Is insurance the best way to counter dog attacks?

The British government is weighing whether to mandate dog owners taking out insurance against pet attacks.

See this article from Postonline.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn told the BBC: "There is a lot of public concern about dog attacks, including the recent tragic deaths of young children, and about the rise in the number of so-called status dogs used to intimidate or threaten people.

"This is a serious issue of public safety. The government wants to hear what people think about the law as it stands and what more we might do to protect people from dangerous dogs."

The government would have to amend the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act to include compulsory third-party insurance to make certain dog attack victims are compensated.

What do you think of this idea?

Say it ain't so

Sez you!

That is my response to an article in the Daily Telegraph by Matthew Moore that said cat owners are more intelligent than dog owners.

Those of you who can read can see the entire article here.

Researchers at the University of Bristol say that the superior intelligence of cat owners is unlikely to be caused by their exposure to the famously cunning and selfish pets.

Rather, more educated people tend to work longer hours and choose a pet to fit their lifestyles. Unlike dogs, cats require no walking and can manage with little human company.

The study, in which 2,980 Britons were interviewed about pet ownership, was published in the Veterinary Record.

The popular myth of cat intelligence was dented last year with the publication of a study showing that they did worse than dogs at a simple reasoning task. Cats presented with two pieces of string, only one of which was attached to a food reward, could not tell which one to pull for their treat.

I'm sure cat owners with their "superior intelligence" would reply that the cats just chose not to be rewarded.