http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyours...dogs_be_t.html

I heard on the news that with so many attacks from dangerous dogs that there's a possibility of dog owners having to have third party insurance.... costing 'up to £600 a year'... that could lead to some people who could not possibly afford it, possibly abandoning their pet, thereby leading to even more dogs in homes...

I can understand dogs like Pitbulls, some Staffordshire Bull Terriers and suchlike that we regularly hear or read about with their attacking of people (including their owners) or kill children, but not dogs like Labs, Husky, Basset Hounds or other 'soft' breeds that are unlikely to growl, far less attack people!

I think I read somewhere that more people attend hospital after being bitten by breeds like labs than any other.

I just do not see how this proposal will work - it will only penalise good dogs owners

I'd imagine insurance will be graded by breed (much like a Ferrari is more to insure than a Ford, a Bull Mastiff will be more than a Corgi), that may have the effect of making "dangerous" dogs even more of a status symbol.

Seeing as the undesirable characters this is aimed at probably already ignore car insurance I'm not sure dog insurance will affect them anyway and what will be the penalty for not having it? Only now is the penalty for not having car insurance actually meaningful (the car is taken and crushed) and then you still have to be unlucky enough to get caught.

The micro chipping idea is not unreasonable, but PCSOs and Police Officers should then be issued with scanners and have the right to randomly scan any dog in public, only then might insurance actually be workable.

Well I couldn't afford £1200 on top of the special diets and medications bills each year !

I also wonder how many recorded bites are really bites ?
When my Mollie was a baby, just 16 weeks old she had claws like needles and accidentally (when hugging) scratched my Mum. Mum was on warfarin and the amount of blood she was losing made us go to casualty, 6 times we explained it was an accidental scratch but they still insisted and wrote it up as a bite !

And bites happen for a variety of reasons too, sometimes IMO a dog is within it's rights to bite after all it's the only way they can defend themselves.

I do think there are going to be a lot more abandond dogs if this comes in to force.

How will they inforce it the insurance companys will make a packet. The pensoner with a couple of dogs will they be able to pay.

The micro chipping is a good idea but not every dog is going to get done. Only responsible owners will do it. If rescues force you too insure for third party before you get a dog people wont rescue they will buy from privatley. I can see a lot of dogs down because of this.

Its not the dogs fault what ever the breed but the owners fault. In the end you will be punishing animals

I said to my other half this morning, it will result in more abondoned dogs and then what will they do?!

Also, the people who have these "dangerous dogs" are the sort that don't have driving licenses and car insurance and still drive, so as if they'll be taking out insurance. There's no way it can be enforeced, unless we get a DVLA for dogs.

This is a sick and stupid idea. The poor animals that are either going to be dumped in the street or given to new owners causing more hardship.

The government should think this through properly as it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

It's all about the bottom line with the government. I.e. how someone has to pay compensation to someone who has been bitten etc. I think it would also lead to the same blame/claim culture that you see with scumbags who deliberately cause car accidents so they can sue.

A better idea would be to bring back a proper dog license with a centralised database. Dogs would get chipped and registered. Would be a lot cheaper than everyone having to get 3rd party insurance.

The type of dogs/owners they are targeting are just the type who would not give a stuff and flount the law anyway, just as they do with car tax/insurance/MOT, however, every dog should be chipped, its a cheap one off payment & would give owners more responsibility as at the moment if their dog attacks someone or is off the leash & causes an accident etc, they wont be able to do the usual and abandon them, of course the same applies with the law breakers, but with a scanner the cops could check them out quick & easy, fine them and get them to bring the chipped dog to the station in 7 days.

I'm not so sure about chips - all mine have been chipped since they started doing them, but recently Duncan had a lump on his leg - turned out his chip is migrating around his body, vet says this isn't completely uncommon ! I'm a little worried about what could happen if they can move around.

It also isn't remotely impossible for unscrupulous people to remove a microchip from a dog to make it untraceable after an incident

When you look at the cruelty imposed on animals, and people, I can't see the like of dog fighters and yobs using their dogs as weapons, etc being too bothered about digging about in the dog to remove the chip

Unfortunately the same people who wouldn't bother with insurance

I have met more than one seriously aggressive example in all these breeds and conversely I have met plenty of friendly pitbulls.

Some breeds have a larger proportion of aggressive individuals than others but there are no breeds with no aggressive individuals.

Some experienced owners can manage dogs who would be causing problems with other owners. Other owners would create a problem whatever dog they owned and some people just get unlucky with a difficult dog depite doing everything right.

That is why there is so much oppostion to Section one of the Dangerous Dogs Act as it looks at the breed, not the owner, nor the behaviour or temperament of the individual dog, although acceptance onto the exemption register does look at this if a proscribed breed dog is seized

Our kitten removed his own microchip!
Not sure how useful a microchip would be anyway, if a dog bites you in a park and the owner legs it, you're not going to get near a microchip. Have I missed the point?!

Re the insurance issue, doesn't pet health insurance also cover you for a dog causing damage/injury? I only have cats but ISTR noticing that the policy mentions dogs are covered for those type of incidents. Obviously pet health insurance is not obligatory - just thinking that those who already have pet health insurance would not have an additional cost.

Normal pet insurance doesn't cost £600 a year - in fact - four of my dogs don't come to that - and that includes health cover AND third party liability.

