TheKurp Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Dog owners' new policy: Bite back Some insurers refuse to cover certain dog breeds, including Rottweilers and pit bulls. By Bob Riha, Jr., USA TODAY Chris and Norm Craanen of San Antonio lost their homeowner's insurance coverage earlier this month. The reason: Bukarus, their 12-year-old Rottweiler. Bukarus has never bitten anyone, but if he did, the Craanens' insurance policy typically would cover medical costs and claims for damages by the victim. Hit by increased costs from such claims, some insurance companies are refusing to sell or renew policies to homeowners like the Craanens who own Rottweilers, pit bulls, Doberman Pinschers, Siberian huskies and certain other breeds. The trend is prompting dog owners to fight back and demand an end to what they call "canine profiling." "We feel we are being discriminated against," says Chris Craanen, who scrambled and found a new policy. "Bukarus is arthritic. He's deaf and going blind. He's been neutered, and he's really good around our two boys 9 and 5. He's a good family dog." Dog owners in several states are petitioning legislatures to block insurers from dropping their coverage because they own a certain kind of dog. Insuring by breed "is just not fair," says Tom Campbell, a Republican state representative in Washington who breeds Rottweilers. His bill to ban the practice got a hearing this spring but no action. So far, only Pennsylvania prohibits "breed discrimination" by insurers. Similar legislation also is pending in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New York. "None of these has passed so far this year, but this is just the start of a campaign," says Lisa Weisberg, vice president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Safety concerns about certain breeds often arise after high-profile dog attacks such as the fatal mauling in 2001 of a San Francisco woman by two Presa Canarios, says Stephanie Pier of the American Kennel Club, a non-profit group that promotes purebred dogs. Some cities have banned ownership of particular breeds or required owners to carry minimum liability coverage. "The first instinct is always to ban the breed," she says. "But people soon realize that it's an individual dog — not the breed — that's responsible." Dogs bite about 4.7 million Americans a year, and about 800,000 require medical treatment. About 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 fatal dog bites during the 20 years ending in 1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in a 2000 study. Pit-bull type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths, the report said. But the CDC said many factors affect a dog's propensity to bite, including heredity, sex, training, health, reproductive status and the care provided by its owners. The CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association oppose rules that single out breeds. The refusal by insurers to write policies for the owners of certain breeds is having other ramifications: • Renters can face problems obtaining coverage, says Susan Arredondo of San Diego. She and her husband adopted a mixed-breed pit bull named Emily two years ago. "What really gets me mad is that they would insure me if I had a registered firearm in the house, but not if I have a dog," she says. "Does that make sense?" • Animal shelters are seeing a big increase in drop-offs from owners "who choose their insurance policy over their dog," says Brian Sodergren of the Humane Society. Homeowner's insurance typically pays for damage, theft and legal liability for injuries to others, including those caused by pets. Dog bites represent about a third of all homeowners' liability claims but only 10% to 15% of the amount companies pay each year. The cost has grown, however, from $250 million in 1996 to $310 million in 2001, the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group, reports. The total was "up slightly in 2002," spokeswoman Alejandra Soto says. After a dog bite claim, insurers typically raise the premium, cancel the policy or rewrite it to exclude the dog. But the issue of declining to write insurance at all for owners of certain breeds — regardless of whether individual dogs have ever bitten anyone — has divided the nation's largest homeowner insurers. Nationwide Insurance and some divisions of Allstate won't insure homes with dogs of certain breeds. State Farm, Farmers Insurance and USAA say a dog's bite history is their chief concern, not the breed. Mercury Insurance gives a 10% discount to people without dogs. Nationwide banned coverage for certain breeds in the mid-1990s. The company took action "because of the increasing number of biting injuries to children and adults," spokesman Kevin Craiglow says. "We compiled the list of breeds based on reputation, our own research and information from the CDC." On Nationwide's list: Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, pit bull breeds, Presa Canarios, chows and wolf-hybrids. State Farm focuses on helping dog owners be responsible, spokeswoman Zoe Younker says. Since 1997, the company has distributed 12 million copies of "Fido: Friend or Foe?" a brochure offering tips for children on caring for dogs and behaving around them. Tia Maria Torres, who runs a pit bull rescue center near Los Angeles, says homeowners are being penalized because of people who train their dogs to be vicious. "Homeowners are responsible people with good