New dangerous dog legislation

March 9, 2010

From what I have read so far the new legislation will make third party insurence compulsory for all dog owners, now this sounds like a great idea to me! Why would any dog owner object to insuring their dog to protect other people and dogs, the reality is that any of our dogs are capable of injuring others, even if not deliberately, and it is a responsible action to have insurence so that anyone affected can claim compensation.

I can only hope the legislation will cover dog to dog attacks and other animals!

Currently dog wardens can only suggest that a dog wears a muzzle, unless the dog is taken to court. Dog wardens to ask people to muzzle their dogs for no reason, and it is only right that this becomes enforcable.

I have already read comments from dog owners objecting to insuring their pets third party, how can it be responsible not to?

I look forward to hearing your views?

Insurence why would I need insurence?


4 Responses to “New dangerous dog legislation”

  1. jane bailey Says:

    I think insurance is a good idea. It protects both injured “party ” and the aggressor. But further more if your dog strays and/or requires veterinary assistance you have it – albeit at a very basic level. It also means that if compulsory to chip dogs as the proposed legislation appears to suggest you are probably likely to relocate your animal should it a)cause a nuisance of it self- to be reunited with the correct person and authorities should they deem appropriate can target the correct individual (owner )or b)identify the correct dog with the correct person??

    I know it seems ages ago but a dog license went some way to achieving this

  2. Avis Says:

    Absolutley right. We have too many dogs to insure fully for medical care etc. however we have always had 3rd party insurance. This protects us and our dogs from costs of litigation should they cause an accident or harm anyone. The by product is that they are also fully covered for accidental damage to themselves so if they run into a barbed wire fence, slice a foot on a flint and need stitches, or any other accidental damage they are covered after the excess(£100) is paid.Our policy costs less than £6 a month per dog. Surely a low price to pay for peace of mind.

  3. Avril Munson Says:

    Absolutely Avis it is crazy not to in this day and age!

  4. I have my dog insured both for medical problems (~good job as he had to have nearly £4k worth of treatment last year !)and insured for causing injuries etc. but I am worried about people on low or fixed incomes having to find the extra money for insurance. Redundancy or other unfortunate events can alter one’s financial resources and I would hate to think of people in this situation having to give up their dog (which is more than likely obedient and harmless and a great source of free exercise and immense joy). As usual, the law abiding responsible majority are being asked to pay the price for those who are neither law abiding nor responsible. I would like to see something that would tackle the offenders instead of the soft option but don’t ask me what – that requires more thought than I have brainpower for. Perhaps those MPs who put so much thought into fiddling the taxpayers could use their thoughts in a more constructive way !

    just stepping off my soapbox now 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: