There’s been a lot of stuff in the news about "dangerous dogs"

this week, but I really feel, a bit like with delinquent teenagers, surely it’s

down to the owners (or parents where teens are concerned).

I haven’t owned a dog for a while myself but as soon as I

get a house big enough to fit me and my family and some other animals under one

roof, I’m sure the patter of puppy paws will follow.

So, I may face the prospect of having to get an insurance

policy as well to insure against the prospect of little Spot attacking somebody,

if the proposals by the Government are implemented as they have been

reported.

I don’t see there is anything wrong with that myself. I know

that being a responsible pet owner already comes with a number of costs, vets

bills etc, but that is surely the point, as an owner you are entirely

responsible for that animal. As you are for your children, until they bolt free

from the leash too.

This is from the BBC online report this week:

All dog owners in

England and Wales would have to insure against their pet attacking someone

under Labour proposals to tackle dangerous breeds. Police and local authorities

could also be given powers to force owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle them or

even get them neutered.

Ministers say the

consultation responds to concerns about the use of animals to intimidate or

threaten people. But insurers said Labour's plan could prove "more

difficult than it looks".

More than 100 people a

week are admitted to hospital after dog attacks. There has also been a reported

rise in levels of dog fighting and illegal ownership, particularly by gangs who

are using dangerous dogs as status symbols.

You have to ensure that your dog doesn’t turn into a savage

beast by training it and bringing it up properly, and perhaps part of that

should be some kind of insurance policy against turning it into a fighting dog.

After all, dogs cannot make lifestyle choices for

themselves. They develop very much according to the environment they are

brought up in. You can’t blame dogs for being dangerous and it’s ridiculous for

people to call for certain breeds to be banned.

People who know about dogs know that the much-maligned pit

bulls and terriers are actually lovely dogs if brought up properly. The sort of

nasty human being who delights in bringing up an animal to fight for money

should probably be put down first.

In any case, with the millions of dogs in this country that

never harm a fly, there are probably more pressing issues such as keeping the

streets and parks clear of their mess, which again comes down to being a responsible

owner.

I’d be interested to hear some views on this. Do you feel

this scheme is a sensible development or yet more needles cost and bureaucracy for

people who already look after their dogs to bear, while those who don’t bother

anyway will just ignore it?

I’m sure cat lovers may feel justified in going for Felix of

over Fido, but they are only a genetic mutation away from becoming man-eating lions!