Monday, 26 October 2015

Insurance companies refuse to insure homes with Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Wolf Hybrids

For additional accurate information on the public safety Danger of Pit Bull Type Dogs visit:

Insurance companies refuse to insure homes with Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Wolf Hybrids

Coverage to End For Bites by Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Wolf Hybrids
Farmers Group, Inc., will stop covering homeowners for bites by three breeds, saying they are responsible for a quarter of all claims in California
By Sharon Bernstein
Tuesday, Feb 12, 2013 

America’s infatuation with canines has led to a breathtaking rise in the number of dog bites – and in the amount of money that insurance companies pay to compensate the bitten.

In California, one major insurer is growling back.

Farmers Group, Inc., has notified policyholders that bites by pit bulls, Rottweilers and wolf hybrids will no longer be covered by homeowners insurance in the state.

The move has drawn criticism from pit bull rescue groups and trainers.

"It is offensive," said Candy Clemente, who trains pit bulls for the Animal Planet show "Pit Boss." They are condemning these breeds indiscriminately without giving the home owners a chance to prove their dogs are not vicious."

But insurers say that bites from pit bulls and the other breeds have gone up dramatically in recent years - along with the cost of settling damage claims.

“We reviewed our liability claim history and we determined that three breeds accounted for more than 25% of dog bite claims,” said spokeswoman Erin Freeman. “In addition, these three breeds caused more harm when they attacked than any other breed.”

The move by Farmers, which will go into effect for California homeowners as their policies come up for renewal, is one of several efforts nationwide by insurance companies to limit an ever-increasing level of liability for dog bites.

Across the U.S., insurance companies paid out $480 million to people who were attacked by dogs in 2011 – a 50% rise in just eight years, according to data from the Insurance Information Institute. In California that year, insurers paid more than $20 million to settle just 527 claims.

Just last week, a 91-year-old Desert Hot Springs woman died after she was attacked by her two pit bulls. In San Diego on Monday, a woman and her daughter were convicted of involuntary manslaughter in another attack, after their two dogs attacked a 75-year-old woman who later died.

Emako Mendoza stepped outside her home to get a newspaper in June of 2011 when she was mauled by the two dogs. She suffered a heart attack and her left arm and leg had to be amputated. Mendoza died six months later.

To deal with the skyrocketing claims and attendant expense, insurers have adopted a number of new measures, the insurance institute said. Some, like Farmers, are asking customers to sign waivers acknowledging that bites will not be covered under certain circumstances.

Others are charging people extra for breeds like pitbulls, or refusing to cover dog bites altogether.

Still more insurers use what they call the “one-bite rule,” saying they’ll cover an attack the first time it happens – not if the animal bites someone else at another time.

Two states, Pennsylvania and Michigan, do not allow insurers to cancel or refuse coverage to owners of specific breeds.

Wednesday, 14 October 2015

A North American coalition of over 50 pit bull attack victim support groups has launched an information website

(PRWEB) OCTOBER 14, 2015
A North American coalition of over 50 pit bull attack victim support groups has launched an information website -- -- to coincide with National Pit Bull Awareness Day, which is being held this year on October 24. provides information on the growing issue of attacks on humans and animals by pit bulls, and is intended to help citizens, policymakers and elected officials better understand the scope of this increasingly urgent public safety issue.

As reported by Merritt Clifton, Editor of Animals 24-7 on October 3, 2015, “Although only 5% of the U.S. and Canadian dog population are pit bulls, in the past nine years pit bulls have accounted for 80% of the dogs involved in fatal and disfiguring attacks, resulting in two-thirds of the deaths and disfigurements.”

The National Pit Bull Victim Awareness Day website outlines the effect of pit bulls on families and communities with respect to public safety, and their often devastating social and economic impacts. Various stakeholders in the pit bull issue are identified and addressed, including taxpayers, legislators, emergency and healthcare workers, animal control officers, law enforcement agencies, pet owners, farmers and humane organizations, among others.

The website features state-by-state reports of serious pit bull attacks, disfigurements and fatalities, along with state and local legislation pertaining to the breed.

According to Colleen Lynn, Founder of, a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks, "Despite clear evidence that pit bulls are responsible for a substantially disproportionate number of attacks, maimings and deaths, humane groups and tax-payer funded animal shelters continue to encourage the public to adopt pit bulls by specifically promoting them through initiatives like Pit Bull Awareness Month." According to Clifton’s research, since 2010, 30 pit bulls and 7 bull mastiffs adopted from shelters have killed people.

Often overlooked as victims are the pit bulls themselves. Pit bulls are the breed of choice for dog fighters, which is why People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), as reported in TIME Magazine, June 20, 2014, supports mandatory spay/neuter programs specifically for pit bull type dogs in order to end this inhumane activity, as well as the rampant overbreeding leading to pit bull euthanization of almost one million per year.

National Pit Bull Victim Awareness Day (NPBVAD) evolved out of the need to amass the growing number of pit bull victim groups into a central online support hub.
"As the numbers of dead and disfigured by pit bulls continue to increase, our concerns are still not being sufficiently addressed by elected officials," states Jeff Borchardt, Founder of Daxton's Friends for Canine Education and Awareness. Borchardt's 14-month-old son Daxton was fatally attacked by pit bulls in early 2013.

Partner organizations in the NPBVAD initiative include Daxton’s Friends (Wisconsin), (Texas), Dangerous By Default (Maryland), Protect Children from Pit Bulls and Other Dangerous Dogs (California), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - PETA (Worldwide), (USA and Canada), and Awareness for Victims of Canine Attack - AVOCA (Worldwide). lists more than 50 organizations and advocacy groups from across the continent whose purpose is to alert the public to the pit bull crisis.
NPBVAD also maintains a list of pit bull victims who are available for interviews with the media.

