Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a “blanket term for laws that regulate or ban certain dog breeds in an effort to decrease dog attacks on humans and other animals,” according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The laws are also widely called “pit bull bans” and breed-discriminatory laws. [1][32]
The legislation frequently covers any dog deemed a “pit bull,” which can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers, and pit bull mixes, though any dog that resembles a pit bull or pit bull mix can be included in the bans. Other dogs are also sometimes regulated, including American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, and Doberman Pinschers, as well as mixes of these breeds and dogs that simply resemble the restricted breeds. [1]
While American Pit Bull Terriers are a specific breed, when broadly used, the term “pit bull” more often refers to a dog with certain characteristics. Generally, the dogs have broad heads and muscular bodies. Pit bulls are targeted because of their history in dogfighting. [2]
Dogfighting dates to at least 43 CE, when the Romans invaded Britain, and both sides brought fighting dogs to the war. The Romans believed the British to have better-trained fighting dogs and began importing (and later exporting) the dogs for war and entertainment, wherein the dogs were made to fight against wild animals, including elephants. From the 12th century until the 19th century, the dogs were frequently used for baiting chained bears and bulls. In 1835, England outlawed baiting, which then increased the popularity of dog-on-dog fights. [3][4][30]
Fighting dogs arrived in the United States in 1817, whereupon Americans crossbred several breeds to create the American Pit Bull. The United Kennel Club endorsed the fights and provided referees. Dogfighting was legal in most U.S. states until the 1860s, and it was not completely outlawed in all states until 1976. Today, dogfighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, though the fights thrive in illegal underground venues. NFL quarterback Michael Vick was convicted in 2007 of running an illegal dogfighting ring and served 18 months in a federal prison. [3][4]
As of the end of 2024, some 30 U.S. states had enacted some kind of breed-specific legislation. [1]
Bans are also proliferating around the world, from Central and South America and the Caribbean to Europe and Asia. England and Wales recently banned the XL Bully, a breed of pit bull. Scotland then also banned the breed after it was widely abandoned over the country’s border in light of the bans in England and Wales. The breed, the largest of the American Bully dogs, was involved in an outbreak of attacks in the United Kingdom, with at least six of ten dog-related human deaths attributable to the XL Bully. Under the ban, existing XL Bullies had to be leashed and muzzled in public as of Dec. 31, 2023, and have exemption certificates by Jan. 31, 2024, which require insurance, the dog to be microchipped, and a fee of some $118 (£92.40). The dogs also had to be spayed or neutered. Selling, buying, gifting, or otherwise exchanging the breed is now illegal. The U.K. also bans several other dogs, including the American Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brazileiro. [20][21][22]
Pro 1: BSL makes communities safer.
One goal of BSL is to prevent dog attacks on humans and other animals.
According to DogsBite.org, enacting BSL “regulate[s] a small group of breeds that have a genetic propensity to attack and inflict severe, disfiguring injuries so that first attacks by these breeds can be averted. First attacks by pit bulls, for instance, almost always result in severe injury. In some cases, the first bite by a pit bull or [R]ottweiler is fatal.” [5]
Data collected by DogsBite.org shows at least 521 deaths due to dog bites between Jan. 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2019. Of those deaths, 346 were attributed to pit bulls, 51 to Rottweilers, 22 to German Shepherds, 18 to Mastiffs, and 16 to American Bulldogs, all frequently banned breeds. [23]
Prior to BSL enactment in Prince George’s County, Maryland, there were 853 dog bites reported (108 from pit bulls) in 1996. Fourteen years into the ban (2010), overall dog bites had decreased 43%, and pit bull bites were down 35%. [7]
In Pawtucket, Rhode Island, after BSL was overturned by a judge in 2013, there was a tenfold increase in pit bull attacks between 2013 and 2019. [8]
Pro 2: BSL is a humane way to discourage pit bull breeding and fighting.
Pitt bulls make up 5% of all dogs in the U.S., 22% of all dogs entering shelters, and 40% of dogs euthanized in shelters, meaning they are disproportionately euthanized compared to other breeds. Moreover, though an estimated 80% of all dogs are spayed or neutered, only some 27% of pit bulls are sterilized, leading to their overpopulation. [26][27][28]
Pit bull bans are an effective way to control this population. Controlling this population means, in turn, less abuse of pit bulls and fewer pit bull fights, attacks, captures, and euthanizations. Ancillary crimes would also decrease, since pit bull fighting rings are often tied to other illegal activities, including illegal gambling, drug and gun activity, and even murder. [12]
Pit bulls are more likely to be confiscated or surrendered to a shelter because they are disproportionately bred for fighting, which in turn drops their adoption rates and increases their likelihood for euthanasia.[10]
BSL eliminates or lessens these problems at the root by preventing pit bulls from being bred in the first place. Fewer dogs would be susceptible to the frequent abuse and neglect that feeds their aggression
Pro 3: Pit bulls and some other dogs are genetically dangerous.