credit, responsible kids and responsible pets," she says. "Why are they paying the price for gang members and drug dealers who have the dangerous dogs?" But some activists support companies that insure by breed. "Certain breeds do a lot more damage because of their size and the size of their jaw," says Phyllis Daugherty, director of a Los Angeles animal welfare group called Animal Issues Movement. She fears that companies may stop covering all dog bite claims because "the cost is too much and the risk is too high. They have to run their business in a cost-effective way. There are differences in breeds — their excitability, their tolerance and their genetic makeup. Certain breeds simply are more prone to bite." *************************************************** Preventing dog bites The American Kennel Club maintains a Web site (www.akc.org) that lists insurance company policies on dogs. Tips for being around dogs: • Never approach an unfamiliar dog. If approached, stand still. • Don't run from or scream near a dog. • Don't disturb a dog that is sleeping, eating or caring for puppies. • Don't play with a dog without allowing it to see and sniff you first. Children should not approach a dog unless supervised by an adult. Tips for dog owners: • Socialize your dog so it feels at ease around people and other animals. • Don't put your dog in situations where it can be teased or feel threatened. • Don't let your dog roam freely. • Train your dog to obey commands. • Spay/neuter your dog. Source: USA TODAY research Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I saw that yesterday....:doh: In my opinion, dogs are not "evil" by nature, it all depends on the owners. One of my friends has 2 pit bulls and they are scared of my springer spaniels. They are big babies. In my new found dog park experiences, I have seen stupid a$$ people that train their dogs to be aggresive... they should be shot. (the owner, not the dogs) This article boils down to the same stuff, the majority gets punished for the idiot minority. It's a shame. You should have to be idiot tested before you are allowed to own a dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelM Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 This is along the same lines as auto insurance. Young drivers have to pay an arm and a leg before they have had any violations or claims due to the history of young drivers. I would like to know what magically changes in a persons mind when he reaches 25 to cause safer driving habits. I did fit into these profiles as I had a dozen tickets, mostly speeding, within the first five years I had a drivers license. I've gone about the last dozen years with two and they were only months apart. I guess dealing with the traffic or riding the train helps, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I saw that yesterday....:doh: In my opinion, dogs are not "evil" by nature, it all depends on the owners. One of my friends has 2 pit bulls and they are scared of my springer spaniels. They are big babies. In my new found dog park experiences, I have seen stupid a$$ people that train their dogs to be aggresive... they should be shot. (the owner, not the dogs) This article boils down to the same stuff, the majority gets punished for the idiot minority. It's a shame. You should have to be idiot tested before you are allowed to own a dog. Code I have always thought that a person should pass a test to be a dog owner. I would even go as far as to have different test's for bigger breeds. Some people make terrible pet owners. I am not just refering to the obvious people who train there dogs to be very aggressive and have NO control over there dogs, but also people who neglect a breeds specific needs. If you cannot take the time to properly care for the health and mental well being of a dog you shouldn't have one period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 21, 2003 Author Share Posted May 21, 2003 To an extent I agree with you Code. However..... The Centers for Disease Control study dog bite incidents, including the types of dogs most likely to bite. The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. So this begs the question: Do people who train their dogs to be aggressive naturally gravitate towards owning these breeds or do they choose these breeds because by nature they're naturally aggressive? I think the answer lies somewhere in between. Tommy-the-greek is onto something when he advocates breed-specific tests for potential dog owners. Frankly I think most people give very little thought to breed temperament characteristics when choosing a dog. A border collie in a city apartment building makes very little sense. Labradors and goldens relegated to outside living makes very little sense. Most people choose dogs for their looks and/or their size. Choosing based on that criteria alone is why so many dogs wind up in shelters and rescue organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Originally posted by MichaelM This is along the same lines as auto insurance. Young drivers have to pay an arm and a leg before they have had any violations or claims due to the history of young drivers. I would like to know what magically changes in a persons mind when he reaches 25 to cause safer driving habits. I did fit into these profiles as I had a dozen tickets, mostly speeding, within the first five years I had a drivers license. I've gone about the last dozen years with two and they were