I heard from a friend earlier today that because she owns a rottweiler, her home liability insurance premiums are going up. She did a net search and found the link below and sent it to me. I love my Rottie and he's nothing but a cuddle pup, yet I know I am not comfortable around other Rot's or some of the breeds listed in the link.
http://info.insure.com/home/dog.html
Quote:
|
Some insurers have lists of breeds and crossbreeds they will not insure. The usual suspects are: pit bulls, rottweilers, wolf hybrids, huskies, Dalmatians, Airedales, and Great Danes. Other insurers consider such breeds on a case-by-case basis.
|
I've never met a bad pit, but my husband was attacked by one (hubby cold cocked the bastard); wolf hybrids are freaks of nature and should never be trusted; but are the rest dangerous dogs?
The article is fair in that not all insurance companies blacklist a breed arbitrarily. Many go on a case-by-case base and a history of bad behavior. I have some concern over the hysterics that paint an entire breed as bad.
My Rottie is on "watch" because a woman claimed she was bitten (bruised) by him. A dog control inspector came out and inspected him in many ways that would provoke a bite from a mean dog and my boy just rolled over for a belly scratch. We learned later that this woman was making the same complaint for other dogs in the area that merely barked at her. Obviously, this is a mean spirited woman, but that doesn't solve my fear of breed prejudice.
I don't think any natural breed of dog is inherently good or bad; but individual dogs can become a bad dog by poor breeding and poor owners.
I am interested in the experience of our members here with various breeds of dogs. Is there really a "nature" argument to be made, or is it primarily "nuture" that brings out bad behavior in any breed?