those of you chix who live in the UK know of how popular it has become for yobbo's ( teenagers/ trouble makers) to use dogs as a form of a weapon. in some cases cross breeding dogs which are banned, such as a pitbull terrors. every few months i see and hear on the news of a little child being killed by one of these dogs and/or someone being attacked by a dog.

the government are trying to introduce a compulsory third party liability insurance for all dog owners, so if someone does get attack they can get compensated and the dog be destroyed. What are your thoughts on this? is this a issue in your country?

For me personally i understand completely where the government are coming from and i believe it is a good idea, however, it also penalises a lot of sensible owners who want a dog as a loving family pet. why should they have to pay because some "blow hole" mistreats a dog and trains the dog to attack on command. I personally think that instead of making it compulsory to all, make it so those under 25 ( for example) should have to take out the insurance, as they are the most likely to be using the dog as a weapon. Possibly introduce a licence to those people who want a dog like a rottweiler or a pitbull. Have all dogs microchipped and then once an attack unfortunatly happens, the dog can be scanned and then the rightfull owner can be held responsible and charged accordingly.


heres a link to the latest information about the "dog insurance"

linkage

I don't live in the UK, but if that were to be suggested here in America, I would have to be against it, because it would definetely increase the amount of stray dogs across the entire nation. There are lots of people out there, that would rather turn their dogs loose, than to just pay for the stupid insurance. And if the dog does become feral, and bite someone, we are back to where we started.

Also, I've known quite a few people who have owned pit bulls, bulldogs, rottweilers, dobermans, etc. and they were all very good pets, and very loving animals.

I don't want to offend anyone, or anything; this is just how I feel about the whole situation. To each her own, and I truly respect that. =]

I live in America and we don't have it as insurance it's law. If your dog bites someone (minus little whimpy nips but even sometimes those) it's put down and you pay for the bills, there are no ifs ands or buts about it.

I don't really see why there would be a need for insurance I think I might be confused about something... Yeah it's just law here

As for the breeds the breeds are good based on their owners. I was seven and I was nearly killed by dobermans because a man (in a neighbor that had voted for no fences) brought four in, beat them, and never locked them up. I am pretty sure a bunch of others kids ended up being attacked worse then I and all from walking down the street. But then I had a friend with a doberman that was a wonderful dog.

The breeds can be unstable but it's usually the owners...

I do live in the UK, and although I think it's good that the government it trying to do something, I don't think it's the right thing.

Normal people with dogs would pay the insurance and not miss treat their pet so this would be an unnessasary expense, but those who beat their dogs and use them as weapons wont pay the insurance anyway, whether its compulsory or not - look at all the cars being driven around illegally without insurance.

Although I do think micro-chipping for all and a licence for the more "dangerous" breeds is a good idea.

i agree that some breeds get a bad name. for example, my hubbys dad has 2 staffordshire terriors ( well he had 2 he had to put one to sleep as she had a stroke), and they are the most loveable adorable dogs ever, you could even take the food bowl from under them while they were eating, thats hole dossile they were.

Wow we also microchip all dogs too... It's not technically an enforced law now but you can't adopt pets from most places without one. I don't like that because there is a possibility that it can give cancer