Question: ALL DOGS TO NEED INSURANCE AGAINST ATTACKS , LABOUR WANTS NEW LAW IS THIS RIGHT?

( Back )

Answer #1:

I don't think it's right to demand people get insurance but, something must be done to stop this wayward trend. As a sensible dog owner I find it disturbing that I will have to pay insurance (tax in reality) because of some yob who can't look after their dog. This is another stage of totalitarianism from the Labour government punishing the many because of the few.

Answer #2:

You call yourself asbo presumably to make yourself feel hard and to give us all the impression that you are a "geaser" BUT you get "pinned" to the ground by a cat? Where do you live? On the plains in Africa?

It is actually the dog owner that will be required to have the insurance and most will already have it as an extra on the householders insurance.

What they ought to do is to pass a law that means dog owners need to pass a "Dog Owners Test" before they are allowed to own a dog.

Answer #3:

'Owners' are not legally responsible for their cat's actions in the UK, whereas dogs are, and therein lies the difference.

As a horse owner, my horses are insured not just for vets bills, but for and harm or damage they do to someone else or their property, but it is not compulsory.

I think owners of dogs should be aware that if they aren't insured and their dog attacks someone that they could find themselves at the end of a law suit, but it should be their choice to insure or not to insure.

Here is the thing though - if you can't afford to insure your dog, then you can't afford to compensate someone who is injured by it either, or pay vets bills come to that - is that being a responsible dog owner?

I don't know what the solution is - there are so few dog attacks compared to the number of dogs, that it should make insurance cheap to buy, so I'm not concerned by it. If it becomes law, I will abide by it.

Answer #4:

You were pinned to the ground by a cat? Are you three years old? Don't be crazy.

Anyway, I think this is a good idea. If you cannot control your dog, then don't have one. Dogs are expensive, a few hundred pounds more for insurance is not going to make too much difference to the over all cost, so I can't see thousands being abandoned. Dogs don't tend to be owned by poor people.

Answer #5:

Because
* Dogs are more likely to attack people than cats are and someone needs to take responsibility for that persons health care if it needed. The legislators are therefore taking a deliberate step to protect the people who are attacked because they are the victims not the dog owners. If a dog is attacking someone who is not trespassing, then that person must have protection. In my opinion, its long overdue

Answer #6:

One simple solution to this would be to pass a law that ALL dogs must be MUZZLED when outdoors. A muzzled dog cannot bite anyone. Anyone not muzzling their dog would be heavily fined. Simple as that and no insurance would be necessary.

Answer #7:

"All" dogs?

So the owner of an eldery toothless chihuahua will have to get insurance too?

A lot of people will get rid of their pets over this. Many simply won't be able to afford the extra expense.

Answer #8:

In law a cat is classed as a wild animal and a dog as a domestic one, which is why there are different laws, and why cats were never licensed. Most normal house insurance policies include cover for dogs causing an accident as standard, it would be very simple to have that altered to be a comprehensive insurance against incidents caused by a dog, these would NOT include cover for vets bills, people would still need that cover. If a person is struggling to keep a dog in the current economic climate, then perhaps they should reconsider the situation, all owners are responsible for the actions of their dogs, so without insurance they could face massive claims that could cost them their home.

Answer #9:

Remind me to avoid your area, what with man-eating cats roaming around.

Dogs can be dangerous weapons. not all dogs, but some.

Cars can be dangerous weapons, not all, but some.
Both require insurance so that the potential harm they can cause can be compensated.
There's no human right to own a dog. If you don't want to pay the costs of dog-ownership - don't have one.
If the value of your dog is not equal to the cost of the insurance premium, you're not much of an owner in the first place.
If you can't afford a dog, but want a pet, get a cat (ideally not the sort that pin you to the ground)

Answer #10:

More nonsense from this government, it's just another stealth tax with all insurance having tax on it.

Answer #11:

This whole dangerous dogs nonsense has just about gone too far.
What the government are proposing is:
Yes you can keep a dangerous dog, don't bother training it, don't bother keeping it under control.
If it seriously injures a human being, don't worry about that either, you've got insurance.
Surely the rule should be, whatever damage a dog inflicts should be deemed as having been inflicted by the owner, ie serious wounding, owner to be charged with GBH or attempted murder.

Answer #12:

The last Tory government banned certain breeds of dog in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in response to a spate of dog attacks on children resulting in injury and death. It doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not, the law is the law and does not go "out of date". Those breeds mentioned were required to be registered and neutered. Therefore after 19 years, those dogs should be all deceased, and not bred since they were sterilised. But there seems to be a problem persisting on northern council estates of people having pit bulls they claim are Staffordshire bulls, and other banned breeds, using them for fighting, and for status symbols, and for the purposes of causing intimidation.

I have long held the view that councils should ban the keeping of dogs as part of their tenancy agreements, and that keeping a dog should lead to eviction. The house nextdoor has 3 of these "Staffs" constantly yapping and whining. I say send them to a rich person who has space for them, and the time for them, and take the house off the tenant. And of course if the dog is a banned breed, then the law has to be complied with and the dog destroyed.

Insurance is a good idea, but is effectively a return to the 37.5p dog licence, which was scrapped because about 1% of dog owners actually bought one.





** Powered by Yahoo Answers