Mandatory insurance proposed for dogs in UK
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Obama's budget goes to Congress
( 1 )
-
Police: Houston under water when found in bathtub
( 0 )
-
Bombers target Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia
( 0 )
-
Aviation industry warns of trade war over EU carbon tax
( 0 )
-
Greece surveys riot damage after austerity vote
( 0 )
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - TOKYO - late-March start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - Kanagawa Prefecture - late-March start
- Interac, Kanagawa
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
-
- Part Time Assistant Language Teacher - Kanagawa Prefecture - late-March start
- Interac, Kanagawa
- Salary: ¥9,000 / Day per 4 class shift
Order by Time Order by Popularity
18 Comments
Login to comment
0
timorborder
This article is rather balanced in giving the arguments of both camps. Even if new legislation is introduced, it is highly likely that the less desirable elements of society will simple ignore it. At the same time, however, I must say that I am fully in favor of the idea of dogs being chipped. This is because it makes them a lot easier to keep track of. Back in the day (when I was small), service-dogs used to get a tattoo in the ear for registration purposes, a process that was both stressful for the dogs and dangerous for the people doing it. On the other hand, a chip inserted into the fat tissue between the shoulders is almost pain free.
Furthermore, I am also in favor of future dog owners undergoing some form of training in the basics of dog handling. In this country (Japan) I cannot could the number of times that my dogs (one of whom is a guide dog stud animal) have been threatened by poorly-trained dogs (invariably smaller breeds). Indeed, I would like Japan to pursue similar legislation. Make those people who want to buy a dog pass a standardized test.
Finally, I want to pick up on the following quote:
She said the problem wasn’t with certain breeds of “dangerous” dog, but with the way the animals were raised.
You got that right. At over 120kg of muscle and a bite-pressure in excess of 800kg psi, our larger dog (a mastiff) would be a stone-cold killer if he wasn't trained.
0
stevecpfc
timorborder, we had an English Bull Mastiff, people was scared but we brung it up proper so it knew aggresion was wrong.
Microchips are fine, my dog in Japan is chipped , but tax is another matter. I think the idiots in power are out of touch with the real world. There are thousands of pensioners who rely only on state pension who`s best friend is their mutt. This tax could mean they cannot afford care for the dog or even afford to keep one.
Labour party? Don
t make me laugh. They couldnt give a monkeys toss about them less fortunate, as usual.0
Gurukun
@timoorborder-I got to agree with you 100%. This was an awesome article. It was the first time that I ever saw something in writing that stated: the problem wasn’t with certain breeds of “dangerous” dog, but with the way the animals were raised.
Still, even fluffy Pico could be a threat, she said.
0
cleo
It depends on how they work out the detail. The article points out that 'high-risk breeds' would have a higher insurance premium. So unless Granny's best friend is a pack of fighting dogs, the insurance probably wouldn't make that much of a dent in her pension. And compulsory training for owners could be combined with some kind of insurance discount that would more or less cover Granny's insurance costs.
Have it put in when the dog is under to be 'fixed', and it's completely painless. (Or so my Shiba tells me). Compulsory chipping would also make it possible to trace, name and shame (and hopefully fine and ban from keeping animals) the wastes of skin who dump Fido in a car park far from home when he's old, sick or just not as cute as the new puppy they've just acquired.
0
stevecpfc
cleo, i was watching BBC news on the box last night and it was estimated the low figure for insurance would be 600 Quid a year. Old peopel and those on disability will no longer be able to keep their dogs and what if have more than one?
This is discrimination against the poor, disgusting, so only toffs are entitled to caninbes now.
0
timorborder
Anybody want to define'high-risk breeds' for me?
My larger dog (as I pointed out above) could kill somebody without raising a sweat. Does this make him a high risk breed under the terms to the legislation?
At the same time, however, he has won just about every obedience and work-related qualification that is available in this country for dogs (and I am not talking about poncing around a show ring). He also has 3 appreciation certificates from the local police, and certificates both from the guide-dogs (being a canine blood donor) and the local board of education (for being a visible deterrent parked in front of schools).
Anyway, I think the issue here is one of making sure that people are fit to be able to own such dogs. Any yob with money can get their hands on a Rottweiler or a Doberman (popular breeds for all the wrong reasons), however, it takes time and effort to make these dogs good canine citizens.
Furthermore, with regard to the pensioners issue and any compulsory insurance, I think that before the government in this country (Japan) starts pushing people on such a matter, I would like them to start taking names vis-a-vis those people who do not vaccinate their dogs in accordance with the laws that are already in place. To put this in another way, rabies vaccinations are mandatory in Japan, however, the current rate of vaccination is probably around 40% (if you are lucky).
0
cleo
600 pounds sounds way too high. I wonder who was doing the estimating, and what breed they were estimating for. The Petplan premium quoted is 23 pounds a month for a Lab, which is 276 pounds a year.
I'm all for compulsory chipping and I think insurance is a good idea, too; but it has to be regulated so that it bites where it needs to without discriminating against responsible dog owners.
Quote on the BBC web from a vet who sees up to three dogs a day that have been injured in organised dog-fights - "You won't see this problem going on in affluent areas. "These dog fighters are young men, with no education, no jobs and almost exclusively in gangs. Once we address that issue, we can come up with ways of solving the problem."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/thepword/newsid10000000/newsid10003100/10003178.stm
I agree with you that any yob with money can get their hands on the breed of their choice, and I also agree that some people are attracted to Rotties and Dobies (and mastiffs?) for the wrong reasons. I take issue with your claim that it takes time and effort to make a Dobie into a good canine citizen. Of all the dogs I have ever owned or known, none was ever as easy to train, as eager to please or as sweet and loving as my Dobie. Granted, I could have trained her to be vicious if I were that way inclined, but I reckon that would have taken more time and effort than it did to just teach her basic good manners. The problem isn't the dog, it's the owner. Any dog, large or small, needs to be properly trained.
Personally I'd say it was any dog that had an owner who thought it was cool to look 'tough' with an intimidating animal, but according to the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, the Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro are banned in the UK. People apparently get around the Act by cross-breeding, then their dog isn't a Pit Bull or a Tosa, its a mongrel.
0
stevecpfc
cleo, the 600 quid figure is the new amount that would be compulsary. Unlike insurance now for vet treatment, it would also have to cover any claims against you for your dogs damage to people or property. That is why the figure is so high.
Even 23 Pounds a month is to much for many elderly. Average weekly disposable income for oap
s on state pension for 2008 were 28 for single and 42 for married oaps.Also opa
s and people on low incomes can receive free treatment at the numerous Blue Cross centres across the UK, so they dont need insurance. Keeping a dog should not change from being aright to a thing that can be afforded. Besides, does anyone think the yobs that like to make their dogs fighting machines will comply? They don`t even take their dogs out in daylight as many are pitbulls.Why should the most vunerable pay for the behaviour of a minority?
0
brotokyo
Cleo, you brought a tear to my eye as I reflected on my dear Dobie. She was sweet, adorable and docile. It is all about training and it took very little time for her to understand and adjust to the workings of the family and society.
0
cleo
This is the main problem, of course (like guns in America) - take the dangerous dogs away from law-abiding Grannies, and only the criminals will have dangerous dogs. Hopefully the plan will get a lot of the kinks ironed out before anything is finalised so that genuine dog-lovers don't get penalised while the yobboes get off scot-free. I would hope, so, anyway.
0
timorborder
Just picking up on the dog breed issue, I actually know somebody here in Japan with a Dog Argentino cross who got the dog out of Australia to avoid the heat. He had his local vet mark the dog down as something else.
Also, with regard to Dobies, those that I know in Japan are all very good specimens, then again, my younger son and our Golden Retriever were actually threatened by a clown with a badly-trained Dobie down at the local park a couple of years ago. To cut a long story short, they quickly changed their attitude when my elder son and our mastiff (Ben)returned from a toilet stop. To drive home the point, Ben even nonchalantly had a bit of stretch in order to show off his chiseled physique and his pearly whites. As subtle as a brick Ben is.
0
skipthesong
oh.... if only I could. I see such a big business chance.
0
Odogma
The Nanny State even wants your pets.
0
dontpanic
Its a shame this proposal has come about, and it will penalise the vast majority who's dogs cause no problems. The real issue, as has already been pointed out, is with bad breeders and those that want a trophy dog to look hard or to to fight. Staffs, pitbulls and the like are paraded openly on some estates in the UK and more and more are fought out of sight.
At the end of the day I think the insurance proposal is simply there to fund the UK governments inability to deal with the criminals. Compulsory chipping would allow the government to track down those who obey the law and ensure they pay. Those on the outside of the law will continue to breed, sell and fight dangerous breeds with little risk.
0
cleo
How do you reckon that? It's not like the chips contain a tracking device. Dogs left to roam loose terrorising the neighbourhood, dogs caught after attacking people or other dogs, will be able to be traced back to their owners if they're microchipped. It will be easier to confiscate unchipped dangerous dogs since the owner will have no legal proof of ownership, while little Fido who slipped his lead in the park and ran off after a cat will have a better chance of being reunited with his law-abiding, fretful owner.
I think a lot of the pros and cons of this proposed new law is going to depend on how much the insurance actually costs and whether there is some kind of discount system for pensioners, disabled people with service dogs, neutered dogs, etc. As in all well-meaning plans, the devil is in the detail.
0
timorborder
Compulsory chipping would allow the government to track down those who obey the law and ensure they pay. Those on the outside of the law will continue to breed, sell and fight dangerous breeds with little risk.
How little you understand. Microchips in dogs are for identification purposes not for tracking where the animals are.
0
dontpanic
Cleo, timorborder, I didnt say the chips were tracking devices. My understanding of the proposal is that when dogs are chipped, ownership data will be logged. That data will be used to ensure there is insurance coverage for the dog. Where there is none the UK authorities will make sure insurance is taken out. Pretty much the same system they have for tracking car tax and insurance only instead of registration plate, read chip.
The proposal is for the scheme to be self funding from insurance premiums. The UK doesnt have a great record of providing cheap services and as its insurance based I wouldnt hold my breath for pensioner discounts.
Dangerous dog owners outside the law really wont care if their dogs are taken away, they arent buying them for love, the dogs are bought for sport or to be used as weapons. They'll simply go and get another one as they do now when their current animal is killed or is too injured to carry on.
I think you are being a little naive if you think this proposal is simply a well meaning plan that needs further thought. My own opinion is that the plan is about the UK authorities abrogating responsibility and want to put dealing with dangerous dogs in the 'hard to do draw' while having a pool of compensation money available for victims.
0
cleo
Then hopefully the law will hit repeat offenders where it does hurt.
Back to top