only months apart. I guess dealing with the traffic or riding the train helps, too. What changes is risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Interesting that I just yesterday told a policy holder that she shouldn't buy a rottwieler if she wanted to keep her homeowners policy. This is about risk exposure folks. It's all actuarial. Those types of dogs have a greater chance of causing a large claim. Just like a house on near the ocean is going to cost more to insure than one farther away. It's not illegal, it's the nature of insurance. The argument that each individual dog should be judged is absurd. Im sure that my Acura is safer than someone elses but they rate the same. Most of the Companies I deal with now will exclude coverage for dog bites from any breed. Some are still specifying. The most common are Rotts, German Sheppards, Pit Bulls, Chows, and Standard poodles (yep). You can still get insurance to cover those animals liabilty, but it would be a seperate coverage and probably expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I couldn't believe it when my homeowners guy told me Huskies were on the vicious dog list because they'd killed 17 people since 1970. More than German Sheps. I know my dog and it would require one hell of a lot of abuse to get her to even think about nipping. I can't imagine how my dog qualifies as vicious to anyone. I know Pit Bulls can turn on people, and Rotts are just scary, but no dog properly owned is going to hurt someone the owner doesn't want hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 21, 2003 Author Share Posted May 21, 2003 I've only been bitten by one dog, it was a Chihuahua. My oldest dog (80 lbs) is afraid of little dogs. Why? You guessed it, she was attacked by a Chihuahua. I guess from an insurance standpoint you're not likely to have a substantial injury claim filed by a victim of a Chihuahua. None-the-less, I'd like to just once tee up one of those damn little ****s and attempt a 50-yard field goal. My apologies in advance to anyone who owns a Chihuahua. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 That would seem to be the answer, just exclude coverage for bites and such and offer it as separate insurance. The insurance company then doesn't care what kind of dog you have, and if Rover is too old and arthritic to chomp the homeowner doesn't need the extra coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelM Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Originally posted by OPM What changes is risk. I know they use figures based on different ages and a significant change in the numbers is seen around 25. My comment was more of a sarcastic one in the thought that from one day to the next, you can be a much better driving according to numbers and that is reflected in a huge difference by some in insurance premiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Tommy, I agree 100%... Kurp.. I do believe that those who train their dogs to be agressive gravitate toward those breeds. No "gangsta" is going to get a poodle to train to fight. Another thought is that all of those dogs are larger breeds.. What I'm getting at is they do more damage. You don't hear about a beagle biting a person as often. I know at the dog park I go to, this one tiny beagle is pretty agressive, he's out there chasing rottweilers, seriously. He bites at them but doesn't do any harm... If those rottweilers bit at him, you know the PC police would come running with guns out. I personally feel like some, but not all, dog bites are warrented. The media never reports that the 3 year old who was mangled by a pit bull was left unsupervised by his parents and was trying to rip the dogs eye out. I know because my nephew was about to poke out the eye of his boxer (he was 3 at the time) but I saw him and grabbed him before he could do it. Unsupervised kids and dogs don't mix. But I also know that there are plenty of cases of dogs getting loose and terrorizing a neighborhood... those owners should suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Tommy, I agree 100%... Kurp.. I do believe that those who train their dogs to be agressive gravitate toward those breeds. No "gangsta" is going to get a poodle to train to fight. Another thought is that all of those dogs are larger breeds.. What I'm getting at is they do more damage. You don't hear about a beagle biting a person as often. I know at the dog park I go to, this one tiny beagle is pretty agressive, he's out there chasing rottweilers, seriously. He bites at them but doesn't do any harm... If those rottweilers bit at him, you know the PC police would come running with guns out. I personally feel like some, but not all, dog bites are warrented. The media never reports that the 3 year old who was mangled by a pit bull was left unsupervised by his parents and was trying to rip the dogs eye out. I know because my nephew was about to poke out the eye of his boxer (he was 3 at the time) but I saw him and grabbed him before he could do it. Unsupervised kids and dogs don't mix. But I also know that there are plenty of cases of dogs getting loose and terrorizing a neighborhood... those owners should suffer. Code, won't bludgeon you here, but I couldn't disagree more. A kid doesn't know what the danger is. Its ENTIRELY on the dog owner if a kid is bitten, unless the child is on the owners property and somehow gets into an enclosed area. Our neighbors had a great dane/rottweiler