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

[Cyclone]

Exactly as you put it.

 

What's likely though is that a person wouldn't be prosecuted, unless it was a dangerous dog. If it was a dangerous dog, the claim would succeed. Most "non-dangerous" dogs would result in no prosecution, unless there was a history.

 

That act is the bane of our lives I can tell you.

 

Have a look for the case of Christopher Whippey. Tells you all about it, as it's recently been before the Lords, and it was confirmed.

 

I can kind of see the point in that particular case, and by extension in any case where the behaviour is out of character.

Proving a pattern must be quite difficult though. I was under the impression that most dogs are put down if they are proven to have bitten someone though, but I guess that would be separate from any civil case.

[SpinyNorman]

A recent study carried out on 6,000 dogs and their owners found out 33 of the most aggressive dogs, and also those which have good temperaments. The study involved collecting data from two different groups. The first group consisted of 11 different breeds and the second was an online survey mainly involving owners, including 33 breeds. The conclusions from both groups were similar. It looked at the different types of aggression such as towards other dogs, towards strangers and towards owners. Some of the results were surprising, below are the top ten most aggressive breed:

 

1. Dachshunds

2. Chihuahua

3. Jack Russell

4. Australian Cattle Dog

5. Cocker Spaniel

6. Beagle

7. Border Collie

8. Pit Bull Terrier

9. Great Dane

10. English Springer Spanie

 

 

 

Can't find staffie or rottie on there.

 

Even if that above has any basis in truth, it's only an opinion poll, not facts. If you ask any dog owner regardless of the breed "is your dog dangerous?" 99% of them will say "no he wouldn't hurt a fly" or "he's as daft as a brush", so asking dog owners how dangerous their pet is is pointless.

 

Also your survey doesn't take into account the severity of the attack. There's a big difference between a dachshund giving someone a playful nip and a staffy ripping a child's throat out.

[Moosey]

I can kind of see the point in that particular case, and by extension in any case where the behaviour is out of character.

Proving a pattern must be quite difficult though. I was under the impression that most dogs are put down if they are proven to have bitten someone though, but I guess that would be separate from any civil case.

 

It's very difficult, and so difficult to explain to people, particularly when it's an emotional issue. I spent hours trying to explain the point to a client who's young daughter had a spaniel bite her face, leaving some nasty scars, that we couldn't do anything because the dog had never done this before. Not nice. The law can be very stupid at points.

[Plain Talker]

Jackanory. When did you last read in the paper about some little kid having its face ripped off by a poodle?

 

I await your evidence more in hope than expectation.

 

Got to disagree, spiny, on that one.

 

A headline about a poodle attack does not have the same mileage as a "devil-dogs" story, in the media.

 

And I have stated before, I have been bitten twice by dogs in my 46 years on this planet. bot incidents were when I was a child, one aged about four or five, the second when I was 10.

 

I still carry the scars on my face, from the attack on me aged 10.

 

What were the breeds that bit me?

 

Well,the dog that bit me when I was four was a... LABRADOR. yes. A fluffy, sweet (?) daffy Labrador. not a Staffy, or any other version of a "demon dog".

 

The dog that bit me when I was ten, was a Jack-Russell /corgi cross, that was notorious in our area for being allowed to roam, out of control.

 

I've actually got a Jack Russ, currently. It didn't put me off either dogs, or the JRT breed (I'm on about my third JR? All three were rescues)

 

I've had EBTs, Staffs, My dad had a staff-lab cross, I've had lurchers terriers, old dog was a terrier- "mostly" or a "bitzer" I have had 2 GSDs, a Dobermann Pinscher, and at least three or four "Heinzes" in my time.

 

I actually love staffies. They don't scare me at all. It's not the dogs themselves, that are the problem. It's the ten-gallon hat-wearing two-pint heads that have them, {just so's they can look 'ard in front of their homies, "Innit"} that are the problem.

 

Any dog, not just the Staffies, deserve better owners than these brain-dead prats.

[Moosey]

Even if that above has any basis in truth, it's only an opinion poll, not facts. If you ask any dog owner regardless of the breed "is your dog dangerous?" 99% of them will say "no he wouldn't hurt a fly" or "he's as daft as a brush", so asking dog owners how dangerous their pet is is pointless.

 

Also your survey doesn't take into account the severity of the attack. There's a big difference between a dachshund giving someone a playful nip and a staffy ripping a child's throat out.

