The headline news today states that owners of dangerous breeds could be enforced to take out a third party dog insurance plan to cover their victims compensations fees.
Shockingly more than one hundred people are admitted to hospital each week after dog attacks in Britain and the majority of these are postal workers, telecom engineers and electricians. This is making their daily routines most uncomfortable and the question now raised and discussed suggests that muzzling dangerous dogs is simply not hard-hitting action.
In 1991 the Dangerous Dogs Act legislation banned four types – the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentinos and the fila brasileiros – from public places. However due to the recent reports from victims the government now want to ban these dogs from being allowed in public places. There will also be a strict micro chipping system and third party pet insurance will be an essential requirement. Owners will need to be more responsible and considerate towards others when thinking about where they take their canine friends for walks. Reports are now rife where people have become oblivious and are not actually thinking about the potentially harmful acts their pets can perform.
The debate will differ greatly from sincere pet lovers and those victims who have been emotionally and physically scarred for life. As a pet owner it may well be hard to actually admit that your dog could cause harm towards other pets and humans. The relationship an owner has with its pet simply differs to how it behaves within an unknown open area.
Should a dangerous dog be allowed to roam freely in the back yard?
If you are a victim of a serious attack or have lost a pet through the aggressive behaviour of another your answer to this would be firmly no. On the opposing side of this most devoted owners would say that their dogs have as much right to freedom as any others in the animal world. However this maybe naive and irresponsible thinking as people struggle to see the other side of innocent puppy dog eyes.
Another issue stemming from this new regulation would be cost as dog owners would argue that it is expensive enough to care for pets in general, buying dog food, accessories and funding rather large vet bills without the added expense of insurance. Some dog insurance plans charge extra for additional liability such as a dog attacking another dog. It is always worthwhile to research pet insurance before choosing the right one.
Last 5 posts by admin
- UK Prisoners Receive Millions Each Year In Personal Injury Compensation - July 28th, 2010
- Bogus Personal Injury Claims On The Rise? - July 26th, 2010
- Protesters Win £25,000 Injury Compensation Case Against Metropolitan Police - July 23rd, 2010
- Greek Man Wins Compensation In Yoghurt Pot Case - July 21st, 2010
- Government Plans To Clampdown On Domestic Violence - July 19th, 2010
13 Comments for this entry
Kylie
I welcome any measure that works to ensure that the wrong people do not own dogs – of any breed. Effort is also required in other areas: For example, it appears to be commonplace for a child to grab a dog’s tail or nose without first asking the owner if the dog is friendly. My dog is friendly but does not appreciate having bits of him pulled, poked or twisted. Any dog, of any breed, could snap if they are handled wrongly or scared. Some education at home and school of how to behave around dogs is required as a matter of urgency. Otherwise, a friendly family pet that snaps after being ‘teased’ would face the same penalty as a dog that has been reared to fight and attack.
Also, can we please not use images of dogs that are not included on the ‘dangerous dogs list’ such as the Rottweiler pictured above. Rotties are the most caring, gentle and respectful dogs I have ever known and it’s unfair to play up to a stereotype especially when there is no official reason to do so. Libel lawyers could have a field day!
Ray Stirling
WHY ON EARTH a photo of a Rottweiler heading an article about dog insurance? Those of us who KNOW the breed KNOW that the Rottweiler is a most loyal, faithful dog, wonderful with children, and often used in hospitals as PAT Dogs.
The breeds responsible for most attacks on humans in UK include: Dachshund, Jack Russell, and other smaller terriers.
Please change the photo and lose the prejudice against this loving and friendly dog.
Lady Daly
Why on earth are you showing a photo of a Rottweiler Bitch against an article about Dangerous Dogs when you state that the dogs which are classed as dangerous are pit bull terriers, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentinos and the fila brasileiros?
If you printed an article about child molesters and put a photo of Gordon Brown against it would that be classed as correct reporting?
Dont tarnish a loving breed with the same brush as dogs which have been owned, trained and abused to hurt people for the benefit of “street cred” or bolstered image.
L Dexter
I would just like to ask why your site shows a Rottweiler in connection with an article talking about the Dangerous Dogs Act?
You have correctly listed the banned four types – the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentinos and the fila brasileiros but the Rottweiler is NOT on the dangerous dog list.
I have two Rottweiler’s, both are insured, mirco-chipped and they both attend weekly training sessions. My dogs are always under control yet because of articles and comments like yours, I find people crossing over the road to avoid us when they are more likely to be bitten by the small terrier next door.
If someone’s dog attacks a Rottie the Rottweiler will always blamed, yet those who don’t micro-chip their dogs or go to training classes, continue to get away with being irresponsible dog owners. I suggest that you and the government are getting it all wrong and showing a Rottie in this way is extremely unfair to the breed.
justine wood
Why have you chosen to put a picture of a Rottweiller to this article when they are not included under the Dangerous Dogs Act? You mention breeds that are but include no picture of them. I am a very responsible dog owner and have one male Rottie and a Whippet cross, both are fully ensured and I have always done this for all the dogs I have owned. I fully appreciate the veiws of those poor people who have been injured or affected by a dog attack and agree that more needs to be done in regulating breeders and dog ownership but please, please do not do more damage to this wonderfull breed by using it in this way. I am very responsible with my dogs both at home and when out in public and do chose areas to walk them carefully as I fully apprecaite some of the publics veiw on Rottweillers -HOWEVER- it appears to continually go unoticed that these dogs are the product of the owners and I think it is high time we were not ‘tied with the same brush’ as it were. I am fully aware of what I share my home with and take this seriously and am under no illusion of what a big dog is capable of, or any size of dog for that matter, and the responsability this entails. I am all for a change in the law regarding dog ownership but please dont use the image of a Rottie to do this as it is very unfair and prejudiced.It may also be usefull for you to look at figures for dog attacks and you might be surprized to find more user friendly breeds on this list! Remember all dogs have the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands.
