Is Labour Going to the Dogs? Chip them? Insure them? BAN THEM!

At the end of January, a young black Labrador, on a walk with its owner on Woodbury Common, was pinned to the ground by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and then attacked by two other dogs belonging to the same owner, still unidentified. EDDC Environmental Health and local police are still trying to trace the person responsible for these vicious dogs.

As if this story isn't horrific enough, what about the threat posed to postal workers and telecoms engineers who have to go on to private land for their work and feel in danger when they’re snarled and barked at by someone’s aggressive dog? What if one of these dogs harms someone? Should the owner be insured just in case?

Well, it seems that pre-election fever might be putting dangerous dogs – or at least their owners – on a shorter leash. Labour proposals to tackle dangerous breeds could involve local authorities and police being empowered to force owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle them or even get them neutered. This is a response to concerns about the use of animals to intimidate or threaten people.

But, despite more than 100 people a week being admitted to hospital after dog attacks, and, according to the BBC, a rise in levels of dog fighting and illegal ownership, insurers have said Labour’s plan could prove “more difficult than it looks.”

Nick Starling, of the Association of British Insurers, told the BBC that this type of cover would be considered as very high risk and it would be a very difficult law to enforce.

With a general election expected in just a few weeks time it isn’t surprising to find that The Conservatives have been quick to point out that the problem has worsened under Labour, with the number of people convicted for allowing their dogs to cause injury more than doubling in the past decade.

The 1991 Act banned ownership of four breeds of dogs: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentino and the fila Brasileiro. It also gave police powers to deal with any dogs, of whatever breed, that became out of control in a public place – with destruction of the animal the ultimate sanction. But if a dog not on the banned list of types causes an injury on private property, it is not covered by the Act. So, that’s why Labour argues owners should be insured.  

What do you think? Do you think the type of person to own one of these dogs that are most likely to cause harm would really pay out for insurance? Or is this just an election gimmick designed to make people think the government cares? 

Share your thoughts on Exmouth People and if you have any concerns about dangerous dogs, contact Environmental Health at EDDC on 01395 517457 or the police on 08452 777444.