mix that was supposedly 'really friendly'. He rushed me one day in my front yard and bit my hand to the bone. After that, I told my neighbor bluntly that if his dog ever even came onto my property again, I would be forced to kill it. I love dogs, but not as much as my kids, and I had no confidence I could physically stop this animal if it were to attack one of my kids. Again I love dogs, grew up with Weimaraners as a kid. But I've never understood the mentality of people who would put their dog above the safety of a human being. Its a bizarre mindset, and you see it a LOT in North Carolina. Owners don't have the right to let their dogs run free. If people would just show respect for their neighbors, oh what a wonderful world it would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 PS Code, realize you mostly agree with what I'm saying, just brought back a bad memory related to kids getting bitten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Originally posted by MichaelM I know they use figures based on different ages and a significant change in the numbers is seen around 25. My comment was more of a sarcastic one in the thought that from one day to the next, you can be a much better driving according to numbers and that is reflected in a huge difference by some in insurance premiums. Somebody called me an Old-Fart, this has just ruined my day! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Tarhog... no problem.. but I really was only referring to the situations where adults leave kids unattended with pets.. clearly that is the adults fault. Children don't know "what not to do" in all cases... From reading your post, I think we are talking apples and oranges.. I agree with everything you said 100%... I didn't mean for my post to sound like I felt it was "always" the child's fault. Clearly, if a child is minding their own business and a loose dog attacks them, the owner of the dog is 100% at fault, that's what I meant in the closing line of my post. However, I have read article after article regarding a family pet attacking a small child.... in those cases, I would be money that more times than not, the child has done something to hurt the dog, and that is the parents fault for leaving them unattended. After the incident with my nephew, I made sure my brother knew how I felt on the matter, I told him that if Zoe and Cameron couldn't get along, Zoe would be welcome with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 This is a great topic, and from the get-go (I haven't yet read all of the responses) I agree with Kurp's take. All domestic dogs can be raised, trained and socialized to be good dogs that are totally "safe". The problem is that they can all be raised to be aggressive and unsafe, and they tend to default towards that setting if you will if no training occurs at all. While breed does not determine this, it can influence it. I can easily see with Molly, my well-bred GSD, that if I didn't socialize her and train her as aggressively as I am, her loyalty to me and my wife would be such that she'd be at the very least a total pain in the ass to anyone visiting, or worse, an outwardly aggressive dog. It's against her nature to walk down the street and to simply ignore other dogs and people who walk by and who might be threats to us, or even dogs barking at her from across the street behind a fence. Certain breeds leave less margin for error than others. An abused Golden Retriever is less likely to bite than an abused Pit Bull, and its bite isn't as devastating on top of that because it's a soft-mouthed dog. I understand the insurance companies- they're playing the risk game and so what they're really saying is that pit bulls and the way they tend to be raised tend to cause more violent incidents than other breeds. That nuance is lost unfortunately when they "ban breeds" from their coverage. Is this fair to good dog owners? Of course not. And there's probably a better, fairer way to do this, such as making exceptions for people with those breeds who have entered their dogs in training. But I understand why they're doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I have a 15 year old, blind, toothless Poodle. But I promise you........if I am in the house and you try to get it.........he will try his best to gum you. I am personally a dog lover......but I too am terrifed of large dogs that are "known" as vicious. I agree with many here. When my dog passes (I bet he outlives me), I won't get a large dog. Or a Chihuahua ;) :laugh: Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 ooops......:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I believe the INS. companies can find a better way to do it. Are they more concerned with profits or making households safer? There should be some kind of basic test a person must pass to be a dog owner. There should also be tougher tests for people who choose certain bigger breeds. The owner of bigger breeds should have to register these dogs with a vet and the INS. company have access to this records. This would allow them to weed out people who don't take care of there pets physical needs. The owners should also have to pass an obedience course with there dog. That test should be breed specific or at least size specific. No decent pet owner should object to this and this would make houses and neghborhoods safer. It is a win win situation for everyone. Could you stand 20 feet away from your dog and command