As Daphna Nachminovitch, senior vice president of cruelty investigations for PETA, explains, “Pit bulls are a breed-specific problem, so it seems reasonable to target them. The public is misled to believe that pit bulls are like any other dog. And they just aren’t. These dogs were bred to bait bulls. They were bred to fight each other to the death. Just because we’re an animal-rights organization doesn’t mean we’re not concerned about public safety.” For example, in the U.K., at least six of ten fatal dog attacks were attributed to the now-banned XL Bully breed in 2022. [9][20]
Brian C. Anderson, editor of City Journal explain, the dogs have been bred with unique qualities that can make them dangerous: “First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed’s unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothing—hoses, violent blows or kicks—can easily stop them. That’s because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed’s remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs.” [11]
Con 1: There is no evidence BSL makes communities safer.
As pointed out by the Humane Rescue Alliance, “Experts like the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Animal Control Association agree that no breed of dog is inherently dangerous, and they unanimously reject policies based solely on breed.”[24]
Moreover, BSL is ineffective because it treats the result (a dog bite) instead of the cause (bad animal owners). For example, Miami-Dade county, Florida, has had a pit bull ban since the 1980s, but the county still euthanizes about 800 illegally owned pit bulls per year. Aragon, Spain, saw no changes in dog bite numbers five years before and five years after BSL was enacted. [13]
People who are breeding or training dogs for illegal fighting or to protect illegal activities will simply turn to another dog breed if pit bulls are banned. For example, following a pit bull ban in Council Bluff, Iowa, Boxer and Labrador Retriever bites increased, as did overall dog bites. [14]
When pit bulls were banned in Winnipeg, Canada, Rottweiler bites immediately increased. When the city subsequently changed the law to be breed-neutral, all dog bites decreased. [14]
Con 2: BSL is a distraction from legislation and policies that could actually accomplish safety goals.
According to a study of fatal dog bites between 1979 and 1996, “Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.” [18]
Best Friends Animal Society explains three mitigating factors in dog attacks: 97% of the owners had not sterilized the dogs; 84% of the owners had abused or neglected their dogs; and 78% were using the dogs as guard dogs or breeding dogs instead of keeping the dogs as pets. [13]
“Behavioral traits definitely vary from breed to breed, but not nearly as strongly as the morphological traits do,” canine expert Adam Boyko said. “You’re never going to get a collie that looks like a Great Dane.… But I see lots of dogs exhibit pointing behavior that aren’t pointers.” Rather than breed traits, the ASPCA notes chaining and tethering dogs outside, lack of obedience training, and selective breeding for protection or fighting are risk factors for dog attacks. [14][25]
Legislating poor animal ownership would be more effective than bans. For example, St. Paul, Minnesota, forbids people who have been cited for animal abuse or neglect two or more times from owning pets. [13]
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, enacted a community policing policy that focuses on aggression rather than breed. The city saw a 56% decrease in aggressive incidents and 21% decline in bites in two years. [13]
For these reasons, among others, BSL is opposed by the following organizations: American Bar Association, American Kennel Club, ASPCA, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the CDC, Humane Society, National Animal Control Association, National Canine Research Council, and others. [19]
Con 3: BSL is expensive to enact.
According to a 2012 study, “enacting breed-specific legislation at the national level would cost $476,973,320 annually in enforcement, kenneling and veterinary care, euthanizing and disposal, litigation costs, and DNA testing.” [15]
That’s a steep cost for a relatively small, albeit important, issue. There are some 4.5 million dog bites each year, from some 78 million dogs in the United States, resulting in the death (between 2011-21) of about 43 people annually (with a low of 31 deaths in 2016 to a high of 81 deaths in 2021). And, of course, breeds not covered by BSL also bite. One study of 35 common breeds found Chihuahuas, not pit bulls, to be the most aggressive dogs. [15][16][17][29]
link
More Stories
10 Most Popular Dog Breeds of 2023
Golden Retriever | Breed, Size, Temperament & Coat
Facts About the Icelandic Sheepdog That You May Not Know