It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Proposal Would Require You to Buy Insurance--On Your Dog!

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:20 AM
So far this bill is only being introduced in Texas. Hopefully, no other State or country will follow this weird health care bill. Next time we know, owning cats will also require insurance since some cats scratch those who step on them.

But to our Texan brothers and sisters, do not despair. Only those dogs that weigh 20 pounds or more and are not neutered are required to have an insurance policy. Just make sure that your dog should weigh less than 20lbs and you are not required to get an insurance policy anymore. I can already see starving St. Bernards in Texas.

The easiest thing to do is to have a female dog.

State Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio) has introduced a bill that would require any Texan who owns a male dog which weighs 20 pounds or more and is not neutered to have an insurance policy covering injuries or damage caused by that dog when it is off the leash or out of the dog's yard, 1200 WOAI's Michael Board reports.


posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:45 AM
Well, I am not opposed overall..however, the insurance should ne designed based on the breed and statistics.

a floppy St. Bernard is not overly dangerous..however a rott or pitt is and should they go nuts, the owners should be able to pay for damages somewhere

-talking to a 2 pittbull owner, I know the dangers in these lovely dogs-
--bad "parenting" is often to blame, but any and all dogs can go nuts--
---you are pretending you can control a wild animal..your indignation means jack---
----its the states rights to do whatever they want for their ordinances..pets are not in the constitution----

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

Maybe the best solution here is to require insurance to those dogs that are known to be vicious (i.e. pit bulls, rottweilers, dobermans, etc) but not about the weight of the dogs. St. Bernards are huge but they are not really known to attack people.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:52 AM
double post
edit on 12-2-2011 by wavemaker because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:21 AM
The *really* bad news is that a similar piece is in the works from republican Leo Berman of Tyler (NE Texas). Dog owners are being hit from "both sides" on this one. The legislators will, I'm sure. "reap the benefits" from lobbyists not only in "animal rights", but insurance legislation as well.

From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance of Texas:

> From RPOA Texas Outreach and
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
"Animal welfare, not animal 'rights'
and, yes, there is a difference."
Permission granted to crosspost.
February 10, 2011

HB 998 by Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, is a bill that all dog owners should oppose, not just hunting dog owners! Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, wants something done "that would require total security of any animal that is known to attack human beings." Rep. Chuck Hopson, R-Jacksonville, has been quoted in the media as saying a bill is also being drafted by his office. So HB 998 is only the beginning of a very long and heated legislative session as usual. They don't think this bill goes far enough. It would also be very easy to make this bill breed specific."

and via RPOA, from US Sportsmen:

Texas Bill Would Cost Sporting Dog Owners Big Bucks
(remaining uncertain of how much or how little is kosher to post, I opted out. I hope you will visit the link!))

Although I have a number of friends who breed AKC/ UKC registered dogs [ethically and legitimately], none of those are sporting breeds. My very loose understanding is that these guys (the dogs, I mean) are believed to carry on their gifts, genetically- hence their owners'/ breeders' reasoning behind their dogs remaining intact. (If someone who hunts knows better/ more, please correct me!) It may have something to do with hormones for all I know.

I am a strong advocate of spay/ neuter and also safely confining and leashing our dogs, but these are things that *can* be left up to the discretion of experienced and responsible owners and should be. In the climate we're in, any and all "legislation" of this nature is simply "tightening the screws" on dog owners and especially, legitimate breeders (puppymills and backyard breeders DO get off scot free because the authorities don't bother).
The huge irony to me is that some of the most "dangerous" dogs I've known have been little guys, not just under 20 pounds, but often under 15 or 10. We had a Long coat Chihuahua when I was growing up that left people bleeding (esp us) on a regular basis. Even the enormous German Shepherd living next door was terrified of her.

But the point here is that this is just more of Humane Society of the US/ "Texas Humane Legislation Network" lobbying. It WILL come to your state! And it could be a done deal before you even know what hit you.
Besides whipping our lawmakers- from locally to federal, THE most important thing people can do is inform the people around them. The only thing that will stop HSUS/ PETA, etc once and for all is when people stop responding to donation pleas and the money is cut off. (Please donate locally and get to know the organizations you choose to donate to)

See also

for further information.

Thank you for your post! Need I say S&F?

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:26 AM
As a child, we had a poodle that got out of the fence and reared-up on the old lady across the street who fell and cracked her skull. It was a full size 45# poodle - size matters in liability cases. I have a pack of dogs, all well over 40# - males and females all neutered - and I suffer an unauthorized excursion about 4 times a year so I can relate to the potential liability issues (mean time to recovery is typically less than an hour).

Breed specific legislation is not required.


posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:31 AM
I mean, it's not a bad idea seeing as you own something that can cause damage to people and things that has to be paid for. But here again, like with so many laws, we need them because people are irresponsible and/or we're not "covered" in other ways.


If a dog attacks me and I need medical attention, my health insurance covers it (let's assume for a second that everyone has's a hypothetical).

If the dog messes up my home or car, my homeowners or car policy will usually cover it.

If the dog chews up my boots, that's something most dog owners can pay for out of pocket. Probably cheaper than paying insurance for years.

So what's the real exposure here? Why do you need insurance? For just those cases where someone is uninsured otherwise (health, home, or property)? Is it because people are lawsuit crazy? Why?

Also, will I then have to also have a rider on me and my stuff for cases where there's an uninsured dangerous dog owner insurance? Like I do with uninsured motorist on my auto policy?

I'm not going to waste too much time thinking about this, but off the cuff, sounds like an insurance racket to me.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

Saturn, while it's true that ANY dog can become "vicious" when neglected (poor socialization and free roaming- which is *completely* different than being "off lead" for controlled situations like hunting, competitive events, and some exercise, IS "neglect")...well. no offense, but 1. I've never heard of anyone using a Pit or a Rottie to hunt*, 2. Breed specific legislation just means that it is only a matter of time before they "come after" your particular breed, and 3. domestic dogs- which have existed, quite separately, for tens of thousands of years, are entirely different than "wild animals".

*doesn't mean it's never happened, it's just very uncommon

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by wavemaker

This is idiotic. Most homeowners policies cover dog bites although recently, thanks to illegal dog fighting no doubt, insurance companies exclude pit bulls.

The ONLY reason for this is because of a lot of vicious dogs are owned by the poor for personal protection and they do not have insurance nor can a lawsuit extract money from a stone.

I doubt this type of law will keep the problem people from owning these dogs. It is just a tax on the wealthier people by the insurance companies to pay for the medical costs.

The police will not go into those neighborhood tio go after drugs, do you think they will go after people who do not have DOG insurance??? (Often the drugs and vicious dogs are related at least in my neighborhood)

new topics

top topics


log in