Dogs Owners to Be Insured Against Attacks By Their Dogs

[Rhubarb]

Labour proposals that will require all dogs owners to take out insurance in case their dogs attack someone.

Dangerous breeds not allowed in public and possibly even in homes.

BBC news report

What do you think?

I can see both sides really. However, if you insist on insurance for this, how baout insurance for other things like being run over by bikes or abducted by aliens a myriad of other events.

It won't stop irresponsible dog owners and I think they are the main problem TBH.

If someone is irresponsible enough to have a dangerous dog, unneutered and unmuzzled, then they aren't going to be responsible enough to buy insurance.

I think it's another crap Labour "nanny state" invention that will do absolutely nothing to halt the problem of dangerous dogs being deliberately bred and kept as 'weapons'.

As SoupDragon said it's the irresponsible owners and breeders who create the problem of dangerous dogs, and they aren't going to bother insuring their animals. Look at how many unlicensed/uninsured drivers there are on the roads.

Oh for heaven's sake.

Responsible dog owners will pay the dog insurance, get the compulsory microchip, and play by the rules.

The gangs who use dogs as weapons won't give two hoots.

What an idiotic nanny state policy. The civil servants aren't stupid and obviously know this, so it's probably just another stealth tax.

I would like to know what happens to a dog owner who is caught without insurance - are they fined? Forced to insure the dog or have the dog taken to the pound?

There needs to be tighter regulations on the sale of such animals and restrictions on breeding.

Dog attacks are rising and something does need to be done. There is a huge dog problem in our area and I'm sick to death of them. Some children have been bitten on their way to and back from school and one staff member.

These were dogs that would not be considered dangerous.

What is the answer?

Pointless, the irresponsible minority won't pay for it, same as they don't pay their car insurance. Leaving the rest of us to subsidise them.

People can not even afford pet medical insurance which is a good investment how are they going to afford this?

How many dogs will be turned into the rspca because decent owners can not afford to insure their pet?

What next cat insurance in case it scratches someone?

I think it is a good idea, but could only be enforced if dogs were all micro-chipped, and the chips checked, and any dog found not chipped immediatiely confiscated.

Yes, you can't legislate for all eventualities, but it's not just aggressive breeds trained to attack (or just ill-trained), belogning to irresponsible yobs, that bite.

I'm not sure how it would be a stealth tax - you'd be paying insurance companies, not the govt.

I'm speaking as a former dog-owner, who had a well-trained dog who never harmed or attacked anybody. I would willingly pay a reasonable insurance premium - but the £22/month suggested is excessive.

I think it is brilliant, but only if backed up with tough measures. Like if you are walking your dog through the park, you need to be able to prove its insured anad if its not it gets taken away, goes in a pound and if not claimed put down. Same like car crushing of uninsured vehicles.

However i doubt it will work like that, and the local drug dealers will still have the untrained staffies.

Agree that the dodgy owners won't insure them anyway . Will make no difference.

Got to be a better way than that. There's a growing dog problem where I live and I'm sick of it. (I love dogs BTW, just not stupid owners, or illegal breeds).

Farcical, IMO. As others have said, the numpties who keep illegal pitbull crosses are hardly going to pay for microchipping and insurance.

How are the police going to enforce this, I wonder?? Are they going to random stop check anyone they see out with a dog? Now that's a good use of police resources.

And of course, I would be ok with my children getting their faces bitten off by a dog- just as long as it's insured

Just daft, pointless and unworkable. What they need to do is actually enforce the powers that the DDA gives them- ie take action against any dog that is not properly controlled:

3
Keeping dogs under proper control .(1)
If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place? .
(a)
the owner; and .
(b)
if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, .
is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
(2)
In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it. .
(3)
If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there? .
(a)
it injures any person; or .
(b)
there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so, .
he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.

Noone seems to be awarte of this part of the DDA- including the police!!

The important bit there is "there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so" So any dog which is out of control and makes someone apprehensive is an offence and could be prosecuted. Surely this could applied more often?

most people already do have liability insurance on their pets without even realising it. If they have a buildings or contents policy odds are it will contain a homeowners/occupiers liability extension which would generally extend to cover liability arising from a pet causing injury to others on or off the property.

