Washington Votes

2007 House Bill 1105 (Limiting when the presence of a dog may affect the availability of homeowner's insurance.)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Tom Campbell, (R-Roy) on January 10, 2007, to prohibit liability insurance companies from using the specific breed of a dog as a factor for underwriting decisions on homeowner’s insurance policies.
    • Referred to the House Insurance, Financial Services, and Consumer Protection Committee on January 10, 2007.
    • Referred to the House Rules Committee on February 6, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Tom Campbell, (R-Roy) on January 10, 2007. New Comment

1) Grrr [by Anonymous Citizen on February 20, 2008]
The "it's the deed not the breed" mantra from the loony Pit cultists is grade-a steaming manure. I'm sure that will make my little niece, who was playing in her own yard minding her own business, feel better about her scars. Sure, there are some sweet Pits out there, but idiots have ruined the breed beyond redemption.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Avoiding the real question does not gain you any credability [by Anonymous Citizen on January 29, 2007]
Try answering the question; and the question had absolutely nothing to do with nippers and biters...which also, by the way...is a far cry from a mauling...DOH!
The actual question was..and I quote
"When was the last time you read or heard of a *mauling* initiated by a full Poodle, a Collie perhaps, or a Golden Retriever".

Nice try at diverting the focus though.

If you want to own a breed that has a proven record of attacks and maulings, you should pay the extra premiums to be allowed to keep it in your home.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Dog bite insurance [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2007]
Insurance companies discriminate all the time. That’s their job. Why do 16 year-old males pay more in auto insurance premiums than 45 year-old females? Why do smokers pay more for life insurance than non-smokers? There’s a reason we play 20 questions when we fill out an application for insurance. Insurance companies are in the business of assessing certain risks and rating those appropriately. They look at a variety of variables which is why certain groups pay more than others. Some groups are more likely to have insurance claims than other groups.

Statistically, pit bulls and rottweilers are far more likely to be involved in dog bite homeowner's insurance claims more so than other breeds. Why restrict the ability of insurance companies to assess for those types of increased risk? Otherwise, owners of terriers, cocker spaniels, Australian shepherds, etc. will help pay for the liability claims against pit bull and rottweiler owners. How is that fair?

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Hear! Hear! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2007]
I couldn't have said it better myself. For someone who wants to keep dangerous breeds proven to be involved more in maulings than others; it is a simple solution, they pay the liability costs.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Homeowners & Dogs [by kristinejb on January 13, 2007]
I wholeheartedly support this bill. Insurance companies have been discriminating based on breed; it's like discriminating because of skin color for people. My son has a pit bull, and she is the sweetest, most timid dog I've ever seen. The people who train dogs to be vicious are the REAL problem, not the breed of dog.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) STOP Breed Bans [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2007]
This bill is necessary. Entire breeds of dogs will be eliminated. What will we eliminate next?
I have owned 2 of the dogs that are banned and they were never even close to biting anyone. Go after the DEED NOT THE BREED. Insurance has way too much power over our lives as it is. Now they can choose our pets?
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Ask the victims [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2007]
The majority of dog owners whose dogs mauled someone had the same things to say about their dogs.
"My dog would never hurt anyone....until now."
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Protection for all - stop discrimination [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2007]
You are right, we never know for sure if a dog will bite, just as we will never know when a child may shoot someone.
BUT: this bill is not about that...it is about getting insurance for the people who own breeds that are discriminated against. And this will only help the victim should there be an incident. If there is no insurance and there is an injury, how will the victim be compensated? All breeds of dogs can bite and do serious damage (as can a horse or many other animals) and breed discrimination or banning a breed of dog does not stop people from teaching a dog to be vicious, they just move on to a new breed. It has been proven in other states and countries that breed bans do not work. Punish the deed, not the breed, and allow those of us who are proven responsible to be able to get insurance for our animals. We are the ones trying to be responsible and yet we are the ones being discriminated against just as are our dogs, who have never injured anyone. Let the insurance company implement a test such as the AKC Canine Good Citizen, if necessary to prove the dog is a good neighbor…just don’t assume that all dogs of a certain breed are bad, the majority are not. If a dog (any breed) is raised correctly, taught bite inhibition, trained and socialized, the odds are it will not bite…just as a child, raised in a loving home should not grow up to be a danger.

Reply New Comment

Line

9) Logic in error! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2007]
Your analogy is extremely flawed; Human beings have cognitive reasoning and logic thus allowing proper learning of the norms of society and what is right and what is wrong. Animals however, have no such mechanisms. Nature has replaced these with instinct. While it may be possible to “condition” an animal not to act in a certain way, when instinct takes over…all bets are off. Any animal behavioral specialist will attest to that.

I will remind you, it was you, not I that made the completely irrelevant and emotion driven statement:
“I have owned 2 of the dogs that are banned and they were never even close to biting anyone. Go after the DEED NOT THE BREED.”

First: Many of the more dangerous breeds are not really true breeds at all, but hybrids that were bred to do a particular thing: be that herd sheep, sniff and track, or fight to kill. Read the history of many of the more dangerous breeds and that will become clearly evident. Saying that just because YOU have owned some breed or the other and that they have never bitten anyone does not make you a behavioral expert in these issues anymore than taking certain medicines without a detrimental affect makes me a pharmacist. It simply makes you “lucky”. When was the last time you read or heard of a mauling initiated by a full Poodle, a Collie perhaps, or a Golden Retriever eh?

To say that it is “not the breed” is foolish, if not downright dangerous and reckless; akin to saying to society that your pet Komodo dragon, your darling pet timber rattler, or your “domesticated” (raised correctly, taught bite inhibition, trained and socialized) Wolf are harmless. If you want to keep and play with breeds that are proven to be inherently, instinctively dangerous, please, get a kennel, cage your darling, and send YOUR kids in to play with it but spare society the risk. Your cute but irrelevant limerick “go after the breed not the deed” is ludicrous and useless after an innocent child gets mauled, scarred for life, or worse…DEAD because you trusted a breed that was bred to fight. Another thing you will find from animal behavioral specialists is that a) When training an animal that something is bad, you first have to catch the animal in the act doing the action that is bad and b) You have to deal out the corrective action or punishment within mere moments of the act or the training is useless.

What are you going to do…say baaaad dog as the victim bleeds ?! Nice!

As I said…take your own risks but spare the rest of society. Your so called “odds” of whether or not a certain breed will bite or not are “your” odds…. not ours.

Reply New Comment

Line

10) Well said [by Anonymous Citizen on January 29, 2007]
I also noticed the responder could find nothing else to say that really addressed anything you wrote so they were compelled to nitpic on your choice of examples.

F in debating!
Reply New Comment

Line

11) poodles collies and retrievers? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 29, 2007]
I think you might have picked better examples of your breeds that are safe. Poodles are serious biters, they are hunting dogs, specifically bred for cold water and retrieving. That is the origin of the hair cuts that emphasize those silly looking fur puffs on their legs and tails.

Collies are herding dogs, biters and nippers - they bite all the time. And retrievers, while cute, are another hunting dog that can be trained as service dogs, trained to help families but are biters as well.

Bullmastiffs, for example are also trained as service dogs, but were bred to protect their families and catch poachers. They get a bad rep because of the word bull in their name, but they don't maul people, their instinct is to hold. Bullmastiffs simply block people and don't let them escape, or they hold them until the family or police come.

The legislation is meant to help no one but the mortgage industry, certainly not pet owners or children.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: