You are:

Should all dogs be insured?

12 March 2010

The government has proposed compulsory insurance for all dog owners to ensure victims of attacks are compensated.

The consultation plans have been designed to update the Dangerous Dogs Act and respond to concerns about the use of animals to intimidate or threaten people. The proposals also include compulsory microchips for all dogs so they can be easily traced.

What do you think?

  • Should all dogs be insured? Would it make the UK safer and reduce the amounts of dog attacks on humans?
  • Are these proposals unfair? Do they risk penalising law-abiding owners?

Have your say, debate the issue here on PCS comment. A selection of the comments will be published in View, the monthly magazine for PCS members.

Tab Comment

  1. View comments
  2. Add a new comment

Tab Comment content

  1. What will it achieve?

    7 April 2010

    Not , I suspect, the desired effect and this once again is a knee jerk reaction with little actual throught behind it. As has previously been pointed out, it's not the law abiding dog owners that need to be targeted - it's the criminal element that are happy to use a living creature as a weapon and status symbol and who will never have insurance whether it's a legal requirement or not. Most responsible dog owners insure their dogs anyway to cover vets fees and this always includes good levels of third party insurance.

    Susan Howard
    Lets keep things in perspective

    29 March 2010

    Dogs are more dangerous than cars? No, I don't think so. Custodial sentence for dog owners? No, I don't think so. This whole discussion has been introduced because of one or two cases which have caught the headlines, and it is not an epidemic which is threatening the safety of the public at large, which is what one could think after sadly reading some of the comments.

    Lin Black
    Dog insurance is a necessity of dangerous times!

    29 March 2010

    A dog can be more dangerous than a car. Car owners are required to have insurance why should dog owners be exempt from that compulsion. The public need to be protected from the risks of dangerous dogs in the ownership of irresponsible owners. Hence, all dogs should have third party liability insurance! Those owners caught without dog insurance should be punished with a custodial sentence and their dogs put down. This will go a long way in protecting the public and dealing with irresponsible dog owners.

    Jawid Iqbal
    I don't agree

    29 March 2010

    The point of this insurance is "to update the Dangerous Dogs Act", right? So most honest dog owners would be obliged to go out and buy dog insurance even though their dogs would probably never cause any damage or harm to anyone/thing. But on the other hand, the dogs/owners who are being targeted won't even pay their council tax, or their latest court fine, so how do they plan to police and enforce it? If someone has a dog that may be liable to run off and attack another dog/person or cause any problems with damage to anything the owner probably should have at least 3rd party insurance. But what about those people who live in the country, far from any roads or public paths? Why should they need to pay for the stupidity of the minority? Personally I this is another case of the actual issue failing to be addressed, and instead of rectifying the issue, the usual answer seems to be just slam a tax or charge on it.

    Anon Anon
    Where would the money go?

    18 March 2010

    Would we really want legislation which would give yet more money to insurance companies?

    Dave Plummer
    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next Last
  2. Add new comment

    All comments will be moderated before publication. PCS does not guarantee that all comments will be published. Please see our comments policy for more information.