorry for the dog getting the blame, the owner should not have put him in that situation, hopefully he will learn from his mistake (and the presenter too).

We can but hope so lol

> 2 of my dogs would probably have reacted in a similar way, they are not 'other people' dogs and I would not expect them to tolerate what this presenter did to that dog, though mine would have probably been more meaningful in their warnings first.
>
>

One of mine would have reacted in the same way as well. The owner was certainly wrong in allowing his dog to be put under such stress. I would have never allowed her to get so close and personal with my lad.

> Yes, it does.&nbsp; Why should the public train themselves up to deal with dogs like this one?&nbsp;

Why are dogs any different to any other animal?  They are animals, and as such cannot think or understand as a person would.

My OH has got us some Ferrets, I am very careful not to get them close to my face when I Handle them and carefully watch for any negative reactions that mean I need to back of.

Now if that presenter had gone 'ooh look how cute' and stuck her face in theirs and got bitten who would be to blame.

> Now if that presenter had gone 'ooh look how cute' and stuck her face in theirs and got bitten who would be to blame.

The owner for not warning her not to or possibly her employer for not researching the animal and identifying the risk. 

Reading the above comments one word that springs to mind that is used a lot when cases come to court it is Negligence Yes there are all sorts of laws in place to protect people, but people are expected to take reasonable steps to protect themselves.
As for health and safety laws to protect people at work, from family members who work in the construction industry, they tell me that these days a lot of it is used just to obtain insurance cover, companies tick the right boxes on a form, but then because everything these days is always about speed, cut corners and don't adhere to safety measures, hence why there is so many accidents on building sites.
But getting back to this case I feel that a good lawyer would be able to claim that woman was Negligent in putting her face so close to an animal she did not know.

Think the two things that worry me most reading this thread is the holier than thou attitude of some and the idea that a well trained dog would never behave like this what ever the circumstances, something I imagine the owner of that dog felt but the majority of us know is just not the case.

Forget the dog and look at the situation of the two humans involved. The dog owner was in a TV studio, probable never been in one before, would have been rushed into the green room powdered down and if he was lucky his story would have been gone through with him by someone, he would have been told how to tell which camera was on him and marched off to the studio.

The journalist would be totally at home in her place of work.

Now which one do you think would and should have been able to assess the situation, well of course the person in charge, the presenter, what does the handler do tell her to back off in front of the TV camera, would take a huge amount of nerve, I would imagine he sat there hoping and waiting for the ordeal to end.

> Now which one do you think would and should have been able to assess the situation, well of course the person in charge, the presenter, what does the handler do tell her to back off in front of the TV camera, would take a huge amount of nerve, I would imagine he sat there hoping and waiting for the ordeal to end.

I hope your holier than thou insult was not directed to me.  I have not said that a well trained dog would never behave like this but I do think some are far more likely to and we all have a pretty good idea how likely our own dogs are likely to react, this has also been noted by other posters, and I believe he did by his reactions.
The presenter clearly did not realise there was a situation to take charge of.  The only one with the knowledge in that situation was the owner.

>> But just because she lacked the comprehension of canine behaviour it still does not render her blameless
>Yes, it does.  Why should the public train themselves up to deal with dogs like this one?

If the owner had told her that it was all right to put her face right up to the dog whilst smooching his dewlaps then the oener would have been at fault. However an adult, comfortable and confident in her own environment, chose to do this, without asking permission - that puts the onus squarely on her.

'The public' (and that's all of us too) have a responsibility to others - we can't just do what we feel like doing without accepting the consequences. It can be a real b*gger being a grown-up, not a child!

You honestly think she did that understanding she was in danger?  He did.

>'The public' (and that's all of us too) have a responsibility to others

Yes! :)

>You honestly think she did that understanding she was in danger?

Assuming she was intelligent enough to realise that dogs have teeth, then yes.

Yes - the presenter also had a responsibility not to put herself in harm's way; she had a responsibility for the wellbeing of the dog's owner and the dog.

>Assuming she was intelligent enough to realise that dogs have teeth, then yes.

Most dogs have teeth :).  You really think she knew he was likely to use them?

> Yes - the presenter also had a responsibility not to put herself in harm's way; she had a responsibility for the wellbeing of the dog's owner and the dog.

Not quite following that.  Even if the dog had turned to bite the owner I would still say the owner was responsible for not warning her of the danger.

Strikes me as that we have different rules for dogs body space than what we would all like as humans...

A little off the topic but bear with it.....

Now I snowboard and there is an equitte to it, people who fly past you and do not give you enough space to move are asked to leave the piste!!! Simple as!! Get into someone's body space DANGEROUSLY SO!!! And you will be removed!! Doesn't happen often but most skiers/boarders understand it's a dangerous sport, people will move UNPREDICTABLY!! So take caution!! Bump someone badly you could potentially kill them. 

Awareness of personal space to all things is needed, and more so when there is an unpredictable element. Point being we expect far too much from animals these days. They're just to bear with it when humans do stuuupid things. Far too much of a lack of personal responsbility.

