Quote:
Originally Posted by Pick  I have no love for pit bulls whatsoever.  |
I can see where you're coming from. Though I have to admit that I'd be just as ticked with the owners. I hope they offered some sort of restitution.
One dog running loose is not good, but three? Pack mentality takes over and more often than not, they'll get into hunting mode. My father's poor little himalayan cat was torn apart by the neighbours' 2 huskies that got loose and went hunting.
Insurance companies assess risk and issue coverage accordingly. Pit bulls, whether unfairly or not, are considered high risk due to the actions of idiots over the years. But are they getting an unfair rap (the dogs, not the idiots)? To the extent of a homeowner losing their insurance coverage concerning a 13 year old dog who presumably has never caused any trouble? Isn't that the equivalent of 91 years old for people? Could a dog that old really cause problems? I suppose in the life of an insurance company, life is black and white.
I live in Ontario where there's a province-wide ban on pit bulls (defined as American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Bull Terriers or any dog that looks similar, which in my opinion opens up a whole can of worms as many different breeds of dogs look similar). I'd be interested in data showing what this has accomplished. I imagine that if you ask both sides of the story you'd get different answers.
I hope you get this issue resolved.