 

And what I gave you was a fact. Out of the hundred or so (I can't be bothered to look up the exact figures - sorry) dog bite cases I've had over the last year or so, less than 5% I'd say have been staffy dogs. Most are springer spaniels.

 

I've just asked the person next to me, who's reading this article about insurance, and she's said exactly the same thing.

[Moosey]

I actually love staffies. They don't scare me at all. It's not the dogs themselves, that are the problem. It's the ten-gallon hat-wearing two-pint heads that have them, {just so's they can look 'ard in front of their homies, "Innit"} that are the problem.

 

Any dog, not just the Staffies, deserve better owners than these brain-dead prats.

 

If there was an "applaud" smiley, I'd put it here. Well said.

[medusa]

To me this is just hot air. No amount of legislation makes people who don't care suddenly start to care, it just penalises those whose dogs are no (or very very small) risk anyway because they're the people who are likely to comply with the law, not those who really SHOULD comply with the law.

 

It's not enforceable unless you put in a huge amount of money into the enforcement side, even if you do enforce it what do you do with a non-dangerous dog which just happens to not be ensured? Surely they can't just destroy all dogs found without insurance or microchip?

 

Whatever law they bring in, those who don't obey current laws (from the Dangerous Dogs Act to the Animal Rights Act) will simply add another set of laws into the ones that they don't obey.

 

Those of us who are responsible dog owners, who already have them microchipped, identified with tags and who don't allow them to roam about by themselves, who pick up after them when they go to the loo and who train, exercise and provide them with a good life are the only ones who will obey any new law if the odds of being caught are as low as is likely.

 

It's a good idea to make all dogs identifiable, but without a decent plan for enforcement then no plan on earth will make that happen.

[SpinyNorman]

Got to disagree, spiny, on that one.

 

A headline about a poodle attack does not have the same mileage as a "devil-dogs" story, in the media.

 

And I have stated before, I have been bitten twice by dogs in my 46 years on this planet. bot incidents were when I was a child, one aged about four or five, the second when I was 10.

 

I still carry the scars on my face, from the attack on me aged 10.

 

What were the breeds that bit me?

 

Well,the dog that bit me when I was four was a... LABRADOR. yes. A fluffy, sweet (?) daffy Labrador. not a Staffy, or any other version of a "demon dog".

 

The dog that bit me when I was ten, was a Jack-Russell /corgi cross, that was notorious in our area for being allowed to roam, out of control.

 

I've actually got a Jack Russ, currently. It didn't put me off either dogs, or the JRT breed (I'm on about my third JR? All three were rescues)

 

I've had EBTs, Staffs, My dad had a staff-lab cross, I've had lurchers terriers, old dog was a terrier- "mostly" or a "bitzer" I have had 2 GSDs, a Dobermann Pinscher, and at least three or four "Heinzes" in my time.

 

I actually love staffies. They don't scare me at all. It's not the dogs themselves, that are the problem. It's the ten-gallon hat-wearing two-pint heads that have them, {just so's they can look 'ard in front of their homies, "Innit"} that are the problem.

 

Any dog, not just the Staffies, deserve better owners than these brain-dead prats.

 

 

So ask yourself this; what makes the "the ten-gallon hat-wearing two-pint heads" (I think you mean chavs!) choose a staffy as their dog of choice in the first place?

 

Is it their kind loving temperament or their gentle disposition? Of course not, it's because they are known to be an inherently aggressive and vicious breed that will intimidate others and attack if let off the leash.

 

And this, to get back to the point of the thread, is why it's a good thing the government is taking the dangerous dogs problem seriously, even if they're going about it the wrong way.

[Plain Talker]

It's very difficult, and so difficult to explain to people, particularly when it's an emotional issue. I spent hours trying to explain the point to a client who's young daughter had a spaniel bite her face, leaving some nasty scars, that we couldn't do anything because the dog had never done this before. Not nice. The law can be very stupid at points.

 

Isn't there something in the law, about a dog being allowed "one bite!", moosey?

 

Until a dog has bitten someone, surely you can't say that the dog has a propensity to bite, can you?

 

If it bites someone for the first time, there's no history of biting to go on, to decide if it's dangerous. If it bites in another incident, for a second, (or hopefully not! ) a subsequent time, then you could say there's evidence of a vicious nature.

[algy]

It struck me it's like saying illegal firearms require a firearms certificate.

 

What happens if the insurance companies refuse to insure a dog? Is it put down? Or banned from leaving the house?

 

As others have said, the owners they're targeting are the ones who'll ignore it.

 

I think the only solution is to have them put down. And the dogs rehomed.