Dog Insurance to Become Compulsory?

Dog owners could soon be required to insure themselves against the risk of their pet attacking someone, Home Secretary Alan Johnson has announced.

New government proposals are suggesting that it should be compulsory for all dog owners to have their pets micro-chipped and have a form of pet insurance in case of injury caused to others, working in the same way as third party insurance does for car owners.

This has come in conjunction with the possible introduction of new Dog Control Notices for misbehaving animals, dubbed ‘Dogbos’ in akin to the asbos in operation for humans.

These ‘Dogbos’ would grant the police and council officials to force owners to muzzle, leash or even neuter overly aggressive dogs. In extreme cases the dogs could even be confiscated and given to new owners.

These measures have arisen as part of proposed changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act, and are aimed at the growing problem of dogs being bred as weapons to harm and intimidate others.
The laws could also mean that people will be held responsible for their dogs control and behaviour in their own homes, as currently this only extends to public places. The extension of this into private residences would mean extra protection for postmen as an example.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Mr Johnson said the proposal on insurance was one of many measures set out in a consultation document.

He said: "We believe that it is time for a root-and-branch look at the legislation underpinning dangerous dogs, and other aspects like third party insurance, like dog control notices that we are looking at, and the idea that you put a microchip in every dog so that you can trace them back to their owners."

Mr Johnson said the majority of dog owners were responsible - but there had been cruelty to animals meted out by people who had merely followed a fashion for "status dogs".

We reserve our judgment on this, as it has it benefits, but at the same time many drawbacks.

Would those irresponsible owners of dogs even bother with pet insurance? Would taking dogs from owners without insurance not simply flood animal rescues? Is it even fair if the owner is responsible and in control of their pets with full precautions including muzzling and leads?

Of course the added cost of owning a dog could deter those who see dogs as weapons or accessories from bothering in the first place. But many people, such as pensioners rely on their faithful pets for unconditional companionship and love and the costs may be too steep. Finally most responsible owners will already have pet insurance for their dogs in the case of health related issues, and would the payout from insurance really solve the grief of suffering of someone whom has been mauled or attacked?

If you have thoughts to share then please do.