When it comes to animals and the discussion of banning a
breed of dog I have two thoughts. First it’s dumb to ban a select breed of
animals as it only goes to create a false sense of security as the source of
the problem, the owners, are still not being addressed. Second, it’s equally stupid to not understand
that some animals have vastly more capacity to cause damage should an incident
occur.
The first answer is responsible ownership of animals. But who can determine what is needed and what
is effective? Certainly there are many
more responsible animal owners then irresponsible ones so who polices this
situation.
Well there is one thing for sure. It is without argument that any animal,
regardless of size or breed, can cause damage to people or property and the
only remaining question is one of magnitude.
Similarly as to how an accident in a small car, as unlikely to occur as
it is, will cause less damage than a full size truck. It becomes a question of magnitude as to the
level of damage. Even with responsible
driving, the occurrence of an incident is possible for anyone.
I believe we already have the framework of a system to help
us all out here. And that is liability
insurance. Most jurisdictions require a
dog (and sometimes all animals) to be licensed in some regard. To some it’s a cash-grab from the municipality,
but to some it’s a way to get the animal back to you – and most likely with a
fee attached. In those cases, the
animal is always registered against a home address to a home owner or renter. The animal is always associated with a
dwelling.
Now my home has insurance and liability insurance for the unlikely
situation that someone slips, falls, or gets hurt due to some unforeseen circumstance. Liability and occupancy insurance exists for
renters (this is not expensive) too – but this is not always enforced as the
home usually has the insurance.
So let’s return to the thought of responsible owners and how
to prove or encourage responsibility. I
feel that all animals should have liability insurance, verified by the
municipality for the animal license, associated with the property in which they
reside (either as a home owner, or a renter).
This insurance could financially cover those unforeseen incidents in which there is
damage or injury but also actually associate a cost with irresponsibility. Ultimately, let the insurance industry
consider risk and ownership metrics.
For instance, if you have a German Sheppard and the animal
is in any sort of formal socialization program (service animal, or search and
rescue), then it’s a major discount. If you, as the owner, have completed some
sort of training – then a discount. If
you have no history of claim – vastly reduced.
This is a possible way to consider statistically proving
someone is a good and responsible owner – just like we do with drivers. I am not advocating for huge insurance fees but when you ultimately make it financially beneficial to be responsible, then those that normally do not care or give it a second though may start to. Don’t ban breeds, monitor and support the
owners.