If the dog had never bitten before how would the owner know ?
In the 1950's when I was a small child I was bitten on the arm by a neighbours dog. My parents view was it was my own fault as I had approached the dog. I had always been taught not to approach dogs without permission and not to put my face near them.
In those days the odd bite was considered to be six of one and hald a dozen of the other, and you were more likely to get a clip round your ear for stupidity from your parents rather than sympathy.
These days we live in a compensation culture when everyone else is to blame, or should have second sight and know the outcome of any situation.
Yes the owner has to take some responsibility for not being able to read his dogs body language, but anybody who shoves their face in a strange dogs face is pretty stupid !!!
If somebody walks behind a horse and gets kicked even if the horse had never kicked out before, is the owner of the horse responsible or the person who got to close and was in the line of fire ??

>Most dogs have teeth :-).  You really think she knew he was likely to use them?

I would have thought so, assuming she isn't mentally 'challenged'.

> If the dog had never bitten before how would the owner know ?
>

He has bought a breed that is banned in some places so a simple risk assessment rather points to possible danger. 
He was gripping the collar that suggested he knew there was a risk.

> assuming she isn't mentally 'challenged'.

I think she must have been if she knew he was likely to bite and yet did that :)

This is part of the problem with the 'furkid' attitude, believing that animals are like children in furry coats, and then being horrified when they behave in a way that's normal to their species.

An adult human knows that dogs can bark or bite, cats can hiss, scratch or bite, rabbits can scratch or bite, horses can bite or kick ...

It does amaze me how people seem to think dogs should act like robots and never step out of line.  They are an animal with their own mind however much effort we have put into their training.  For me personally I think that after the ordeal the dog had gone through previously I would not be sticking him on a stage with strange equipment and people...strange because how does a dog know what a camera etc is and also how often do dogs really come into contact with so many people they do not know in such a short space of time...it is a lot to take on and then the silly woman to quite forcefully be rubbing, roughly stroking and then sticking her face into the poor dogs face...talk about acting in a threatening way to him.  I feel sorry that this dog has been put into this situation and I hope he doesn't get destroyed for acting like a dog. 

As others have said, would a horse be destroyed if it kicked or bit someone who got too close?  What about a parrot that is kept as a pet or a rabbit?  People should realise we are lucky to have these dogs live with us and we should protect them as best we can against other people with little common sense.

Yes so therefore we all know that even the best trained dogs have the potential to be unpredictable but as an owner of a dog you either have responsibilty for that dog unless you have past that responsibilty onto somebody else . I don't see how the owner did that with the presenter , they were they restraining the dog and should have told her to back away from the dogs face never mind the cameras etc as an excuse why he didn't . If he had turned his back away and didn't have the dog in his control if somebody else had been given that responsiblity then yes he would be to blame.

Are we saying that child at to blame then if they get bitten ? Not all adults have been taught how to behave around dogs so it is not about age at all .

I feel that a good lawyer would be able to claim that woman was Negligent in putting her face so close to an animal she did not know.

I'm in complete agreement dorcas,

The dog was not the only thing trapped here, the owner too was trapped, he had a team of production staff and cameramen in front of him, a fireman squashed up next to him to his left an interviewer to the right, he could not have given his dog any slack either way and he knows millions of people are watching his every move. He's probably intimidated and not sure what to do, he knows he's uncomfortable and his dog also and he is not in charge of what is going on.

I know I have been in situations where I haven't been able to say the right thing because I've felt intimidated, shy, like people would think I'm out of oder, (well, I might be, but should have said out of order!!! :-) ) just as I have often spoken my mind many times, haven't we all been in situations like that?

I'm still upset that the man was fined for the dog 'bite' nip. And I do agree dorcas in this country I would have put up a fight about that, but in America it is horrendous costs isn't it? So probably why the man has just had to take what he was handed out.

I have the most laid-back dog I have ever had and I would not let any strange person put their face so close to him! You never know whether the dog is going to be OK with it or whether it will feel threatened!
This dog was panting heavily and licking his lips an awful lot whilst being held tightly by the collar and his ear massaged rather frantically by his owner (probably nervous to be on TV). From my limited knowledge of dog behaviour, this was a recipe for disaster!
I don't think anyone should own such a powerful breed if they can't read a dog's body language... let's face it if his dog had been a smaller, less powerful breed, it might not have caused so much damage to this poor, if silly, TV anchor!

> it is not for the rest of society to adapt themselves to accomodate protentially dangerous dogs.&nbsp;

no i agree, but also society or whoever shouldnt put themselves in a dangerous position. It is an UNKOWN dog, petting it is one thing putting your face next to it is another. The owner had it by the collar, so if she had not have moved in to its area she would not have had the dog close enough to bite.

Might I remind you that you started this whole thread by saying "Scary that she was allowed" :)

I'm not saying the owner wasnt HALF to blame, but i also believe she waas stupid to be so intrusive to the dog.

So yes both are to blame, but she put herself in danger by getting so close. The dog didnt get in her face, in fact he turned his head at one point.

Im quite a strong person, i usually say what i feel, but on tv in front of cameras im sure it wouldnt be quite so easy.

>"Scary that she was allowed"

By the production team, I would imagine. The director should have been yelling "Don't be so stupid!" in her earpiece.

Why JG if the Producer was a non dog savey person why would they warn her ? If they were not able to interpret the dogs body language and intent then why would she ?

A non dog-savvy person would think snogging a dog unhygienic and dangerous to health, so would warn against it. A dog-savvy person (which the presenter should be because she has a dog of her own) wouldn't do it because it's intrusive and dangerous, so would warn against it.