Nationwide Ins. breed specific won't insure

[Carolk9s]

Boy there's just too much out there to p*ss me off today.
How shortsighted and mean spirited. Just like a breed ban.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/columnists/dp-jimj10jan10,0,7319338.column?coll=dp-news-columnists

[Guest Anonymous]

Yup. It's bull, especially since my insurance had to pay when my girl *accidentally* bit my neighbor. My 19 pound dog.

[Carolk9s]

I think I understand your point, because so many are lawsuit happy?
I can certainly agree, tho I have signs posted on my fence does not mean some idiot could not sue me for, as you said, invading my yard and harassing my dog. I do have a dog that would most likely bite a stranger who merely stuck an arm over the fence, partly why I have a double fence but it's far from perfect.
I still feel that if would behoove Nationwide to consider taking other factors into consideration, such as training, CGC (or similar) certification etc. Their policy does not seem to have ANY flex in it, so if I had a 18 year old toothless paralyzed former therapy dog who happens to be a rottie, they would not insure me. Yes that example is extreme, I realize that. And yes I could shop around for another insurer. Who might insure me but insist I pay a couple hundred dollars more a year because of my rottie than the person who has another breed or mix that is not on their list but roams at will and snarls at everyone. I think Gooey had/has such an issue in her area with a lab mix.
Not trying to be arguementative (REALLY!) but there are just too many inequalities in such a restrictive policy.

[gooeydog]

[quote name='IlBLisSlI']Nah, it

[gooeydog]

[quote name='IlBLisSlI'] Seeing as how they have no way of moderating these things, they go with statistics. And they have put a ban on the dogs that are statistically proven to do the most harm. "Well what if someone has a lab mix that goes ape sh*t and i have a pitt that behaves...?" As with anything there will always be an exception to the rule. The rule being the statistic. The numbers don't lie. It's just that simple. The company is looking out for number 1.
The number don't lie, but the sources can and do. It's sometimes very difficult to identify a dog's breed, especially when it's one of the "bully breeds" since they are often varying in appearance, and many breeds/mixes can look similar. Often even people experienced with the breeds can guess wrong, but according to the CDC, their stats are derived from hospital records (distraught victims who likely never got a good look at the dog that attacked them, so are really just guessing), media reports (and we all know the news is always accurate and never lies for the sake of the headlines, right?), and animal control records (many ACOs, though well meaning, aren't very good at identifying breeds, not that it's their fault, but some are definitely questionable as far as breed knowledge goes). Then the CDC statistics lump about 6 different breeds (American Bulldogs, APBTs, AmStaffs, Staffy Bulls, Bull Terriers, Mini Bull Terriers, and possibly more) and any dog that looks like it could be a mix of one or more of those breeds all into one group, which they label "pit bulls". But oh no... the numbers don't lie.
The reason the Temperment Test is a good indicator of the dog's true temperment is because it's up to the dog how to react to the threats presented... it cannot be corrected, or reassured, but instead must rely solely on it's natural drives/instincts to decide how to act. There are several scenarios that closely mirror "real life" possibilities, so it's a fairly accurate guage of the dog's real temperment. Here's a few of the results from the ATTS website, there's more on the actual site, as well as a description of the test. http://atts.org

Breed Name / Tested / Passed / Failed / Percent

American Pit Bull Terrier / 376 / 311 / 65 / 82.7%

American Staffordshire Terrier / 415 / 341 / 74 / 82.2%

Collie / 679 / 533 / 146 / 78.5%

Golden Retriever / 590 / 484 / 106 / 82.0%

Labrador Retriever / 579 / 525 / 54 / 90.7%

Shetland Sheepdog / 419 / 280 / 139 / 66.8%

[Carolk9s]

Excellents posts Gooey, both of them. I absolutely agree that the info and the sources that make up the numbers can be terribly skewed.

Does ANYONE see ANY pit bull in Candy?


I have had 3 different people ask me if she is a pit mix. While I do strongly believe there is some terrier in there, I'm leaning more towards Jack Russell or even Fox.
Some people think Candy is part pit, so if she were to even nip someone or their dog, are they going to say a pit bull did it? Or a blond terrier mix of some sort?

[Guest Anonymous]

Nope. From that pix she looks like a little lab pup!

[Carolk9s]

Well I do call her gator mouth when she yawns, but seriously it amazes me when the first thing some would say is 'that a pit?'

