Would you take out dog insurance? Have your say on proposed new rules... (From Bournemouth Echo)

dunketh wrote:
My dog already has a chip and insurance. You'd be pretty irresponsible (or thick perhaps?) not to have both these days anyway. I'm not worried about my docile mutt ripping some kids head off but the insurance does come in handy for any scarey vet bills.

Henry Bear wrote:

dunketh wrote: My dog already has a chip and insurance. You'd be pretty irresponsible (or thick perhaps?) not to have both these days anyway. I'm not worried about my docile mutt ripping some kids head off but the insurance does come in handy for any scarey vet bills.

From your comments it must be you who is stupid?? If you want to throw money away go ahead. If you do not have adequate care and control of your pet then perhaps it would be cheaper to do so. To force this upon already hard up familys who get cheap entertainment/enjoym ent from caring for their pet is the foolish. We cant even get people to insure & tax their cars, no hope of getting it done with dogs. This is just a stealth tax where the complient pay for the non complient as the do across many other taxes.

dunketh wrote:

Henry Bear wrote:

dunketh wrote: My dog already has a chip and insurance. You'd be pretty irresponsible (or thick perhaps?) not to have both these days anyway. I'm not worried about my docile mutt ripping some kids head off but the insurance does come in handy for any scarey vet bills.

From your comments it must be you who is stupid?? If you want to throw money away go ahead. If you do not have adequate care and control of your pet then perhaps it would be cheaper to do so. To force this upon already hard up familys who get cheap entertainment/enjoym ent from caring for their pet is the foolish. We cant even get people to insure & tax their cars, no hope of getting it done with dogs. This is just a stealth tax where the complient pay for the non complient as the do across many other taxes.

So I'm stupid because I have dog insurance? So, when your dog gets a bit older and the vet has to kill it because you can't afford £2000 or whatever for an operation you'll be sat their smug thinking "My, arent I glad I didnt pay that stealth tax" Insurance doesnt have to be that expensive. I know plenty of so-called hard up folk that pay more a month for Sky telly or mobile phone bills.

Morgan Leadbitter wrote:
Come on people, lets get honest. What we need to do, as a society, is to stop horrible little chav's walking the streets with their horrible Staffie's and staffie type mongrels. We do this by making it much harder to own a dog by way of a higher licence fee and a policy of no garden no dog.

Henry Bear wrote:

dunketh wrote:

Henry Bear wrote:

dunketh wrote: My dog already has a chip and insurance. You'd be pretty irresponsible (or thick perhaps?) not to have both these days anyway. I'm not worried about my docile mutt ripping some kids head off but the insurance does come in handy for any scarey vet bills.

From your comments it must be you who is stupid?? If you want to throw money away go ahead. If you do not have adequate care and control of your pet then perhaps it would be cheaper to do so. To force this upon already hard up familys who get cheap entertainment/enjoym ent from caring for their pet is the foolish. We cant even get people to insure & tax their cars, no hope of getting it done with dogs. This is just a stealth tax where the complient pay for the non complient as the do across many other taxes.

So I'm stupid because I have dog insurance? So, when your dog gets a bit older and the vet has to kill it because you can't afford £2000 or whatever for an operation you'll be sat their smug thinking "My, arent I glad I didnt pay that stealth tax" Insurance doesnt have to be that expensive. I know plenty of so-called hard up folk that pay more a month for Sky telly or mobile phone bills.

You are stupid from your comments, not your actions. The PDSA give free health care for animals, for a small donation, thanks for your concern though. I am happy to pay my way, insurance is a method to make money, therefore the chances you get your money back in paid bills is not that great, otherwise the company would go bust!! But keep throwing your money way, if it makesw you happy

victim123 wrote:
I witnessed our cat being killed by a greyhound in November and we were shicked to find how little the law protects us. Neither the police, RSPCA or dog ward have done anything (we are still waiting to hear back from the dog warden after more than three months and two further complaints). We ended up with a vets bill of over £400 - we traced the owner, who fled the scene, and they are paying the bill in small installments, but the law should protect people like us so we don't end up out of pocket.

Morgan Leadbitter wrote:
£180 dog licence / No garden no licence. Bring these laws in and problem would be more than halved within a year. I would also introduce £100+ on the spot fines for those caught letting there dog foul in a public place. We need to ensure that that idiots don't own dogs, not insure the idiots who do.

grumps999 wrote:

Morgan Leadbitter wrote: £180 dog licence / No garden no licence. Bring these laws in and problem would be more than halved within a year. I would also introduce £100+ on the spot fines for those caught letting there dog foul in a public place. We need to ensure that that idiots don't own dogs, not insure the idiots who do.

Take it from your comments you havn't got a dog or any pets.

