Compulsory insurance for all dogs proposed by Govt. (Now ruled out)

[willman 10]

 

I'd say 5,000 needing hospitalisation is enough to need to do something about it, and a significant number will be injuries to kids. You also have to consider that the dreadful consequences of attacks are enough to stop parents allowing their kids out to play. If you go into a play area/park where there is dog muck or dogs are seen off lead, you note it down as one of the places you won't let them play alone - it's not the actual statistical risk which is frightening (going in the car is more dangerous), but the consequences - a person having to live a life with scars and psychological distress. All so Killah or Tyson could run round and have a poo.

 

Second that although it's just as likely to be Popsy or Missy that does the biting and pooing.

[Mathom 10]

Regardless of it being kinder or not - rescues are almost at saturation point from the "recession" or sudden upsurge in "allergies". 5000 more dogs in pounds would definitely mean euthanasia.

I'd vigorously defend not too - because you can't always apportion blame correctly and the dog always gets the bad luck.

 

Although i have debated the idea of such measures to reduce the numbers of certain breeds so perhaps if the guilty were destroyed the innocents could have a new home

 

Like any other legal proceeding, you'd need proof that x person's dog bit you. I think DNA/blood testing would cover that in awkward cases.

 

If a dog is badly socialised then I'd argue it shouldn't be rehomed anyway as it could cause damage to someone or get into the wrong hands. I think some of the rescue charities refuse to rehome such animals anyway, and some put them to sleep. You can't be too sentimental where unpleasant dogs are being discussed, there are more than enough lovely dogs desperately wanting homes and deserving of our spare cans of dog food.

[willman 10]

Like any other legal proceeding, you'd need proof that x person's dog bit you. I think DNA/blood testing would cover that in awkward cases.

 

If a dog is badly socialised then I'd argue it shouldn't be rehomed anyway as it could cause damage to someone or get into the wrong hands. I think some of the rescue charities refuse to rehome such animals anyway, and some put them to sleep. You can't be too sentimental where unpleasant dogs are being discussed, there are more than enough lovely dogs desperately wanting homes and deserving of our spare cans of dog food.

 

The degree of pts in rescues varies, the RSPCA shoot the first one that growls if the stories i hear are accurate. Some euthanase only severe cases of aggression to people, some won't destroy any animal and finance it and retraining.

It may even up the odds in favour of the staffies tbh, get rid of the unppleasant behaviours before the unpleasant looking:hihi:

[pem123 10]

Maybe Royal Mail should simply refuse to deliver to homes of dog owners then and instead require them to collect their own mail from the depot, if it's just 'in the dogs' nature' and therefore something they can't be trained out of?

 

I favour the model of more emphasis on punishing those who let it happen. You can't really stop dogs from being territorial 100% although you can do a lot to lessen the risks.

 

I'd say 5,000 needing hospitalisation is enough to need to do something about it, and a significant number will be injuries to kids.

 

Again it depends. If 10000 adults and dogs crossed each other's paths and there were 5000 attacks, i'd back you 100%

 

If the figure were in the hundreds of millions (as it is), i'd suggest some perspective.

 

You said the majority were adults entering the dogs' homes

 

it's not the actual statistical risk which is frightening (going in the car is more dangerous), but the consequences - a person having to live a life with scars and psychological distress.

 

Exactly. It's all about (wrong) perception of the risk

[willman 10]

I favour the model of more emphasis on punishing those who let it happen. You can't really stop dogs from being territorial 100% although you can do a lot to lessen the risks.

 

 

 

 

The only punishment administered to such owners is a removal of the dog.

The law states a dog should be under control at all times in public - not running loose to respond to a whistle or shout. I bet that's one section of the law they change, so you won't be allowed to have dogs running free on your own property.

Now what happens when the little blighter bites the BRitish Gas man or the washer repair man in the home?

Surely the dog should be locked away for the duration of the visit. Try enforcing that one.

[ukstudent 10]

Maybe children should have insurance too then

[bloom1961 10]

This law is targeting the wrong people most dog owners are responcible where their pets are concerned

Dangerous dogs should be microchipped and registered and insured if people want to own these dogs then they should be held accountable for the dog they are the ones who supposidly train these dogs to be nasty the dog is doping what they tell it to do

My dogs are chipped and if I was unlucky that my daft brush should bite someone I would take her to the vets myself to be put to sleep

[Mathom 10]

I favour the model of more emphasis on punishing those who let it happen. You can't really stop dogs from being territorial 100% although you can do a lot to lessen the risks.

 

People will be punished if they let this happen, the point is that they aren't punished now. As it is, a dog can bite who the hell it likes and so long as you can prove it's not one of four breeds, that's just dandy.

 

It's interesting though, there seem to be two types of dog owners emerging, one group which thinks only the 'dangerous' dogs should be dealt with via chipping/insurance and another which thinks it's all or nothing.

 

Yes, the big dogs inflict much more damage and are more likely to be owned as a substitute knife/gun, but other dogs also cause harm and distress. The proposed law deals with these two things as far as I can see it - provide help for those who get bitten, and give the cops a legal excuse to remove weapon dogs from chavs.

 

I don't know what other way you could deal with both problems, and surely it's better to be insured than to pay out tens of thousands in damages?

 

A benefit nobody has commented on yet of course is that this might also help with thefts of dogs.

[pem123 10]

Dangerous dogs should be microchipped and registered and insured

 

By 'dangerous dogs' do you mean individual dogs with a history of unprovoked aggression or breeds that pop up in the tabloids from time to time as 'devil dogs'?

 

My dogs are chipped and if I was unlucky that my daft brush should bite someone I would take her to the vets myself to be put to sleep

 

Really? You wouldn't consider the circumstances carefully? Ask why she bit? Frightened, stung by a wasp perhaps? Ask the vet to check her for brain tumours etc?

[Moonbird 11]

I think you misunderstand the point of the insurance that the government are suggesting. In effect it amounts to a combination of dog license and public indemnity insurance. Ie, it's insurance that will pay out to the person who your dog has bitten. It's not veterinary insurance for your dog.

 

Back tracking a bit but I want to clear this up, I understood perfectly well, and it wasn't meant to be a reference to the insurance for vet bills, I know that it isn't about that.

I meant that the new insurance measures will not make people any better owners, and people without it will not necessarily be bad owners .

Oh and for the record you two I am a she

[doggycatty 10]

I think it would be a step in the right direction. If you were caught with owning a dog with no insurance then you get a fined, just like car insurance.

 

This may make people think twice about the responsibility and expense of owning a dog and may help with the number of dogs in rescue due to irisponsible ownership. Micro-chipping is a must in my opinion and should be made law!!

 

There are many flaws with it though, such as how would you get a defensive owner to hand over his details of his insurance if you were bitten by his dog? How do you get those details if they refuse to cooperate? Theres no number plate as a back up, also I don't carry a pen and paper when out for a walk LOL!!

 

I also think that they should vary the price on insurance for a more statistically dangerous dog, just like car insurance I wouldn't want to be charged the same for my Robin Reliant as my husbands is for his Ferrari.

[Moosey 10]

Maybe children should have insurance too then

 

You actually make an interesting point.

 

If a child, say a 9 year old, runs out into a road, causes a massive pile up, who pays for the damage? Say the car avoiding the child kills someone? That driver is then left with firstly the knowledge that he's killed someone, but also, a fatal accident on his insurance record. Come back against the child or it's parents = zero. A step too far perhaps? Not sure really but there's certainly an argument there.