If you own a dog, especially a dog on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study’s list of most dangerous dogs, you’re likely to see higher premiums than if you didn’t own one of these “deadly” dogs.
The study itself ran from 1979 through 1998 and it collected the number of dog bite-related fatalities and analyzed them. The study itself was probably as scientific as you can get though they relied on both reports from The Humane Society of the United States and media reports and it only applied to fatalities as a result of a bite.
So, without further delay, the list of the most dangerous dogs:
In the purebred category…
- Pit bull-type - 66 fatalities
- Rottweiler - 39
- German Shepherd - 17
- Husky-type - 15
- Malamute - 12
- Doberman Pinscher - 9
- Chow Chow - 8
- Great Dane - 7
- Saint Bernard - 7
As you can see from the numbers, the number of fatalities is low from an absolute scale (one would argue that even one fatality is one too many), but you can see how even though the probability is low, the financial penalty is severe - which is all that insurance companies care about.
2 Comments
No, this is NOT a scientific study and is definitley NOT put into perspective.
1– Many of the dogs listed as “Pit Bull types” are not. Case after case has come to light where an uneducated animal control worker has listed a dog as a “Pit Bull type” when in reality they were a Boxer or simply a large dog. It was easier for the worker to use that nomenclature so as to facilitate the dog’s death with no questions asked.
2–Small dogs actually bite more often but no one worries about them as potential killers.
3– Simply to list the fatalities WITHOUT also listing the circumstances of each is extremely misleading. Unlike humans, dogs do not kill for fun. If these dogs were involved in a fatality, there is a human-related cause behind it. If you want to look at the end result (the deaths) you must also look at what caused the events.
4– Guns are involved in MANY more deaths and yet no one insurance company penalizes gun owners. What about fireplaces or bad wiring? Is any insurance company penalizing policy holders for having these types of potentially much more dangerous things around their houses? No. Why? Because there would be too much of an outpouring of anger. No, instead the insurance companies would rather pick on a few dog owners because its easier for them.
5– What is one of the major ways most people can protect their homes WITHOUT guns? Having one or more dogs in the house with them. Any knowledgable police officer will confirm that they way to quickly decrease home break-ins is for neighbors to have dogs. And not small dogs either. The more medium to large size dogs living in homes on a street, the more likely burglars and other criminals will pass you by in favor of easier pickings. Does this mean insurance companies are more interested in profits over real human safety? I think you can guess that answer!
Finally, this witch hunt of Pit Bull types and other large dogs is ridiculous and just another way for insurance companies to squeeze more money out of customers. It seems like its time to bring back greater oversight of insurance companies to make sure they are doing what they should be doing — insurance and not making public policy into a source of increased profits for their already overpaid directors.
Joy - I agree, I think that insurance companies do try to take advantage whenever they care and I appreciate you sharing the other side of the story!
Post a Comment