$1 million "dangerous dog" ins. pol. required

[Betty3]

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/05/15/royal-oak-ordinance-requires-dangerous-dog-insurance/

ROYAL OAK (WWJ) - Royal Oak is about to unleash new regulations on dog owners.

The new rules, which go into effect Thursday, require owners of "dangerous dogs" to carry $1 million in liability insurance, post signs, complete an obedience class with the dog, and keep the dog in a locked, fenced-in area. Owners must also comply with seven pages worth of other requirements to keep their pets in the city.

Officials say a dog is deemed dangerous if it bites or attacks a person, or causes serious injury to another domestic animal. Exceptions include dogs protecting an owner or a homeowner's property.

City leaders say they created the ordinance after receiving 32 reports of dog bites and attacks during 2012 in Royal Oak.

Royal Oak resident John Scott said the ordinance is a good move for the city, putting the responsibility on the owners instead of the dogs.

Lori Wosnicki, who has a Bernese Mountain Dog, she understands the reason for the new ordinance, but still thinks that it goes too far.

"Look at this dog, who goes to schools and has kids lay all over him. I have a really hard time with [the ordinance] because how do you decide what's dangerous," she said.

Violation of the dog ordinance is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by a fine up to $500 and 90 days in jail.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Wow - thank you for this article on dog insurance law. This is a very difficult issue and I don't blame the municipality for placing this ordinance into effect.

Dog bites are a serious issue and the proper placement of liability and responsibility is challenging. Dog owners are frequently very attached to their pets, as are most pet owners. I'd venture to say that dog owners are probably the most attached to their pets since their very high level of function and highly domestic nature enables them to participate in many outdoor activities in common areas. Unfortunately I see so many pet owners who forget that their dogs are not in any way human nor do they even approach anything close to a human level of interactivity and intelligence. Frequently I'll see dog owners failing to keep their dog on a leash because they believe that their dog is completely under their control, so obedient and well behaved that they deem it unnecessary. They will blame pedestrians and others for causing the dog to act in a manner that is unexpected, as if it's the pedestrian's fault. They fail to appreciate that most children are better able to understand the consequences of human activity and that dogs will be frequently confused even by the simplest of actions, e.g. a human being swats a fly on their arm causing a loud sound and possibly the perception of danger to an animal.

I love dogs and pets of all kinds. I am an advocate of requiring human beings to treat pets with reasonable care or face consequences for causing harm to high functioning living being that feels pain just as we do. But as much as I love pets and that many dogs can be wonderful pets (including pit bulls), anyone who owns a dog should be required to show that they can afford the consequences of their own negligence. I can't debate what species is a "dangerous dog" and I'll leave that to those who have a much greater knowledge on the topic than myself. Thanks for raising my attention to this law.

 

[Betty3]

I know some homeowner ins. companies will not issue you a policy (or will issue it with an extra cost) if you have a certain breed of dog that they consider dangerous. The problem is because of this, some people will not adopt these dogs that need a home as much as any other breed.