File this under "From good intentions come problems"

Having been a supporter of vaccinating your dog against rabies, which 'drives' the licensing program in my area, once again something with good intentions has a bad side effect. In our community, you can't get a dog license unless you can prove your dog has an up-to-date rabies vaccination (good thing) and you do get a substantial discount ($20 instead of $50 if your dog is no longer intact - another good thing).

But here's the bad side effect... the use of this data with the insurance companies to either increase or deny homeowners insurance to animal guardians who license their animal companions. In Boston, this problem has compounded itself into causing people to knowingly evade the law and not license their dogs.

"Homeowners who are faced with threats of discriminatory insurance termination have been placed in a position somewhat understandably resolved by evading dog licensing laws. Lets face it, people are not going to easily give away their family pet, and to many of these people, a deficiency in homeowners insurance seems far greater a risk than that of being found for being the keeper of an unlicensed dog."

For more details on this topic, read the entire article at the source but although Massachusetts is working on a bill that would forbid insurance companies to refuse coverage because of this discrimination, there are another 49 states in the union.

If you want to own a dog that is blacklisted, that is certainly your prerogative. If you do not believe your breed should even be blacklisted, you have to communicate with your legislators and make this message heard. But if both positions are yours, then insurance companies may have the right to offer insurance protection, but at a much higher cost... again, herein lies the 'self will' that gets so many of us into trouble.

For those animal guardians that chose to add an animal to their home and then don't get the dog speutered, the general public ultimately pays the price to get those unwanted animals housed, vetted and if not adopted, carcasses to the rendering plants or landfills. We don't have a vote or choice in the matter - if you pay taxes (and whether or not you even have an animal!), your tax dollars pays for the removal of this from the shelters.

Same holds true for the insurance rates - we don't have a vote in the insurance rates and you either pay it or don't get covered. When the insurance companies pay out huge claims, they up the rates to keep the balance sheet looking healthy.

Discriminating against a few breeds - OR - upping the rates for all homeowners that have pets to cover losses by the insurance companies is not only unfair, it is definitely un-American! We don't prey on the weak, uneducated, ill-informed or those unable in this country... so why are we allowing this common practice to stand or even exist???

Inquiring minds want to know - especially in light of the current economy news!