Comments on: Compulsory Dog Insurance, A Vicious Debate

By: Nicky Hulme

Nicky Hulme — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:47:22 +0000

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)

By: Paule Chicken

Paule Chicken — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:17:11 +0000

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.

By: karl bosher

karl bosher — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:09:57 +0000

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?

By: Stu

Stu — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:57:31 +0000

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)

By: Mrs O Davison

Mrs O Davison — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:33:34 +0000

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.