him/her to stay/heal/leave it. If your dog can pass this test and a few others they have no right to cancell or raise your HO Ins. policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by tommy-the-greek The owner of bigger breeds should have to register these dogs with a vet and the INS. company have access to this records. This would allow them to weed out people who don't take care of there pets physical needs. I'm with you Tommy up until this point. But before I agree or disagree I'm going to need some definition of what minimum criteria constitutes taking care of a pet's physical needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Kurp, A vet can tell if a dog has been mistreated and hence is prone to being aggressive. If the dog is under fed and malnourished or if it's hygene has been neglected it should fall into a high risk category. Does the dog have all of it's shots and does the dog suffer from any diseases that have been ignored and not treated. This is info the Ins.companies should have access to when determining a risk. Look at the above pic. Those dogs are in excellent condition. There coats show signs of immaculate grooming and they have been well fed. You can also tell from that pic that they are highly trained working dogs. All 16 dogs are off the leash with there master/partner at least 10 feet away. They have been commanded to stay and leave it. Someone drops a cat in front of them as the ultimate test. Looks like they all passed with flying colors with the slight exception of the one in the middle that has lowered his head. If you have trained your dog to this EXTREME the Ins. companies have no right what so ever to cancell or raise your policy. What's next? Will they make blind people's guide dogs and police K-9 and search and rescue dog owners pay a higher premium or cancell there policies? Some of the dogs in the bite group are the best working dogs on the planet. They have been trained to do many valuable tasks for us. They protect us and serve us in ways that many people just don't understand. I want someone to add up the total dollar amount of all bite pay outs and then I want someone to add up all the dollars working dogs save the Ins. co's every day over the same period. The later amount would be staggering. How many times have a bomb sniffing dog stopped a bomb from going off by early detection? How many times have a search and rescue dog found a victum of a tragic accident in time to save there lives? Go thru all these scenerio's and many more and add up the saving to the Ins. co that didn't have to pay out on a policy? Sounds like the Ins. co's want to have there cake and eat it to. What a double standard. I understand there right to assess risks. My previous post is simple guideline or at least a nice starting point to attempt to assess dogs on merit instead of profiling a specific breed. There has got to be a better way then what is presently being done. I love my dogs with a passion. I also know that my dogs are well trained and with a little more training could be search and rescue dogs, guide dogs or K-9 dogs. They would never attack anything that wasn't an IMMEDIATE threat to my family, there pack members. I have caught my kids pulling there tails attemting to ride them like horses and actually pulling on there tongues when they were younger. My dogs at the time didn't even growl. I have had 6 GSD's in my life time so far that were my dogs. Not one of them ever bit anyone. I have been bit 3x in my lifetime by other dogs. I blame the owner not the dogs. If these owners spent half the time I have in reading all the books and articles about training and spending the time to talk with and learn from professional trainers and then spend the actual time traing there dogs. The number of dog bites would drop dramatically. Bad dogs are usually the product of bad owners. The bad owners should be trained to be better and to pass tests or forced to give up there dogs and not be allowed to have bigger breeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 That would create a bigger premium increase because of the time and resources needed to monitor and investigate. Ins Companies are in business to make money. They are beholden to their stockholders or policy holders depending on the type of company it is. They are not in the business of protecting a household. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 The easiest solution to me is to not cover animal bites/attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NASMTrainer Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 This is along the same lines as auto insurance. Young drivers have to pay an arm and a leg before they have had any violations or claims due to the history of young drivers. I would like to know what magically changes in a persons mind when he reaches 25 to cause safer driving habits. I did fit into these profiles as I had a dozen tickets, mostly speeding, within the first five years I had a drivers license. I've gone about the last dozen years with two and they were only months apart. I guess dealing with the traffic or riding the train helps, too. It's not a magical change, it's called experience, but on the other hand, as a person gets older, they seem to loose that. i.e. people over 70. I watched an old woman the other day on the road, she almost caused to accidents and she didn't even make it a 1/10 of a mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.