Lord Spring wrote:
No driveway or garden = no car! How about then that would go down well. My Newfoundlander is perfectly happy in the bathroom if the bath is full of water

Morgan Leadbitter wrote:
How is it flawed and how is it not relevant? The discussion is looking at ways (one of which being insurance) to sort out the on going problem of dogs and dog owners. I may be taking a different angle but it amounts to the same thing in terms of purpose; legislation that makes owning a dog harder. Why? because there are too many dogs owned by people who do not have the finacial / personal situation back up to responsibley own one.

dunketh wrote:

Morgan Leadbitter wrote: How is it flawed and how is it not relevant? The discussion is looking at ways (one of which being insurance) to sort out the on going problem of dogs and dog owners. I may be taking a different angle but it amounts to the same thing in terms of purpose; legislation that makes owning a dog harder. Why? because there are too many dogs owned by people who do not have the finacial / personal situation back up to responsibley own one.

Not being a dog owner you're not to know this but.. A dog will not willingly defecate in its own home, often they see the garden as an extension of the home, ergo, they wont crap there.. A dog defecating in public causes no harm whatsoever. Provided the mess is picked up, no lasting damage is done. Your argument regarding finances makes better sense, although its a very dodgy area to get into. The same logic could be used to argue poor people should not have kids because they lack financial means to bring them up (a child obviously costing more over a lifetime than a dog). Personally I dont see a problem with insurance, provided its at a very low level. Cetainly in single figures. We already pay hundreds towards car insurance we never use or benefit from, in order to pay for others mistakes. Thats just life, there is no perfect system.

Morgan Leadbitter wrote:
so what about no garden no dog?

BH10et wrote:

Morgan Leadbitter wrote: so what about no garden no dog?

We own a dog, and we do not have a garden. So I take umbrance on what you have said in your verbal attack on good dog owners. As already pointed, in most cases, if a dog is exercised correctly, which ours is, it will not deficate in its own space, as ours will not on the communal green. A compitent dog owner will pick and disgard their dogs faescies in the correct manner. A competent dog owner will also abide by the laws of open space if any, ie, keeping their dog on a lead, or ensuring it is trained, and under proper control when not. In park land areas our dog does not come off its lead if other people and dogs are about, for his safety more than anything else. However, he does when in an area where it is safe to do so. This is why there are so many dogs in kennels that have been discarded and waiting homes, because of the no garden rules. Yes, I have insurance, mainly for Vet Bills if and when necessary, and my dog is microchipped, the latter because we travel abroad. The emphasis should be on the breeding of such dogs that are causing the problem, and to the people who own them. Do not pick on those who care about their animals.

traindriver3ss wrote:
well put grim reaper, the only dog that wont crap in the park, on the football pitch, on the beach or on the pavement is the same dog that you can guarantee will never attack a child yep its a dead dog!! Perhaps we could then move on to cats????

benjamin wrote:
The only problem with this idea, is that the type of person who keeps attack dogs ignores the rules anyway.

sc61 wrote:

benjamin wrote: The only problem with this idea, is that the type of person who keeps attack dogs ignores the rules anyway.

yep, you got it in one. Just another stealth tax.

traindriver3ss wrote:
In many ways i hate cats more! at least SOME dog owners clean up their animals crap! a former neighbour got quite upset when i kept throwing their cats s**t back into their garden!! bloody things!!! Still get more revenge in train on cats than dogs!!!

Morgan Leadbitter wrote:
so what about no garden no dog?

traindriver3ss wrote:
well put grim reaper, the only dog that wont crap in the park, on the football pitch, on the beach or on the pavement is the same dog that you can guarantee will never attack a child yep its a dead dog!! Perhaps we could then move on to cats????

Norman Mead wrote:
Instead, the law should make owners completely responsible for their dogs' actions. So if a dog injures someone, the owner would be prosecuted for ABH/GBH; if it kills someone, the owner gets done for manslaughter/murder.

victim123 wrote:
I witnessed our cat being killed by a greyhound in November and we were shicked to find how little the law protects us. Neither the police, RSPCA or dog ward have done anything (we are still waiting to hear back from the dog warden after more than three months and two further complaints). We ended up with a vets bill of over £400 - we traced the owner, who fled the scene, and they are paying the bill in small installments, but the law should protect people like us so we don't end up out of pocket.

Pineview wrote:

victim123 wrote:
I witnessed our cat being killed by a greyhound in November and we were shicked to find how little the law protects us. Neither the police, RSPCA or dog ward have done anything (we are still waiting to hear back from the dog warden after more than three months and two further complaints). We ended up with a vets bill of over £400 - we traced the owner, who fled the scene, and they are paying the bill in small installments, but the law should protect people like us so we don't end up out of pocket.

yes and i have witnessed many rare wild birds been savagely killed by cats . Thats nature !!
Back to the real problem of chavs ..lets just tax them when they have thier hoodees on !Would just be as easy as getting the tax from them for the dogs.