Dodgy Doggy Insurance

[Azumanga Davo]

We used to have a black and white dog. We couldn't afford the licence for a colour one...

Good grief Dave. Did you feed it PAL?

[Hazell B]

Daniel, what has this got to do with dog licences? Nothing! Anyway, they were dropped when somebody pointed out they weren't being bought by over 90% of owners and the system cost too much to run. In short, it was a waste of tax payer's cash that dog owners ignored anyhow - rather making my point for me!

Muzzling in public is fine. I like the idea. But just like cleaning up dog muck, it won't be policed often and many people will walk thier dog to the car and simply drive off to fields unmuzzled and away from nosey officialdom. Hardly encouraging green walkies and just moving the problem to the countryside.

This won't cover one dog attacking another, Daniel. That's already covered by laws, anyway. The bills for the third party vet would be recovered by the courts as it stands, along with fines for having a dog out of control. On top of that, if some idiot chav's dog grabs a pensioner's poodle and eats it, what difference will this new system make? None. The chav will lie and the pensioner's dog is dead whoever pays ..... zero improvement on what's happening now.

The thing that bothers me about all this is the way it won't be policed. If it did become law that I need my animals insured, I wouldn't mind if several things happened along with me paying out my cash. Firstly, the police would have to carry chip readers. We were promised it years ago, that every police car would have a reader (they cost about ten quid, by the way) and so far I've not met a single copper who's had one or used one. My local police authority don't have them at all.
Secondly the police would have to scan dogs and check them. They don't even appear when you get burgled, so I think we can forget them checking dogs out on the street Too much paperwork and Stop and Search would suddenly be an even worse hot potato.
Thirdly, who's paying for the whole thing? It's not going to be self-supporting by a long way. Tax payers will be paying. Non-dog owners, many of them. That's not fair. Why should they pay? If they get bitten, I doubt a few quid is much consolation when they're scarred for life - yet a police prosecution is not going to happen as often if insurance can sort it out (just like car crashes now).
Lastly, the dogs who are most liable to do damage won't be insured or chipped as I already said.

For the record, my dogs are chipped already and I think it should be law. I also think all dogs ahould be neutered by 16 weeks of age and ONLY licenced breeders should be allowed to breed dogs. Police should carry scanners in their cars and USE them. Under 16's shouldn't be allowed to walk dogs over a set weight without an adult, too. A small child along my street, a girl of about seven, often walks a British Bullldog past my house for example. It's a nice dog, but can she handle it if it runs off under a car? No.

They tried this same sort of thing for horses and it's cost the tax payer millions yet very few horses are legal even now, several years in. If horse owners (who you think of as sensible and well off!) don't bother, who thinks dog owners would be any better? The horse version was about ten pounds for the animal's life and still few of us bought into the idea. I had 20% of my horses legal and when that 20% died I wasn't asked for the paperwork, so could have sold it all to other owners anyway Crap system, badly run. The only reason any of my horses are now legal is that she came with the paperwork, I wouldn't have bothered if not.

Anyone know how much the MIB will cost for all this? That's the body who pay out for un-insured claims, by the way. As many dogs won't be insured, won't the government have to provide payments in those cases, just like they do on car crashes? I don't understand it, but do know it costs the car insurance system a fortune each year. Same will apply for dogs.

[Hazell B]

Something else has just occured to me.
Can the government force insurers to insure all dog owners? Surley the insurance companies could refuse to insure a person who's had claims a few times, therefore stopping that person owning a dog legally? That's a human rights issue, isn't it? If there's no test or whatever to own a dog in the first place, there can't be a legal way to stop somebody who's trying to obey the law from having a dog (if you see what I mean) so insurance would have to be available by law.

Shot themselves in the foot, whoever thought of this crap, eh?
It can't work!

[Easy Drifter]

Hazell: The beaurocrats and politicians have to do something to justify their existance.
It doesn't matter if it makes sense or how much it is going to cost.
They are seen to be doing something and thereby prove they are useful, at least in their way of thinking.

[ShiftingGears]

Wow! Useless and awful idea.

[Dave B]

The thing that bothers me about all this is the way it won't be policed.

That's the real problem with this idea. Think about who this law is aimed at: the tiny minority of idiots who believe a violent dog is a badge of honour and don't give two hoots for its wellbeing so long as they look hard when they're walking it.

Can you see them bothering to insure and chip their dog, and can you honestly see our wonderful boys in blue bothering to check? Even if the courts took away their animal, they'd just acquire another. It's like the hardcore of problem drivers - we take away their licence so they just drive without one.

There is a problem, a small one, but this broad brush isn't the answer.

[Daniel]

That's the real problem with this idea. Think about who this law is aimed at: the tiny minority of idiots who believe a violent dog is a badge of honour and don't give two hoots for its wellbeing so long as they look hard when they're walking it.

Can you see them bothering to insure and chip their dog, and can you honestly see our wonderful boys in blue bothering to check? Even if the courts took away their animal, they'd just acquire another. It's like the hardcore of problem drivers - we take away their licence so they just drive without one.

There is a problem, a small one, but this broad brush isn't the answer.

I disagree. No law is ever a 100% deterrant, just look at the death penalty in other parts of the world for murder and drug trafficking, people still do it. Anything that makes it more difficult to own one of these dogs whilst also offering some insurance at the same time is a good idea.

Shall we get rid of driving licences because some people drive without them?

[jim mcglinchey]

What about this. A scale of 1 - 20, as per car categories, with offenesive weapon type and mad ******* type dogs at 20 and fashion accessory dogs at 1-2. That would be a bit more palatable to dog owners, surely?

[Eki]

Hazell, you must get Naburn a colour license.

[Azumanga Davo]

Maybe they should concentrate on bad breeders, since that is quite a hotpot issue over there.