IS GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION THE ANSWER? -- CONTINUED

[Lady B]

I thought you all would be interested in what is happening up in this neck of the woods. Attached is the testimony for changes to the dangerous dog code. Interestingly, one of our representatives attempted to add a further change to state senate bill 5027, to wit "Evidence of the dog's breed shall not be admissible by the state to prove that the owner either knew or should have known that the dog was potentially dangerous as defined in this chapter." The effect: "prohibits the admission of the dog's breed as evidence by the state in a prosecution." It was not included. At this time (04.26.99) the bill is in the Sentate Rules Committee for a third reading.

"Testimony For: The vast majority of what is in the bill is already in the statutes. The bill has nothing to do with the dog's breed, but it does have to do with dogs that have bitten and attacked people. A Division I
Court of Appeals case in 1996 ruled that the majority of these statutes were invalid and not enforceable because there was no due process for the dog or the dog owner. This bill just adds an appeal process to make the
rest of the statutes enforceable. The amount of the required $50,000 liability bond is increased to $250,000. If, after the owner both brings an attorney in and argues before the Humane Society, the dog is deemed dangerous, then the owner must get a bond. To the class C felony, the bill adds "whether or not" the dog has previously been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous and that the state has the burden of proof in showing from a previous run-in with the Humane Society that the dog is dangerous. If prosecutors can prove the owner knew or should have known,authorities can go forward with a class C felony.

It is important that owners be accountable and responsible for their dogs when they aggressively attack people. The problem is that people buy dogs and make them mean. Owners do know what their dogs are like. The dogs attack kids, but the dogs are not put to sleep, rather they are given away or released back into the neighborhood. We are not living in the 1920's at a time when many of these laws were written and livestock were
important. We need to give prosecutors a leg to stand on. Those who are attacked by dogs have to pay hospital bills out of their own pocket. Prosecutors try to prosecute these dog attack cases, but because of the "whether" wording in the statutes, the charges do not stick. To put dogs to sleep, the owner's permission sometimes has to be obtained and this should not be the case.

In essence, the notice and appeal procedures in this bill are the notice and appeal procedures that the city of Seattle has in place. The cities feel strongly that owners should have a notice and appeal process in
place, but also feel strongly that people should be protected. Since the tense has been changed, you can start the process with the "first bite." The process starts when someone wants the dog declared dangerous. This bill will put a notice and appeal process in place for cities and counties
that do not already have a process in place."

I would love to see something added in this bill that would eliminate the use of breed in any state or municipal legal process and the banning of breeds. I don't have the history of why certain Washington cities enacted breed specific legislation but assume this was put through as there was no process in place to prosecute those directly responsible. On the other hand, after observing the reactions in this city from the April 13th Rottie attack it could have been an over-reaction to the breed rather than what was the truer issue.

[trojanmpa]

I'm not sure if this post belongs in this arena, however, I feel obligated to say something...Most of my family is in the insurance business and offer tidbits of advice when it comes to improving rates or dumping unneeded policies. As my husband and I are in the process of buying a puppy at the end of this month I excitedly tell friends and family that we will soon have a new addition to the family.

Here's the bad part. Twice, my parents have given my husband and me a stern warning regarding our home insurance premiums. Apparentally, the premiums will skyrocket (that is if the insurance company doesn't drop us) if they find out we own a Rottweiler.

My question is, can't we, as representatives of this breed, lobby with our State Reps to have some sort of legislation stating that insurance companies can't raise our rates simply because we own a specific breed? What if there was a legislation stating that rates would not be raised if the dog is from a reputable breeder? This, in turn, would require a standardization in breeding variables, policies, ethics, et al, extending outside of the AKC. Perhaps papers would be offered as proof of a dog's temperament, training and certifications. By the way, this currently occurs for other invaluable items we own - land, jewelry, antiques...We simply need a qualified standard from which we can measure these variables and have them accepted by the insurance industry!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that reputable breeders sell their litters to responsible owners who have the dog's best interests at heart. Others sell/purchase protection animals that are bred and/or trained for that purpose alone. **As a subthought, this type of legislation would limit BYB and puppy mills. Isn't that what every reputable breeder and owner wants?**

Essentially, if insurance companies can dictate that they will insure only according to strict standards and rate your premium on how you meet those standards(look at life, car and home policies!), then why can't they do the same with our pets?

I apologize if I am being too idealistic, but this seems to be a venue for breeds/breeders to promulgate proper standards and expectations which would extend itself to the appropriate reputation. Any thoughts?

[This message has been edited by trojanmpa (edited May 07, 1999).]

[tbmckee]

Our Insturance man only wanted to meet our old girl and see what she was like. Once he did there was no problem with the insurance. They cover us just like we didn't have a dog.

[hks]

I have heard of homeowners getting dropped by their insurance companies, if they own a "dangerous dog" - rottweilers, pit bulls are in that category, supposedly. I have State Farm insurance in Oregon, and I have not had that problem. I don't pay extra for having a dog, or for having a rottie. I would suggest checking out different companies and their policies - this issue seems to vary by location. My only experience with an insurance company raising rates on a rottweiler happened to a friend, AFTER a claim was filed (the rott bit a guest in the home). About the insurance - I wouldn't panic until you've checked into it. Good Luck! (For myself, my girl would be worth the extra premiums, if I were forced to pay them.)

[Lady B]

It appears that State Farm is about the only carrier who will insure. I discussed this with our agent and was told that we are covered up to the first bite and claim. After that we are SOL with them. And, the breed does not matter, even if it were one of those dust mops.

FYI: There are many organizations working on various issues related to "breed specific". Check out BSL threads for more info or go to Jan's Website on BSL>

[This message has been edited by Lady B (edited May 07, 1999).]

[bearkat]

We had Horace Mann coverage for years, and every year the agent would come to our home, primarily to try to sell us life insurance. We had two claims (not dog related) with them, and our premium actually reduced over time. Last year we switched to Safeco, and their two concerns were we had to post "Beware of Dog" signs on our gatepost, and our fireplace... Our rates with Safeco are substantially less than with Horace Mann for triple the coverage.

[This message has been edited by bearkat (edited May 08, 1999).]

[Orville Story]

I am for any regulations that holds owners accountable. The laws should apply to negligence as well as the owner that make their dogs mean. If an owner allows a rottie to run free and that dogs causes harm the owner should have to pay plenties and for the damage. It should be a requirement that every rottie born have a microchip and that every owner maintain records of the buyer, and then the buy must kept a record if resold. This should be the case for all dogs registered or not. Anybody selling a puppy without a microchip should have to pay a big fine maybe 2000 dollars or more.

[Christine]

We have USAA Insurance and have never had a problem with them insuring us. They only suggested putting a lock on our fence gate and getting our dog microchipped. They only wanted to know general info on him (breed, sex, age). Our premiums have never went up because of any of our dogs. (And over the years we've had Pit Bull, Australian Cattle Dogs, and of course our current Rott).