WoW Petopia Community

Pit Bulls & Staffordshire Terriers
Doberman Pinschers
Rottweilers
Chows
Great Danes
Presa Canarios
Akitas
Alaskan Malamutes
German Shepherds
Siberian Huskies
Boxers
Mastiff
Dogo Argentino
American Bulldog
Or any dog resembling the aforementioned breeds


This is complete bullS*** who the hell came up with this list? Boxers? American Bulldog? HUSKIES? GREAT DANES? They never hurt nobody. Im a huge German Shepard and mastiff fan, so this pisses me off.

What scares me though is that last one. "dog resembling" Thats dangerous territory right there

I think it's because they believe these dogs are "more likely" to bite you. Which is funny cause all dogs have the capability to deliver a serious bite. Even the smaller breeds. Although the insurance company won't know what kind of dog that you have unless you tell them or you actually get bitten I guess. I'm pretty sure people just lie about it. =P It's BS anyways.

Another forum I frequent, one of the members recently had to surrender his great dane to authorities for euthanasia because it bit someone. To go with the poster that mentioned all dogs have the capacity to bite, a lab almost bit my dad recently (he jumped back in time). The dog ran from the yard where it was and to the sidewalk where my dad was walking by. It lunged at him and almost got him.

Technically, a shih tzu can be deadlier then a pitbull, considering it's past, and what's going on.
Also...

has similar colouring patterns to a Rottwiler...
Does that mean my lil' Lily is going to be uninsured?
wtf man... wtf D:

I absolutely loathe BSL. Was just ranting about it last night because this morning in a part of Ireland, BSL murdered an innocent family pet named Lennox, just because he looked like a pit bull. He never bit or attacked anyone nor was he under any complaints. He was pulled from his family two years ago and wasn't allowed to see them. His family didn't even get to say goodbye before he was put down. Can you imagine how scared and confused he was?
I just cannot stand how humans claim dog as mans best friend, then go and do shit like this. We're discriminating. If they were human we'd call it racism.
Just makes me so furious...

Out of interest, do ALL insurance companies follow this list? Surely they can choose who they insure.

Then again, insurance companies often generalize as far as risk factors go. It can be very costly for people who unfortunately fall into those categories, despite not being a higher risk, but I also guess sometimes it's unavoidable. It's impossible for them to do a personal assessment of every individual situation, nor could they accurately assess everyone without having a crystal ball. It's not just dog breeds, if you're young your car insurance will be a lot higher. If you live in a "bad" neighbourhood it will be as well. If you're old your health insurance could be a lot higher, even if you're healthier than some 20 year olds.

That doesn't mean their list of breeds they won't insure is fair, but I'd be surprised if it was based on pure speculation and biases. Insurance companies care about avoiding claims, and their lists are usually based on real data, i.e. the breeds that are more likely to result in insurance claims from previous experience. Toy breed terriers may be more likely to bite but they seldom cause as much damage.

Redith wrote:What scares me though is that last one. "dog resembling" Thats dangerous territory right there

To be honest , I'm more of a cat person, but your spot on with that last quote, that's simply ridiculous.

"Oh wait, that man looks like that other man that killed someone last year, omg quick throw him in jail before he kills someone too... you know, cause them killers all look the same and all." -_-

Some times I really wonder how many more generations it will take before the human race implodes on itself...

Random Question, what type of insurance/s is denied to you if you do own one of these puppies?

Spiritbinder wrote:

Redith wrote:What scares me though is that last one. "dog resembling" Thats dangerous territory right there

"Oh wait, that man looks like that other man that killed someone last year, omg quick throw him in jail before he kills someone too... you know, cause them killers all look the same and all." -_-

It does seem pretty ridiculous. But I can see where that clause would be coming from... so they can also exclude cross-breeds that people would otherwise claim aren't on the list, or dogs they try to claim aren't a certain breed even though they patently are. But of course it's open to abuse.

the funniest thing is, I remember a number of years ago, the single breed that was responsible for the most dog bites was:

drum roll, please....


Cocker Spaniels.



And I'd be incredibly pissed off if my insurance tried to refuse me because of my Husky pup.
Thankfully, we actually got a reduction on our home insurance BECAUSE we have a larger breed dog.

Either way, these dogs aren't naturally dangerous... Sure some of them have a high protective instinct, but it's never the dogs fault if it gets out of hand. Owners need to be responsible and contain it, or contain the dog from the public. And even if a dog does turn potentially dangerous, they can be rehabilitated to be normal loving dogs again. Just look at the case of Michael Vick. All of his dogs were saved because someone said they could change them, and they did. The dogs have loving homes now as family pets.
We shouldn't just judge a dog based on the breed. Blame the owners, make the owners take the blame. Sure, accidents do happen, but why KILL a dog for it?

Sorry, I'm like.. in a super pro-dog mood. XD

I'm just glad not all insurance companies are like this.

I remember my friend had a Boxer named Wrinkles, she was one of the sweetest dogs I've ever met! Sure, she would bark if someone strange came close to the house, but don't all dogs do that? The dogs that I really stay away from are Golden Retrievers. My step-sister had one that would bark whenever it saw me, and the only time it didn't bark was when I gave it chicken nuggets.

