www.herald-journal.com
It’s a dog-eat-human world

December 10, 2007

by Kristen Miller

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of hearing about dogs.

It was a huge news items this summer. I can’t even count the number of times I saw a dog-biting incident on the news – like all of sudden, dogs became human-ravaging animals overnight.

Now, after the onset of these newscasts, it seems communities are in a panic and people are scared of any dog that stands higher than their knees.

Ivan Raconteur, Herald Journal staff writer, touched on this in his column last week. He explained an incident in which a larger dog, who happens to be a rottweiler, came running up to passersby and was barking in an aggressive manner.

I wasn’t there, but a rottweiler probably doesn’t have the quietest of barks.

I remember growing up and being scared of people’s dogs. I just learned never to go near them.

It’s in a dog’s nature – they are derived from wolves, for goodness sakes. What should one expect?

Recently, I heard of a homeowner who was dropped from her insurance because she owned an Alaskan malamute. No doubt this is a large breed of dog, but it is of a freindly manner.

This breed was classified as a “high-risk breed” and therefore, disqualified the owner from homeowners’ insurance.

Wow! Now, if you have a certain kind of dog, you aren’t allowed to have insurance – and America is the land of the free.

Maybe there should be a list of dogs a person should only be allowed to buy. Poor rottweilers and German shepherds, nobody’s going to want them now.

I understand the liability surrounding the issue, with certain breeds producing a higher number of claims, but on the other hand, it is prejudice, since all dogs, big or small, have the possibility of being dangerous.

I don’t think it’s fair for a person to be dropped from their insurance because they chose to own a certain breed of dog – they may be charged more, but not dropped completely.

It’s been called “breed discrimination,” and is not uncommon among insurance companies.

To address this issue, cities and townships need to have ordinances. Either have the dog trained to stay on the property or have them controlled in some fashion.

It’s not the kind of dog that’s the problem, it’s the owners of the dogs and their abuse of a particular breed.

Rottweilers and pit bulls are as friendly as any other dog as long as they are not abused and bred for highly aggressive tendencies.

Like most dogs, the Rottweiler possesses a desire to protect the home and family.

Dogs are, by nature, protective animals, no matter what the breed. The majority of dog bites occur on the owners’ properties because of the protective nature of dogs.

Although I don’t object to a dog owner being prosecuted for breeding a mean dog, I don’t think it’s right to discriminate against a person for owning a certain breed of dog. If that’s the case, dogs should be banned all together.

Statistics have shown dog bites have risen, but similar to the popular saying, I just think there are more stupid people breeding mean dogs.