"Dangerous Dogs" - do you find the term offensive/inaccurate/misleading?

Just interested in what others think.

Do you think it's unfair or inaccurate or misleading to use the label 'Dangerous Dogs'?

Shouldn't it be 'Dangerous Dog-Owners'?

'Dangerous dogs' implies the 'dogs' are at fault. Yet the majority of people with enough experience of dogs know that the 'fault' lies with dog-owners and dog-breeders creating dangerous circumstances involving dogs.

Yes we know some dogs are more 'powerful' than others, but then, so are so many cars - but we don't have a 'dangerous cars' act!!

Instead, we use the term dangerous driving, because the onus is on the driver - isn't it about time the same logic was applied to dogs?

Instead of focusing on dogs we need to focus on dog-owners (and breeders). We need the same kind of thought that has gone into precautionary and safety measures for cars, to be applied to dog ownership.

Dangerous dogs, no. Dangerous humans, yes.

Definetly, i think there will always be a very smaill minority of dogs that regardless of training, rearing, nature etc may at some point turn, but in most of those cases you may never know what might have caused it - eg: medical issue etc, ( also worth noting that there have been a few cases with regards to dogs owned by drug dealers etc that these dogs have actually found to habe drugs in their systems so who knows how that can make a dog react)

anyway point - i did have one. Yes its down to the owners and until we stand up and take responsibility for our own actions and that of our dog, then we cant hold up our hands and utter the words " that will never happen with my dog"

So yes i do find the term quite misleading as it also implies that its only these breeds of dogs that can be dangerous which we all know is not the case.

"Dangerous Car Act" :smt042 Actually I think we should and they should include anything with a spoiler and a Janspeed Exhaust :smt042

I agree Azz, there are several terms, Dangerous Driving and Driving without due care and attention, and I think the latter would suit some dog owners down the ground !

The only problem would be when a dog attacks, unprovoked, when the owners are absent, like the recent attack. There was nothing to suggest that dog was a danger or the owners were irresponsible !

although we dont know the facts of this case and NEVER will as the only witness is a 7yr old child. you will probably never get the full story and background of that dog either. so you cant actually say that there was no signs - nobody knows that apart from the owners and they wouldnt admit that publicly if that was the case woudl they ?

I think it should be more a case of dangerous dog owners ,I agree with you AZZ and Brundog ,And Malady , all very valid points xxdk

I said there was nothing to suggest that dog was a danger or the owners were irresponsible ............... I thought it was innocent until proven guilty !

it is - i am saying nobody knows the facts either way do they?

Its a very good point azz, i had never thought about how inaccurate the description was before.

I have to disagree with you because if we use just the info that has been released by the press then I think it was totally irresponsible for either the parents or grandparents to have left that house with just children in it with a Rottweiler in the garden?

By definition the ownership of a responsible dog owner is to make sure that not only can the dog not cause any harm to itself but also to others.

Looking at it from another presceptive. If I was to park my car on a hill but left the handbrake off and it rolled down the hill and killed a child then I would be held responsible for that childs death and would face the charge of manslaughter due to me being in charge of the car and not paying due attention to it.

Surely the same rules must apply?