Lack of Insurance Muzzles ‘Dangerous Dog’ Ordinance

June 27, 2005

  • June 27, 2005 at 9:02 am
    laugher says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is laughable to listen to the comments in this forum. The sad fact is that it does not matter what anyone thinks or feels about certain breeds of dogs, or even their own specific pet. ALL dogs have mouths and CAN bite. Certain breeds are more likely to bite, and worse yet be more aggressive and cause greater damage and injury. No one has ANY use for an agressive pet and like it or not an agressive pet dog should be put down. PERIOD, there is no second chances with visciuos dogs. This is not to say that all Rotts or Chows or Shepards are viscious, but they are among the breeds that have a more agressive history. Knowing this, if you are so inclined to have “historically” viscious breeds, than you can expect to have a problem finding insurance that will offer animal liability coverage. The reason is that there is a history on dog breeds and while your sweet little cuddly “rocky” may be a member of the family, he has relatives that have bitten or worse yet killed someone. I have dealt with to many dog bites, both as an agent, a common citizen and as medical personnel. Cry all you want, some breeds will never be good breeds. It does not matter who owns or trains them, they can still go bad, even years later. I have seen a well trained police dog (German shepard) kill its owners 3 month old child by picking it up out of its crib and chewing on it. The first bite calapsed the infants lungs so it could not cry, what better training can you get than a police dog. That dog was for obvious reason killed. I have heard the BS about my dog being a good dog and it only bit the child because the child approached the dog wrong or pestered the dog. The sad fact is that small children are attracted to animals and if an animal does not react well around kids, the animal should NEVER be allowed around kids. If your good dog bites my kid, it is no longer a good dog, it has a bite history. I do not want my insurance company to pay out claims for people that have viscious dogs or breeds, I dont think lawyers should be given the oppourtunity to get rich on someone elses mis-fortune but it happens in every case. You take a chance of getting a ticket by driving over the speed limit, you take a chance of financial ruin by having certain breeds of dogs. Cry all you want, insurance companies are NOT going to change this.

  • June 27, 2005 at 11:09 am
    Lynn Manheim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The legislation that has been provisionally passed is excellent in that it would prohibit the tethering of dogs between 10 AM and 5 PM.

    Dogs are social animals. Perpetually chaining a dog is abusive behavior which leads to biting. Animals so chained, their every basic instinct frustrated, become crazed and dangerous.

    When you see a dog chained to a doghouse snarling and barking, please understand that the dog was not placed outside because s/he started out as a vicious animal. The 24-hour chaining and utter lack of loving socialization made him or her this way.

    So, by going to the heart of one of the causes of “viciousness” in dogs, rather than by putting an insurance band-aid on the problem, Hollywood’s legislation is right on. I very much hope that this provision remains in the final version of the statute.

    Following are two governmental and professional statements on the connection between chaining and viciousness and one by the USDA which speaks to the cruelty of perpetual chaining:

    1. A study by the Centers for Disease Control, “Which Dogs Bite?” found that chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite. The dogs most likely to bite are male, unneutered, and chained. From NCIPC Bibliography of Articles on Dog Bites

    2. The American Veterinary Medical Association, in a May 2003 press release for Dog Bite Prevention Week, states, “Never tether or chain your dog because this can contribute to aggressive behavior.”

    3. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1997 ruled that people and organizations regulated by the Animal Welfare Act cannot keep dogs continuously chained, “The dog-tethering rule is designed to prevent the practice of permanently tethering dogs and not allowing them proper exercise as specified under the Animal Welfare Act.”

    Best,
    Lynn Manheim
    LettersForAnimals.com

  • June 27, 2005 at 1:28 am
    BRevard says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This sounds like a job for Gallager to straighten up. He should mandate affordable policy premiums to all dog owners regardless of breed or past bites. It’s obvious that the insurance companies are using this as an excuse to gouge dog owners.

    We can’t have unaffordable insurance for dog owners.

  • June 27, 2005 at 2:03 am
    Underdog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You should move to California. Sounds like you’d fit right in…

    BTW, the insurance isn’t unaffordable; it’s unavailable! For good reason!

  • June 27, 2005 at 3:20 am
    hamer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is a great example of a government moron’s lack of basic understanding about insurance and its purpose.

  • June 27, 2005 at 3:54 am
    topdog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Right on, Hamer, right over their heads.
    Just a note:
    Insurance Companies must make a PROFIT (the shame!) to pay salaries, rent and overhead to stay in business, just like any other business. Duh……..

  • June 27, 2005 at 3:59 am
    Brevard says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t understand how it can be that Gallagher can order rates and mandate coverage and claims payment for property coverage and he can’t do the same for dog liability.

    It’s just unfair that he can be so effective for property coverage and can not do the same for liablity!

    Its obvious that he knows more than the marketplace or actuaries!!!!

  • June 27, 2005 at 4:04 am
    Bill Reid says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nobody’s trying to gouge dog owners. Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’d know that there’s documented evidence that certain breeds of dogs (pit bulls, rotweillers) have no business in an urban area. The breed has a genetic inclination to attack and kill. Civilized humans shouldn’t have to be exposed to that risk. You need only to look at the calibre of people who have to own those breeds to know they wouldn’t buy liability insurance in any case. With all the breeds of dogs in the world, there are plenty of other breeds to choose from. I for one refuse to have my well being at risk so some nut case can have a dog. Then, when it does injure someone, the dirt bag can’t pay the damages. Time for the government to bar certain breeds.

  • June 27, 2005 at 4:17 am
    Maddie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree. Get a dog that is covered under your Insurance policy or get over it! Companies should not have to cover vicious breeds by choice and funny thing is the State of Florida mandates that either a Company include or exclude the Animal Liability, one or the other; so you should be thanking the Carriers that still choose to include this coverage for breeds that are not considered vicious.

  • June 27, 2005 at 4:21 am
    stackblab says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Whats wrong with Dade County’s restrictions on killer breeds of dogs?? Check it out, they are prohibited from all of Dade County!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Add a Comment

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

*