THERE has been a deal of bad press about dogs lately, much of which as a dog owner I feel is perhaps at times unjustified.

However can someone please explain to me why, when an owner obviously knows their dog is vicious, do they still feel it is acceptable to exercise it in a public place.

My five-month-old puppy has just returned from having her face stitched up at the vets after being attacked on a local countryside footpath.

The other dog and owner were not immediately obvious being concealed in the hedgerow, as myself and my two dogs walked along.

So I had little time to recall my puppy (training in progress) before she approached the other dog. Yes, the man with it did put it on the lead but was then completely unable to stop it viciously pinning my little girl to the ground and biting her badly.

It’s a miracle she hasn’t lost an eye!

Who is at fault?

Me for letting my friendly, sociable dogs off the lead in the countryside and trying to train my puppy?

Or someone who must know their dog will lash out at others who approach it? What if my two-year-old grandson had run up to it and had his face bitten?

My fault again I suppose for not having the child on reins.

Needless to say the man and dog left quickly without checking how badly she was hurt or indeed showing any concern for myself who was miles from home and very distressed.

My main point is that owners generally know whether their dog is likely to attack and should take precautions to prevent this happening by having their dogs muzzled or staying at home.

The responsibility should not be on the owners of dogs displaying perfectly normal social greeting behaviour.

As it is, my beautiful, gentle, potential show girl is scarred for life (physically and probably mentally) so my hobby is denied me as well.

Anyone fancy a stress free, cost free walk in our lovely countryside? Don’t bet on it.

Susan Clarke Pedmore