About National Pit Bull Victim Awareness Day: 

National Pit Bull Victim Awareness Day (NPBVAD) is a day to honor and remember victims of pit bulls across the country. Victims include thousands of people and animals every single year. During “National Pit Bull Awareness Month,” we ask you to examine the devastating side of “pit bull awareness”.

About is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks. Through our work, we hope to protect both people and pets from future attacks. 

Our website,, was launched in October 2007 and contains a wide collection of data to help policymakers and citizens learn about dangerous dogs. 

Our research focuses on pit bull type dogs. Due to selective breeding practices that emphasize aggression and tenacity, this class of dogs negatively impacts communities the most.

About Awareness for Victims of Canine Attack (AVOCA): 

AVOCA is a national ad hoc coalition of bereaved families and survivors of canine attack. 
Our mission is to educate the public about dangerous dogs, and in particular fighting and gripping breeds, with respect to the risk they present to human and animal health and safety.

About Daxton’s Friends for Canine Education & Awareness: 

Daxton’s Friends was formed in honor of Daxton Borchardt, who passed away on March 6, 2013, due to severe injuries sustained in a dog attack. 

Daxton’s Friends strives to educate the public about the importance of understanding dog breeds and how, with proper education and pet care, the number of dog-related incidents can be reduced.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Douglas Skinner, DVM Speaks on Pit Bull Type Dog issue

Douglas Skinner, DVM 

Time to neuter all pit bulls, jail owners for attacks
Another vicious attack by not one, but four pit bulls. Dare we say anything lest we raise the ire of the breed’s apologists?

"I have been in veterinary practice for 43 years and never have seen anything like the infusion of this breed. Having worked with more than 100,000 dogs of all breeds, I defy any apologist to offer up such experience. 

Sure, there are sweet pits, but telling one from the bad ones, the Jekyll and Hyde ones that can be incited to violence by some catalyst, is near impossible. While most apologists fancy themselves good trainers, 95 percent of owners are clueless. 

Many breeds have a history of use based on genetics; the border collie’s is herding, German short hair pointers find birds, and pits have a history of violence. With that information, it still makes sense from the “it’s how you raise your dog” crowd that any dog could be made to herd or point; I mean, it’s how you raise them, right? 

A border collie herds instinctively, pointers find game birds, and a pit bull? Well, it wants to chase two girls across a field with three of its buddies and maul them. 

Neuter all pit bulls, require high, double fencing, and give severe fines/incarceration of owners for such attacks. I’ve had it with pit bulls and their mixes trying to bite me during exams or scaring other pet owners. Six weeks old, three months old, you can’t trust them; you can only make excuses for them." 

Thursday, 1 October 2015

Is BSL Ineffective, Expensive, and Difficult to Enforce?

Is BSL Ineffective, Expensive, and Difficult to Enforce?
Revised: December 4, 2014; 18:45 GMT

BSL is ineffective, expensive, and difficult to enforce.

* * * * *

These claims are as common as air; they're made so often that few of us question if they're actually true.

But who is it that makes these claims? And are they true?

* * * * * 

Last month Mike Hendricks of the Kansas City Star published an article which claimed that
research . . . shows little correlation between fatal dog bites and the breeds of the dogs inflicting those wounds, . . .1
Mr Hendricks fails to cite the source of the research, but he may have been referring to any of the numerous "studies" authored and published by pit bull advocacy groups. Independent reports, which Mr Hendricks neglects to mention, leave little doubt of the correlation between pit bulls and fatal or disfiguring attacks.

Mr Hendricks' acceptance and publication of this misinformation follows a now common pattern. Advocates of fighting breeds have repeated these unsupported assertions so often that many journalists accept them without fact-checking.

The Toronto Star recently reported pit bull attacks have virtually disappeared in the decade since BSL was enacted.2  Similarly, Sioux City records show that police officers responded to 37% fewer dog attacks in 2013 than they did in 2007, the year that Sioux City enacted their breed ban. Similar results have been reported in Antigo, Pawtucket, and every other city where good BSL legislation is enacted and enforced.

It is pit bull advocates, not the cities who pay the bills, who claim that BSL is expensive. The advocacy claims are supported by data from the BSL Fiscal Impact Cost Calculator, an advocacy tool developed under a contract from Best Friends Animal Society.3 The tool purports to show that BSL is expensive, but it does not reflect the huge costs incurred by cities that choose breed-neutral laws, rather than BSL. Cities with breed-neutral laws are notoriously plagued by huge numbers of surplus pit bulls, many of them bred by back-yard breeders, which the city must pay to warehouse in animal shelters. BSL, on the other hand, reduces the number of pit bulls in shelters. BSL also reduces the number of euthanizations, which is also a cost for the city, as well as a humane tragedy.

In addition, the advocacy cost calculator fails to address the costs of dozens or hundreds of life-flight evacuations each year, which range in cost from $15k to $50k. The cost calculator does not account for the costs incurred by victims of pit bull attacks, many of whom are left with lasting physical and emotional scars, and overwhelming financial burdens. The cost calculator ignores entirely the costs borne by thousands of victims and their families.

 * * * * *

So, who is it that makes the claim that BSL is ineffective, expensive, and impossible to enforce? And who is it that calls for the revocation of BSL? Choose from among the following three options:
A: Victims of pit bull attacks
B: Municipalities that currently have successful BSL
C: Advocates for pit bulls and other fighting breeds
The answer is C, of course: it is the advocates who are the source of calls to revoke BSL.

The question we must ask ourselves is: Why would the advocates of fighting breeds be allowed to determine how we legislate fighting breeds?

Allowing the advocates of fighting breeds to write the rules regulating fighting breeds appears to make sense, until you think about it.