It's a minimum requirement for driving a car, why shouldn't it be for owning a dog? sadly, it will be virtually impossible to police and enforce


When you consider there around 45K Labradors registered with the KC year on year (and probably half as many again churned out unregistered by BYB and puppy farmers) , the next breed being cocker spaniels at around 20K a year - i.e. accounting for nearly a third of all pedigree dogs registered, it is hardly surprising why this might seem to be the case.

In reality, very few labradors are genuinely aggressive - if properly bred, it simply isn't in their nature.

However, labrador puppies can often be quite 'croccy' and if breeders don't advise puppy buyers of this, you would be amazed how many novice owners interpret it as aggression.

Now take this 'croccy' behaviour which isn't managed correctly through bite inhibition and all of a sudden you have a 30 to 40kg dog who hasn't learnt bite inhibition and thinks this behaviour is completely acceptable.

Croccy baby teeth can be sharp and hurt, a full grown dog can unintentionally do a lot more damage - not because it is aggressive, but because it hasn't been raised to understand this behaviour is unacceptable.

================

Personally, I am all for microchipping, and all my pups are done at 8 weeks, my last litter left already chipped.

The 'up to £600' was quoted on the news this morning, maybe because they were calling it 'third-party' insurance rather than a 'health insurance' so perhaps that would cost more!

Like others, I've no idea how it could ever be policed and those guys who keep 'tough-looking' dogs for status symbols (goodness knows why) probably don't have car tax, insurance etc and wouldn't bother insuring their dogs either, unlike the poor old ladies whose little dog is their constant companion and can't really afford anything extra!

I think it needs to be properly thought out and maybe some 'tough' looking breeds should be kept muzzled!

Muzzles can make dogs worse, especially if they are nervous aggressive. Also not all the dogs of any breed need them as has been pointed out previously it depends on many factors how aggressive a dog will be. It seems unfair to muzzle a gentle dog ...

I wouldn't like to see a 'gentle' dog muzzled at all, just those types who bare their teeth, snarl and would attack a child or another dog etc, but guys who have breeds known to sometimes attack usually say "oh, he's just a big softy'!!!!

As per my original post - ALL health insurance includes up to £1m+++ of third party liability insurance as standard - plus up to £x,000 per condition - so why would simply third party insurance cost more?

In the majority of instances, it would cost considerably less.

Pet insurance can be a godsend - one of my girls ruptured a disc in her neck last year - the cost was around £2,500K - considerably more than her insurance premiums for life - without that insurance to cover the cost, she would have undoubtedly ended up paralysed.

====================

Cross posted from another forum - Dogs Trust offer third party insurance for £20 a year

http://dogstrustblog.blogspot.com/

If it stops the BREEDING of the obvious dangerous breeds, then let it be so.
In fact it's too lenient.

Mrs R.
do you know how ridiculous your answer is?

i'm the owner of a tiny shih tzu/ pomeranian cross who wouldnt say boo too a goose unless said goose pulled her tail, but i must say two of the friendliest an softest dogs I have came across we're my sisters 9st rottie and her little staff, rottie was around since we we're babys we used to climb all over her never even flinched lol, its all down to owners who make these friendly giants into psyco fighting machines, like you say the scumbags who treat dogs that way wont pay just like most dont pay car tax/ insurance
the only people this will have any effect on is the decent pet owners who actually give a toss.
its not the dog its the owner I've met shih tzu's who are usually real softies who have snap an snarled at me just for movin a toy, all dogs however gentle the breed snap in the right circumstance, you cant change what comes naturally, like someone else said it the only protection they have!

[quote=z1oey83;38941251..but i must say two of the friendliest an softest dogs I have came across we're my sisters 9st rottie and her little staff, rottie[/QUOTE]

You are another stupid dog owner.
See here.

http://www.ukandspain.com/dangerous-dogs/

Its rediculous, you target the cause not the outcome flippin idiots. I really think it should become law to go through pet training with your dog - where you receyive a certificate on completion stating you and your dog are trained up to the governing body's satisfaction. People would learn how to look after adn train their dogs, the dogs in turn would get sufficient training during classes and continued by their owner. If ppl cant afford the classes then they cant get the dog? At least then these idiots that get pets on a whim just to ditch them may be preturbed by the money they will have to pay out. Even if a charity scheme or government benefit allowing ppl who are eligible take their dogs to a council training school.

Thoughts? Seems silly making insurance pay outs WHEN people get bitten, why not prevent it to the best of our ability in the first place?

Given the right circumstances, ANY dog could potentially bite someone - hence why no dog should ever be left alone with a child.

There could be a myriad of reasons why it happens, and unfortunately, even if that means protecting you, the law is NOT on your side.

Also, third party insurance is not just about a dog biting someone, if your dog escapes onto a road and causes an accident whereby someone is seriously injured, you are liable - without insurance, who pays?

Likewise if your dog gets onto someone else's property and causes damage, YOU are liable.

If a child puts their hand over your garden wall, through the letter box etc and the dog bites them, you are liable - with the best will in the world, you cannot watch them 24/7 even if they are always on your property.

You talk about training courses, maybe that should include being aware of the fact that given the right circumstances ANY dog has the potential to bite, legally where that places the owner and what third party liability actually means.