And what pets are they gonna restrict insurance from next that can be ''POTENTIALLY'' and ''SUPPOSEDLY'' dangerous next? Are they gonna restrict Domestic Cat/Wild Cat Hybrids like Savannahs because they can cause a good amount of damage? And what about pets like Aggressive Tropical Fish such as Piranha and Gar, and Reptiles like Crocodilians, Pythons, and Boas? We all know people just LOVE to hate them without any scientific source and simply use the media as there textbook!

Crotalus Horridus wrote:and the only time it didn't bark was when I gave it chicken nuggets.

Arh HAR! So it all comes back, in full circle!



Don't lie Rattle Snake, we know what "chicken nuggets" you where feeding that puppy... You where trying to get it to DE-evolve back into a dinosaur!!!!!
Your plot has been EXPOSED!!!!

TheDoomcookie wrote:Either way, these dogs aren't naturally dangerous... Sure some of them have a high protective instinct, but it's never the dogs fault if it gets out of hand. Owners need to be responsible and contain it, or contain the dog from the public. And even if a dog does turn potentially dangerous, they can be rehabilitated to be normal loving dogs again. Just look at the case of Michael Vick. All of his dogs were saved because someone said they could change them, and they did. The dogs have loving homes now as family pets.
We shouldn't just judge a dog based on the breed. Blame the owners, make the owners take the blame. Sure, accidents do happen, but why KILL a dog for it?
Sorry, I'm like.. in a super pro-dog mood. XD
I'm just glad not all insurance companies are like this.

I'm a dog lover. But... and I know it's not going to be popular to say this here... dog breeds do exhibit behavioural differences. It's not what we'd like, and it doesn't fit the dog version of an "everyone is equal" philosophy, but it is science. Some are more aggressive or more likely to bite than others and shouldn't be encouraged as suburban pets, just as some breeds are more prone to hyperactivity or compulsive fetching or need more exercise than a suburban backyard can provide and probably should also be discouraged. Sure there's a lot between-individual variety but breed differences do exist. It's true the owner has to take responsibility, but the fact is that's not always going to happen. Trashy people with breeds that need more discipline are always going to be a problem. The same is true with their children, but we can't just take their kids from them until they already show signs of serious abuse.

I'm not surprised about Cocker Spaniels. They are known for a genetic fault that causes them to go into a blind rage. At their size they're less likely to seriously maim or kill someone than a larger breed or one with stronger jaws though.

zedxrgal wrote:Little dogs like Chihuahuas etc were a constant problem in the kennels and most were either human aggressive or dog aggressive to where it was impossible to keep them with other dogs.
I don't seem them banning a rat dog or causing rates to go up.
I do see medical bills like a child needing stitches because the families small dog tore his face up.
Another little baby had to have surgery because a small breed dog (WARNING GRAPHIC) bit his testicles off. ]

This is probably the greatest issue with small, aggressive breeds. Owners expect them to behave the same way with kids (which they actually see as a rival) as they do the owner, and they can cause serious damage.

From my understanding, the greatest problem is not natural "aggression" as much as reactivity and nervousness. All dogs are hardwired to bite as part of their pack instinct, but some breeds are more likely to jump at external stimuli than others, and tiny breeds are more likely to be terrified. And this means they're more likely to bite. Usually in momentary fear. A similar reason is why Labradors are used almost exclusively in Australia as guide dogs, rather than German Shepherds. Not because of aggression, and both breeds are highly intelligent, but because labs are less likely to get jumpy around loud noises and surprises.

But Labs and Goldens have more biting incidents than German Shepherds.

Rawr wrote:But Labs and Goldens have more biting incidents than German Shepherds.

Do you have some stats on that? You just quoted two of the most popular breeds in the world, so I'm wondering if it's because of that and their bite chance per dog is actually a lot less. From what I've seen they're in the low bite chance group.

Wain wrote:

Rawr wrote:But Labs and Goldens have more biting incidents than German Shepherds.

Do you have some stats on that? You just quoted two of the most popular breeds in the world, so I'm wondering if it's because of that and their bite chance per dog is actually a lot less. From what I've seen they're in the low bite chance group.

I can tell you this for truth. One neighbor was attacked by a rogue Dalmatian someone owned. The news crew came to do a report, found out it wasn't a pitbull, and they left. No story, no nothing. When called they said "A dangerous dalmatian isn't news"

So I think people are breedist to many dogs.

I just... want to see a source on this
Like, see where this law is in effect
And see what insurances are following it
etc... because really...

If I could, I'd edit the list to only contain these breeds:

And those breeds only.
(note: there are no breeds on the list)

The very last part "Or any dog resembling the aforementioned breeds" makes me think of this that my friend linked me a few minutes ago.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/len ... 39624.html

I like cats over dogs, but Ive always wanted a Husky. My aunt owned like 4 Rottweilers and they were the sweetest things ever (except when they tried to use me as a chair being twice me size when I was younger). This is a little ridiculous.