Kimberley
These measures will be rushed at best and will not be policed and therefore more time and thought should be taken before something concrete, structured and can be policed, can be implemented. For those of us Responsible, Reputable dog owners who ALWAYS have microchipped their litters and adults and who are proud to own friendly, gentle dogs accepted in today’s society, why should we be bought into this latest measure?
As for using a Rottweiler as the photo that is totally unacceptable. Only a click away for you to use though! The breeds concerned are Pitbulls, Staffs and crosses and American Bulldogs, why could you not have used their photos? I would ask and urge you to take this photo off now and replace it with the appropriate breed either Pitbully, Staff or American Bulldog not a Rottweiler who is totally innocent.
Peninnah Lumby
Why, why, why won’t anyone leave the Rottweiler alone, it is not a dangerous dog! so why a picture of one? I am the proud owner of four beautiful, fun loving boys, who are good with children, adults and other dogs. To add insult to this injury, I see that the Rottweiler was shown in a bad light on telly twice in one week, once on causulty and the other on silent witness. Back off this beautiful dog and concentrate on the dangerous owners!!
Mrs O Davison
Firstly, I am totally in favour of responsible ownership. However, in the first instance, if breeders of whatever breed placed their puppies into the right homes and with people of the right disposition to own certain breeds of dogs, this would eliminate a lot of problems. Sadly this is not the case – breeders are under no moral or legal obligation and are at total liberty to do what they like as to where they place their puppies.
As for ‘dangerous’ dogs roaming freely in their own back yard, I am assuming that you are referring only to the four breeds mentioned in your report. Therefore perhaps anyone owning one of the four banned breeds should also be vetted along with the premises where they are kept.
This leads me on to pose the very important question as why you think it appropriate to publish a photograph of a breed which is NOT mentioned in your article, and which is NOT even one of those breeds listed in the Dangerous Dogs Act. The Rottweiler is NOT a naturally aggressive and dangerous breed and it would be appreciated if the correct and relevant photograph is used in relation to your article.
I own six of this breed of dog so I know what I am talking about.
Stu
Let me say, first of all, that the most irritating thing about this article is the fact that you consistently refer to the Dangerous Dog Act, and yet choose to publish it alongside the image of a Rottweiler, despite the fact that you do not in fact mention the breed at all within the article.
Rottweilers are no more dangerous by nature than any other breed. We have two bitches, and they are gentle, loving and loyal by nature, to both people and other animals.
On the topic of the article, the idea of compulsory microchipping and insurance is ridiculous in any case, as there are many law-abiding people who simply cannot afford the extra expense, whilst those who the law aims to circumvent, i.e. the “chavs” with their “status dogs”, will have no incentive to do either of these things!
The idea of using insurance schemes as a way to prevent dangerous dogs is laughable, as it is similar to using car insurance to prevent driving-related offences. Those who intend to commit a crime in a car or to keep a dangerous dog would have no intention of wanting themselves linked to the car/animal via a database and so will not take out the insurance. Has this not been evidenced time and again, even in police reality TV shows, where criminals are consistently caught in vehicles and DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE??!
So, on top of the fact that owners of dangerous dogs would not submit to the scheme, it would also be tremendously difficult to police. Therefore, given the fact that only law-abiding people would take out the insurance, only those law-abiders among us would be affected by this insurance scheme (stealth tax)
karl bosher
well, so the banned breeds are not banned …. just banned in public places ? I would like to know why there are EVEN MORE PIT BULL TYPES on the streets ? We all know why people have them , what”s the the point of these unenforced laws?
Paule Chicken
I wonder why you chose a Rottweiler as representative of dangerous dogs when they are not considerd as such in the Dangerous Dogs Act and when owned in a responsible manner are calm and loving dogs -as are other breeds when owned in a responsible manner. The OWNERS are the problem, NOT the breeds
When it comes to dogs attacking other dogs in the street, I would like to point out that many small dogs are much more agressive than large ones. Animal behaviourists call it fear agression as the size of larger dogs frightens them.
Nicky Hulme
I understand the message you are trying to put across and in a way I totally agree with it, but why do you insist on using (as the news at ten did last night) a photograph of a Rottie! Rottweilers are not even listed as a dangerous dog and are not even mentioned in your article, this to me is totally unacceptable. I believe that in the wrong hands a Rottie can cause a lot of damage simply because they are a big powerful dog that are abused, mishandled and not properly trained. This breed is so misunderstood and I am sick of them being made a scapegoat. If you are going to write an article like this then why not use a photograph of a labrador as statistics show more people are bitten by them than any other breed!
Please STOP exploiting this breed, I would not have any other breed of dog. They are loving, have fantastic personalities, loyal, great family dogs, willing to learn and highly intelligent. People who have met my Rottie, Zulu, are shocked to learn how soft she is, she is a great ambassador for the breed.
PLEASE CHANGE THE PHOTO ABOVE TO REFLECT THE DOGS YOU ARE ACTUALLY WRITING THE ARTICLE ABOUT – THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND HURTFUL TO THE MAJORITY OF RESPONSBILE ROTTIE OWNERS AND CARERS.
Rottweiler Rescue organisations, who do an amazing job, have a hard enough time trying to rehome these beautiful dogs without people like you making it even tougher.
Regards
Nicky Hulme (Preston, Lancashire)
Kirsty Coates
Such a shame you are using a picture of a Rottweiler with this article when it is not a breed mentioned in it nor is is it listed on the DDA.