A New Twist on Legislation For Dangerous Dogs

Here's a bizarre story out of MA where a local community is considering making landlords carry liability insurance if they rent to dogs that may be dangerous. The reporting's rather confusing - they don't even seem clear on whether this applies only to dogs with a history of attack, or certain breeds, or landlords allowing any dogs. In either event, the discussion is amusing as the reporters have obvious biases.

One interesting component of this story is the discussion about insurance companies declining coverage for certain breeds. Others raise premiums for those breeds. Insurance companies have a long history in this regard - higher premiums for certain cars, or younger drivers, or male driver's, etc. I suppose if a private enterprise wishes to conduct business in this manner it will sort out under free enterprise. After all, we all have a choice in who we use for insurance.

A problem arises, however, when government starts applying the same principles. If dog legislation in this community (or any community) is based on breed alone, that's a very poorly informed decision. Lawmakers have a responsibility to make certain laws are fair. When specific breeds are singled out, when the behavior of each dog and responsible citizenry of individual owner is not considered - you have a problem. What will be next? Traffic laws varying based on age? On sex? On the car you drive?

If anyone's interested in really addressing the problem of aggressive dogs, the solution is education. Education about socializing puppies, responsible breeding, and training dogs to live well in a human world.