Taking out a separate policy on top of that is pointless. Cant really understand how the government released the discussion paper without realising this fact.

But yes, generally i agree with the sentiment expressed here that it would only be the responsible dog owners who would comply in any event.

I would really like to see a culture of spaying and neutering in this country though. I dont understand why so many people dont get their pets (cats and dogs) fixed early on.

I agree with others who have said most responsible owners already have their dogs chipped and neutered (unless breeding), and keep their dogs under control.

Mine is chipped and neutered and my insurance has an extension to cover him biting anyone. His recall isnt great so if we are anywhere other than open fields he is kept on a leish both for his own safety and so that he cant annoy/scare anyone (he is very friendly but rather big so I can understand that anyone who is scared of dogs would be wary of him bounding over to say hello).

The dogs they are worried about are used for fighting/protection - does anyone really think that the type of person involved in this sort of thing is going to give a hoot about new laws.

What is going to happen to the dog that belongs to the pensioner at the end of the street - they cant afford insurance, but their pet is their only companion and is well looked after?

my dog is microchipped, has insurance including liability and is castrated. He is also a 'dangerous dog' according to some. German Shepherd, but he is only 1 year old (yesterday) and very very well behaved for his age, ongoing training for the next 37million years of course...

However, - people like me who do this dont usually have anything to worry about. It is the nutters who have their dog as some sort of 'status' symbol and fight their dogs that wont even bother so how will it be arranged.

The old dog licence wasnt enforced after a time either and was eventually scrapped.

I think owning a dog should mean it's registered, chipped and insured as standard and most responsible people do that already. It won't deter morons from owning attack dogs. However, if the RSPCA/police receive a complaint about an animal they would then have a much better case to take it away if it isn't registered, chipped or insured.... rather than trying to judge solely whether it meets the criteria for aggression.

They reckon that at least 1.5 million cars are used on our Road by Uninsured Motorists. The police have a difficult enough time tracking them down. So how are we going to manage to keep track of all the devil dogs living on Sink estates ?

20 million dogs. 19999900 of them didn't bite someone this week.

sledgehammer to crack nuts - totally.

insurance against biting? is my dog to wear a number plate?

one wonders also about who is being bitten -

People bitten by dogs whilst getting them to fight?
bitten whilst in the course of breaking and entering?
I bet both of these will say 'the dog ran up to them, bit them, then ran away' and then whinge about dogs being walked off lead..

People bitten by strays - no insurance, no come back

people bitten in their own homes (can they too claim on insurance? twould seem open to abuse?)

none of these bites would be stopped by laws making good law-abiding dog owners restrain their dogs from proper exercise by keeping them on the lead all the time. None covered by insurance either.

rhubarb - where is your evidence that it is not reporting of bites that is increasing, rather than actual bites? These days i think people are far more likely to go to A& E to 'get it looked at' than they would have been 10 years ago....

The most dangerous dogs (one thinks of hose horros that killed that poor toddler) are generally not walked, not given even the basics of vet care (let alone neutered, chipped & insured) - these dogs that may already be outsie the law as they are used for fighting, or kept deliberately as weapons...

a daft law, and i think it is indicative of how legislation-mad this government is that they are even considering it.

F my parting shot: more people were killed aby horses than by dogs this year.

I love my dog - he is a samoyed and they are recognised as one of the best dogs to have with children - they used to be used to keep children warm at night in Siberia so for many years any dog that showed any sign of agression was killed. However, more likely to lick a burglar to death than bite him.

He is insured (it has gone up another £100 this year), microchipped, vaccinated and trained.

I trust him but if he attacked someone without provocation I would have to have him put down.

These proposed laws are a typical knee-jerk reaction with no thought as to how the process would work or how it could be enforced. Of those people bitten, how many of the dogs come from situations where it is unlikely that the owners would have adhered to these laws?

Just like there are people who do not pick up and dispose of their dog poo, there will be even more who ignore these rules - how on earth could they be enforced!