Ark. Town says Pit Bull Owners Must Carry Liability Coverage

October 22, 2007

  • October 22, 2007 at 7:32 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It was suggested to require all potential biting animals to carry coverage with the rate scaled by breed – I like this. You can easily find rates published annually by the American Humane Society. These are the same people who tell you that German Shepards are the dogs that bite the most (“big surprise” since bites during police duty count). They most likely also carry data on degree of bite though I haven’t looked it up. Give a weighted average of the two and come up with the list. I’m sure pits would top it with shepards and rotts coming in close behind. Heck, even my rat bit somebody once. Didn’t require stitches but still drew blood.

    It is stupid to pick on pit bulls when the problem is greater than that. It’s bad owners, poor training, and other breeds. Make it fair people.

    Oh, and I have been bit – just not by a pit bull. My sister got it worse. It was a german shepard. Too much backstory, but it wasn’t really the dog’s fault (not ours either).

    And I have known pit bulls that took better care of the kids in the house than almost any other dog I’ve seen.

  • October 22, 2007 at 1:46 am
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Irresponsible owners deserve to be regulated. Too many Pit Bulls seriously attack kids and others.
    As a dog lover, I agree.

  • October 22, 2007 at 1:55 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Pass the law for all dog breeds, not just pit bulls. Several other breeds are just as dangerous.

  • October 22, 2007 at 2:09 am
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You’re WRONG Sam. Why do you think people want Pit Bull’s controlled? A conspiracy?
    You should not lie to yourself with that tired argument.
    It’s not FACTUAL.

  • October 22, 2007 at 2:38 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My point, Realist, is that several other breeds of dogs can be just as vicious. I was attacked when I was a child by a German Shepherd while playing in my own backyard. Please don’t tell me it would have been worse had it been a pit bull. If a governmental entity is going to legislate an insurance requirement due to the vicious propensities of a breed, they should legislate it for all dogs. Are you implying that a bite from a chihuahua is not a need for concern or medical treatment? I am also a realist!

  • October 22, 2007 at 2:54 am
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There are lots of breeds with semi-dangerous track records and I think this requirement should apply to more than just pit bulls (which are unfairly targeted sometimes).

    I have a bigger problem with dalmations rather than pit bulls as far as being unpredictable and prone to biting. Never met a dalmation that didn’t scare me.

    Owners should do the responsible thing regardless of their breed of pet. If they own an animal which has the potential to bite, scratch or harm someone, they should be required to carry liability coverage period.

    Pit bulls are not always dangerous and they’re not the only pets with the potential to cause damage. The fact that this requirement is breed-specific is a little off-kilter. They’re missing part of the equation if their point is aimed at safety.

  • October 22, 2007 at 2:55 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sam – you’re swimming up stream on this one. There are plenty of differences between a shepard bite and a pit bull. Pits are the only breed that don’t just bite, they latch on and don’t give up. In most attacks they have to be physically beaten off the victim or shot. Since you’re still here arguing a lost cause, I presume you weren’t maimed, mauled, or killed by the Shepherd. Look up the stats for maulings, attacks, and fatalities and the pit bull is at the top of the list. You don’t legistlate every breed just because the 1% is the problem. There will always be dog bites, but the pit bull is in a class of it’s own. I’ve investigated and settled dog bit claims for 30 years and I don’t want to hear about pit bulls. With all the breeds of dogs to choose from, there is no reason for anyone to have one of these beasts. They attack, maim, maul,and yes, kill. NOBODY should ever have to worry about being attacked by one. This isn’t discrimination……just common sense as the Realist tried to point out. I don’t even support being allowed to own one with $100K in liability coverage. That isn’t addressing the cause or the effect. Anybody who thinks they have the right to own one despite overwhelming evidence that their dog “could” cause catastrophic person injury or death just doesn’t care about fellow humans.

  • October 22, 2007 at 3:04 am
    Judy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Homeowners insurance costs more if you live along a coast. Auto insurance costs more if you drive a sports car. Life insurance costs more if you are a smoker. It isn’t discrimination, it’s a law of averages. If you want to own a certain breed of dog which is prone to attack and cause more damage when it does, then you should be accepting of the liabilities that may come along with it.

    I think this is a great law and should be instituted in more places!

  • October 22, 2007 at 3:06 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Obviously I was not killed, or I would not be able to post. As to scars, I will always carry them. My father did have use a 2×4 to beat the dog off of me, and it was only his actions that saved me. He was also bit by the dog.

    Again, you seem to mistake the basis for my post. I am not condoning pit bull ownership. I am saying that everyone that owns a dog needs to have liability insurance. Any dog can bite, causing injury, scarring and damage. Why only legislate that one breed requires insurance? Arkadelphia should legislate that ALL dog owners carry insurance in the event their dog injures, or heaven forbid, kills someone.

  • October 22, 2007 at 3:13 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m not saying this is a bad law. I’m saying apply it to more than one breed. In fact, apply it to all dogs with the rate adjusted by breed.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*