[Guest Anonymous]

Carolk9s napisał(a):

Well I do call her gator mouth when she yawns, but seriously it amazes me when the first thing some would say is 'that a pit?'

When I look at her on your website, I see lab mix. Not pit. She sure is dang cute!

[yellowlabsrule]

I can see it now...Roxie the Rottweiler has never bitten anyone...Until the insurance man came and said that she had to go. Then she bit the snot out of him! :lol:

[gooeydog]

[quote name='IlBLisSlI']I do agree with you, sources do lie, but the insurance company is not in the business of caring, they are in the business of saving money. If they see a number that says one breed is statistically more dangerous than another you bet your a** they are going to ban that breed. They don't care if the sources are wrong. And did you ever think, that perhaps, if a victim could mistake a dog for a pit bull, that the insurance adjuster could come out to the house and mistake the same dog for a pit bull??? I'm pretty sure that can happen. It's called human error. And it's very likely that the same group of dogs that have been "oh so wrongly classified as pit bulls" or any other breed, will be classified the same way by an insurance adjuster. Therefore, making the statistic a reasonably accurate one.
If the insurance companies are that worried about losing money because of dog attacks, then they better stop selling life insurance to people who live in areas where there are thunderstorms... after all, a person is more likely to get killed by lightening than they are to get killed by a dog attack. Of course, dog bites are a completely different story, they happen almost every day. Then again, they usually involve small, nippy breeds, so why worry about them? Even though a 10lb Yorkie is perfectly capable of "removing" most of a child's nose. The dog in this case belonged to one of my mom's friends, and it was her grandchild who got bitten, but if it had been someone elses kid, the insurance company would have been paying out for the several plastic surgeries the child had to have.
It's possible for two people to agree that a dog is or isn't a pit bull, but not as likely as say... two people agreeing that a dog is a dachshund. There are so many different "types" of pit bulls, and everyone has a different idea of what a pit bull looks like. Most uninformed people think pit bulls are short, barrel-chested, 90 lb dogs with bowed out elbows and big heads. Show pit bull people or people who only know show lines are likely to think they are "square", stocky dogs. Performance breeders/people usually prefer lanky, tall, and structurally "smaller" dogs. I'm not sure exactly which statistic you're talking about in the last part of the message though :oops: :lol:

[gooeydog]

[quote name='Carolk9s']Does ANYONE see ANY pit bull in Candy?
The first pic I saw of her (it was a while ago, and I don't remember which one it was), I wondered if she was a pit/lab mix, but she definitely looks more like a JRT/lab, and that agrees more with her size. If you're worried about someone trying to say she's a pit bull, you can always have your vet write a "letter" stating that she is not a pit bull or pit mix. It may or may not help, but might be useful just in case.

[Carolk9s]

Gooey, I'm not at all worried about anyone saying she is a pit mix, I would not even be worried if she WAS a pit mix. Basically just backing up your point about so many dogs being labeled as a pit or pit mix when they may not even be. Sometimes the level of hysteria leveled against pit type dogs is astounding, the dog bit someone therefore it MUST be a pit or a rottie or some other 'killer' dog! A person with very little dog savvy will sometimes go along with the prevailing opinion or that which the media has put out there.
I still feel that this policy of the ins. company is ridiculous.

[bk_blue]

Before all this talk about insurance and dogs I didn't even know that you could get doggie-type insurance and that some companies wouldn't insure you if you had a "vicious" dog. :oops:

What I have a big problem with (I don't know if this happens in the US?) is that here, if a burglar breaks into your house with the clear intention of stealing your stuff, armed or not, and you have a dog and he bites him, the burglar can sue you. How unfair is that. :evil:

[eggrolyn1223]

:o Well, aren't they supposed to do something to the burglar, since the burglar was stealing?That is totally unfair. :x

ANd about the insurance, :mad:
WHY?WHY?WHY?UGH!!!It's not fair for pit bulls..or rotties...they didn't cause the trouble in the first place!! :evil:

[bk_blue]

Yeah, it all sucks. I mean, I don't have a dog to act as an alarm system but I feel a lot safer with one around. I definitely would not deliberately use my dog as an attack dog btw, I wouldn't want him to get hurt. But also I know BK would attack, maybe seriously injure, maybe kill someone if I was being attacked. I would do my best to keep him under control so he wouldn't get PTS and I wouldn't get sued. Even though he was defending ME in MY house. :evil: