Re: Pets, lessons ... Protective v. Aggressive

Re: Pets, lessons ... Protective v. Aggressive by NY-LL on June 20, 2012 @15:00

The breeds of dogs that are considered dangerous or vicious by insurance companies are being exploited for financial profits, like the new “911 Insurance.” Most dogs are neither dangerous or vicious, unless trained to be that way.

Most breeds of dogs that are labeled dangerous and vicious are not at all dangerous or remotely vicious. Any dog that believes another person or another animal is entering “their space“ will respond in an aggressive manner in order to protect their territory, including so called “non-aggressive” breeds, small breeds, and “toy breed” dogs.

Most Bull Terriers are no more aggressive or protective than any other dog without provocation. The false reputation of “aggressive breed” dogs is being exploited by insurers to further instill fear for their own financial gain. For the few dogs that are intentionally trained to be aggressive, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more that are more playful and protective by nature than they are aggressive or violent.

When a Chihuahua barks and bites it is not newsworthy, but when a Bull Terrier does the same there are news reports about “man-eating Pit Bulls.” For the record, the true name of the breed is Bull Terrier, the “Pit Bull” label is a designer name for trained fighting dogs placed in pits for exploitation.

[ Reply ] [ Return to forum ]

Re: Pets, lessons ... Protective v. Aggressive by Douglas (KS) on June 20, 2012 @16:15	[ Reply ]

Disagree with your point. You are speculating and there is not a shred of proof in your post. REcently, it was published that dog bites average about $29,000 per claim and account for about a third of insurance claims.

Re: Pets, lessons ... Protective v. Aggressive by Betty L. on June 20, 2012 @16:42	[ Reply ]

It's not about if the dog is aggressive or not, but that the liability of the landlord is at issue. Many States, Cities, and Counties are now issuing new laws and regulations to restrict danagerous dogs. Courts have found landlords liable for the tenants dangerous dog if the landlord knew and did nothing to remove the animal. The insurance companies know what is and is not a risk, and they monitor the courts to see what verdicts and damages are awarded. A landlord would be foolish to not restrict or band any animal that would or is dangerous.

Re: Pets, lessons ... Protective v. Aggressive by Anonymous on June 20, 2012 @16:48	[ Reply ]

What nonsense, the insurance companies are conspiring to spread false reputations of "aggressive breed" dogs. How do we know the dogs aren't behind this plot?

Re: Pets, lessons ... Protective v. Aggressive by Anonymous on June 20, 2012 @20:09	[ Reply ]

Chihuahua's don't kill people. Pits and other aggressive breeds do kill. 2010 33 deaths - 19 by pitbull rottweiler 4 2011 15 deaths - 9 by pitbull rottweiler 2 2012 14 deaths - 9 by pitbull Other dogs with fatalities - Presa Canario, Mastiff, Wolf Hybrids. You can't argue against the numbers. These breeds statistically are involved in more dog related death and injury. The numbers don't lie.

Re: Pets, lessons ... Protective v. Aggressive by Original poster (GA) on June 21, 2012 @07:52	[ Reply ]

Dear NY-LL, I'm the original poster. Thank you for lots of great advice over the years, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I love dogs. Our whole extended family has had dogs for many years. Regardless of whether or not it's fair for insurance to have sweeping breed specific exclusions, I cannot change that fact. I cannot have a dog in my rental that is not insured by the tenant. From what I read here and elsewhere, my own liability and umbrella policies will protect me if this dog bites someone, but after that my policies will not be renewed and goodbye landlording career. So, if the tenant can't get their own renter's insurance on the dog for whatever reason, I have to say no. I'm not willing to risk losing my home over it. I love dogs, and I did try to find a tenable way to avoid telling the tenant to get rid of the dog (which I've confirmed is a Chow), but I just can't. I am well aware that in this economy with so many overcrowded shelters, this decision amounts to having the dog killed. It is not realistic to think they will find another place for him to go. I am very sad for this, but I believe it is unavoidable. I will post part two of the saga in the main thread which I think will make that decision clear. I am not anti-dog, but I am grateful the lease I purchased has a clause stating "No pet shall be brought onto the property without written permission of the landlord.". As my insurance agent told me yesterday, it's not just dogs that hurt people. Birds, snakes, etc. can all cause damage, so "any pet" is the way to go. I read that to include temporary care of pets belonging to others. I think part of the problem with this poor dog is that it is unsocialized to strangers. They are kenneling it on my deck all day while the parents are at work, and (during ths school year) while the kids are at school. All the time I was there overseeing repairs, I never saw the teenage owner of the dog pet or check on the dog. He stayed inside in his room most of the time. This poor dog has a junkyard dog type demeanor because it isn't part of the family. All the dogs I know elsewhere, including my own, are inside the home, sleeping at the foot of our beds, with the family, and they are happy and calm. If I were this poor Chow, I'd be angry and frustrated too. I believe the way they treat this dog is abusive, and I don't want that on my property. I will say that anyone who chooses to own a "challenging" breed like a Rottweiler, Chow, etc. that has the size and ability to really hurt someone, must be proactive and professional about socializing that dog with strangers, obedience training, etc. That's just part of responsible dog ownership as much as shots or anything else. In this case, the Chow was given to the family about a year ago, and from what I see and hear, made the now 15 year old son's responsibility. "You want a dog, son, you take care of it". Except he's 15. He isn't taking the responsibility of the dog seriously. He's not training it or socializing it. He's barely caring for it's physical needs and that's not enough for any dog, but especially not a Chow. My best friend has a very large German Shepherd that could probably kill me if it wanted to. Her husband is a deputy sheriff. They did "sheitzhund" training (sorry if spelling is wrong). They did proactive socialization training at parks, etc., since it was a puppy. The dog is safe around me and around strangers because they assertively and proactively trained it to be so. It's not a breed problem. It's an owner problem. Few 15 year olds are up to the challenge of owning a Chow, and our tenant's son is not one of them. K