[jameslindsay]

Our beloved government are now talking about making it illegal for anyone to keep a dog without having it insured  - another tax on people!!




Every dog owner in the UK would have to take out insurance against their pet attacking someone under government proposals to tackle dangerous breeds.

Police and local councils could also get new powers to force the owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle them or even get them neutered.

Ministers say they are responding to public concern about vicious dogs being used to intimidate or threaten people.

Each week, more than 100 people are admitted to hospital after dog attacks.

There has also been a reported rise in levels of dog fighting and illegal ownership, particularly by gangs who are using dangerous dogs as status symbols.

The government wants to amend the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, under which four types of dogs - the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentinos and the fila brasileiros - are banned.

It wants to tweak the law so that the breeds are banned from people's homes - rather than simply from public property, as is currently the case.

[xnbacon]

I suspect more than 100 people per week are admitted to the hospital I work in due to the effects of alcahol.  Admittedly alcahol is taxed, but this is only ONE hospital!!

[Rosemary]

I do think that dog ownership should be controlled, if only to eliminate indiscrimate breeding. If we can individually identify every sheep in the EU, we can surely do it for dogs. Most responsible owners have their dogs chipped anyway. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying a bit to have dog welfare improved.

[pottsie]

What a load of rubbish this is just another way of getting money from the already decent people who pay the majority of tax ayway, does anyone actually think the idiots who let there dogs attack people are going to by insurance? It would also be impossible for the police to actually police, that is until someone has already been bitten and then reports it.

[xnbacon]

I'm afraid I see it as another way of claiming compensation.  I have every sympathy for the postie trying to do his job, but very little for people who allow their children to run up to stranger's dogs, then claim the dog is dangerous when it barks and use the Dangerous Dog Act (because they feel intimidated) to have it removed.  I rather feel some of the population have lost touch with what a dog is and what it does and how to behave around it. 

[Rosemary]

As far as I understand, the Dangerous Dogs Act applies only to four breeds. However, I do agree that some people are very silly around dogs and allow their children to put themselves at risk, them it's someone else's fault ie the dog or the dog owner. But that's true of many situations now, unfortunately.

I still think that dog ownership should be better controlled - in a perfect world, dogs would be owned by responsible people but they aren't and some are a nuisance and some positively dangerous to other dogs, other animals and humans. However, if we controlled the ownership of dogs better, we would need to destroy a lot of dogs at least initially and I don't think the supposedly dog loving public would wear that.

The seem to be full of staffies and the like - who's going to rehome them?

[little blue]

Seen this on another forum... already cross cos the Mail story shows a photo of a tooth-bearing GSD, then gives examples of attacks by... JRTs, Rotties and... you've guessed it - Staffies!
So show a picture of a terrrier, not a 'working' dog!
Grrrr!!
(Sorry, I'm prejudice I know!)

And how many owners are already insured, and dogs microchipped?
Are these the ones who most hurt people and other dogs?

[Rosemary]

We were talking about this tonight. Our dogs are already chipped, neutered and insured - and reasonable canine citizens. We'll pay again, while the irresponsible ones won't.

[gavo]

The irresponsible ones never seem to pay either financially or otherwise! These ideas never seem to affect those they should.

[marigold]

The govt getting people to insure their dogs shows the ridculous nature of our society. Insurance is a good way encouraging people to knot take responsibility for their actions. If a dog causes an accident or bites a child and the brunt of the issue , the compensation is sorted by an insurance claim how many people are going to limit the activity of the dog. It will just encourage people who don't care at present to care even less. It actually protects careless dog owners - its bonkers.
My house insurance covers the situation where my dog runs onto the road and causes a car accident.
I must be a responsible owner 'cos I try to ensure that my dog is never on the road. Anyway i don't want my dog causing an accident - just think of all that mess, there would be broken glass and everything
Somebody in the govt has a pal in an insurance business!!!!!!

[xnbacon]

Its not just the owners though.  If the general public think they can claim compensation despite acting irresponsibly they will - I have a relative who does regularly - and it does not encourage them to behave responsibly either.  In which case it might be wise to have the insurance anyway to cover yourself against such people!!

[Jackie]

Imagine how much this is going to cost Annie and me. 

And whos insurance do people claim from if the dogs are in boarding kennels, the kennels or their own?