Comments on: Where’s the proof that Breed Specific Legislation works?

By: Carol McEver

Carol McEver — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:08:28 +0000

I, too think it is very unfair and wrong that homeowner’s insurance should be affected by what pet you own or do not own. Maybe if you have a dog that has a record as being a biter AND the insurance company finds that you do not have the dog in a very secure place 24/7, it could be an issue. But not just because you have a dog that is being made a monster in the press at the moment, or because you have 2 or 3 large dogs they think “might” get out of your home or yard and “might” attack someone. Insurance should work the way it always has, the more claims filed against it, the higher the premiums and/or possibility of being dropped as an insured. They should not be able to deny coverage or make you pay exhorbitant premiums because of something horrible that may or may not ever happen that they might have to cover you for. The world is getting crazier all the time. It seems it is all about money. Getting more, losing less, higher prices for consumers and lots less for those higher prices.

By: Pres.DLCC

Pres.DLCC — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:28:08 +0000

BSL does rely on genetics being the primary determining factor behind why dogs bite.It is nothing more than canine profiling.Your data cited is correct and refreshing to read it in such a forum.Hats off to you!

By: mike glass

mike glass — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:31:55 +0000

Something even more insidious than BSL is non-coverage of “dangerous” breeds by insurance companies. With BSL there is at least public hearings on the subject. Insurance companies can change your coverage or decide which dog breeds are not acceptable at their whim. I just recently learned about this. Many breeds are being excluded including Pits, GSDs, Rotties, Dobermans, etc. I have not checked with my insurance company yet.