The Round Table (Rational Pagans Forum)

NY insurance and 'dangerous' dogs.
Page 1 of 1

Author:  jess [ 04 Apr 2009, 22:09 ]
Post subject:  NY insurance and 'dangerous' dogs.

In New York, it is legal for insurance companies to refuse to grant coverage to families who own certain breeds of dogs -- even if the dog is well-trained and has no history of aggressiveness. It is also legal for insurance companies to drop a family’s coverage because the company arbitrarily decided not to cover homeowners who own certain breeds.

Insurance companies' blanket breed restrictions can force people to give up their family pets. These companies discriminate against such breeds as German shepherds, pit bulls, Rottweilers and chows. Add into the mix that their policies require that dogs be classified as certain breeds, despite the fact that 31 million pet dogs are classified by their owners as “mutts.”

Insurance companies should look at an individual dog’s deeds when determining coverage -- not the dog's breed.

Assembly Bill 2566 and Senate Bill 404 are reasonable bills that protect responsible dog owners while allowing insurance companies to raise rates or refuse coverage only if a dog has been deemed dangerous based on nondiscriminatory dangerous dog laws.

Ask the members of the Assembly and Senate Insurance Committees to support AB 2566 and SB 404!

Author:  Tao of Pooh [ 05 Apr 2009, 00:54 ]
Post subject:  Re: NY insurance and 'dangerous' dogs.

While most "breeds" of animals were bred for certain characteristics the individual animal's behaviour should be a determining factor.

Altho I'm not really keen on the denying ppl insurance because of their pet thingie in general.

Author:  Otter [ 05 Apr 2009, 09:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: NY insurance and 'dangerous' dogs.

While there are certain breeds I would never own, I pretty much think insurance companies have and will continue strong arm folks. I wonder what kind of stats they have to back up their claims. I mean really if a nasty little dog would bite someone, is it reported as much?

a dog in the wrong hands can be just as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands.
although I am a bit puzzled by the amount of sympathy the animal world gets and the lack there of that is directed toward gun ownership.

Author:  jess [ 05 Apr 2009, 14:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: NY insurance and 'dangerous' dogs.

Part of the problem is that the stats don't line up with the conception.

Rotts and Pits and Shepards etc do not lead to more dog bites than the average family pet.

While pit bulls and Rottweilers inflict a disproportionate number of serious and even fatal injuries, the dog bite epidemic involves many different breeds, and results from many different causes. A clear distinction needs to be made between canine homicides (i.e., incidents in which dogs kill people) and the dog bite epidemic.

However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)

From here:

Licensing dog owners the way you do gun owners may be a good idea, even if it cuts down on the total amount of dog owners...

I do think I see your point, Otter, but dogs overall have more of a part in the family as a whole than a gun does. I'm torn on my views of gun ownership as it is. I waffle between outlawing them all to giving them to everyone... ;)

Author:  DMB [ 06 Apr 2009, 11:05 ]
Post subject:  Re: NY insurance and 'dangerous' dogs.

In the Uk there are legal restrictions on owning certain types of dog. See this: ... c/dogs.htm

Author:  jess [ 06 Apr 2009, 18:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: NY insurance and 'dangerous' dogs.

That's actually one of the places where they are getting the groups showing that bites don't go down when you outlaw breeds.

I think Toronto outlawed pits a little while ago as well, or was talking about it.

Author:  DMB [ 12 Apr 2009, 12:29 ]
Post subject:  Re: NY insurance and 'dangerous' dogs.

As Far As I Know it's not about numbers of bites but about not having dogs that hang on and won't let go and also about discouraging dogfighting, which has been illegal for a very long time.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group