Understanding Breed Specific Legislation and Its Effects

Breed specific legislation, or BSL, is a type of law that targets specific breeds of dogs. BSL is often enacted in response to perceived problems with a particular breed, such as aggression or safety concerns.

The first BSL law was enacted in the United States in 1985, in Denver, Colorado. This law prohibited Pit Bulls and other "dangerous" breeds from being owned as pets.

Many proponents of BSL believe that certain breeds are inherently more aggressive or violent than others. However, studies have shown that breed is not a reliable indicator of a dog's behavior.

In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have found that the majority of dog bites are caused by untrained or unsupervised dogs, regardless of breed.

Curious to learn more? Check out: Specific Arguments

Breed specific legislation has a long and complex history. The first breed-specific law was enacted in the United States in 1910, targeting Pit Bulls.

This early law was a response to the breed's association with dog fighting. The law was later repealed, but similar legislation continued to be enacted in various forms.

Today, many cities and states have breed-specific laws on the books, with some jurisdictions targeting Pit Bulls and others targeting other breeds.

You might enjoy: Standard Pitbull Terrier

The history of legislation in the United States dates back to the early 19th century. The first federal laws were established in 1789 with the Judiciary Act, which created the Supreme Court.

The Judiciary Act also established the framework for the federal court system, with the Supreme Court at the top. The Act was a significant step in the development of the US legal system.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to former slaves and prohibited states from denying anyone equal protection under the law. This amendment had a profound impact on the country's civil rights laws.

Key legislation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries included the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act. These laws aimed to regulate business practices and prevent monopolies.

The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 led to the desegregation of public schools, marking a significant milestone in the Civil Rights Movement.

Breed-discriminatory legislation, also known as BDL, targets individual dogs based on their supposed breed, not just pit bull terriers. This type of legislation has affected various breeds over time, including German Shepherds and Dobermans.

BDL often creates de facto bans by imposing tough restrictions, such as requiring expensive insurance policies or muzzling dogs at all times. This forces many owners to give up their pets.

The CDC has identified several factors beyond breed that contribute to a dog's aggression, including heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization, and training. These factors are often overlooked in BDL.

More than 70 percent of dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs, and unneutered males are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered dogs. This suggests that addressing reproductive status and training can be more effective in preventing dog bites than breed-specific laws.

A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog that is not chained or tethered. This highlights the importance of proper dog care and containment.

The ASPCA seeks effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for the actions of their animals. By recognizing the complexity of the issue, we can work towards safer and more responsible dog ownership practices.

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is often implemented to improve public safety, but it's not as effective as you might think.

Studies have shown that BSL does not reduce dog bites or make communities safer. In fact, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) reviewed 40 years of dog bite studies and found no evidence that breed-specific bans reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries.

One of the main problems with BSL is that it can lead to dogs going into hiding, rather than being properly cared for. Owners of regulated or banned breeds may restrict outdoor exercise and socialization, and forgo licensing, microchipping, and veterinary care, including spay/neuter surgery and essential vaccinations.

Good owners and dogs are often punished by BSL, even if they've done nothing to endanger public safety. Responsible owners of friendly, properly supervised, and well-socialized dogs are required to comply with local breed bans and regulations, unless they can afford to mount a costly legal challenge.

BSL can also impart a false sense of security, distracting from more effective enforcement of laws that address behavior, rather than breed.

The following table summarizes the negative consequences of BSL:

In contrast, breed-neutral laws that focus on individual owners and animals are more effective at improving public safety. These laws address owner behavior and responsible pet ownership, rather than targeting specific breeds.

Breed-specific laws have been proven ineffective in making communities safer for people and companion animals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) strongly opposes BSL due to the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds, especially mixed-breed dogs.

Breed-specific laws also have a host of negative and unintended consequences. Dogs go into hiding, which has implications for public safety and the health of these dogs. Owners of regulated or banned breeds often restrict outdoor exercise and socialization, and forgo licensing, microchipping, and proper veterinary care.

Responsible owners and dogs are punished by BSL, causing hardship to those who have done nothing to endanger the public. They are required to comply with local breed bans and regulations unless they can mount successful legal challenges. This can be a costly and stressful experience for many dog owners.

Breed-specific laws impart a false sense of security, compromising rather than enhancing public safety. By focusing on regulating or banning a certain breed, limited animal control resources are diverted away from routine enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer.

Laws aimed at specific dog breeds are not only ineffective but also come with significant drawbacks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has strongly opposed Breed-Specific Laws (BSL) after studying human fatalities resulting from dog bites.

The CDC found that BSL is plagued by inaccuracies in dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds, especially for mixed-breed dogs. This makes it challenging to determine which breeds are truly responsible for bites.

Breed-specific laws are also costly and difficult to enforce, which can be a burden on communities. The financial and administrative strain can be overwhelming for local authorities.

The lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of BSL highlights the need for more targeted and practical solutions to address dog bites and related concerns.

Laws that target specific breeds of dogs can have some pretty serious consequences. Dogs suffer due to restricted outdoor exercise and socialization, which can negatively impact their mental and physical health.

Responsible owners of friendly, well-socialized dogs are often required to comply with breed bans and regulations, leading to housing issues, legal fees, or even relinquishment of their pets. This is unfair to owners who have done nothing to put the public at risk.

Public safety is compromised when animal control resources are focused on regulating or banning a certain breed, rather than enforcing laws that have a greater impact on safety, such as dog license laws and leash laws.

Dogs that are restricted from receiving proper veterinary care due to breed bans can lead to outbreaks of rabies and other diseases that endanger communities. This is a serious public health issue.

Here are some of the unintended consequences of breed-specific laws:

Breed-specific legislation has been widely criticized for being ineffective in reducing dog bites and attacks. In fact, the CDC has noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog's tendency toward aggression.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has cited the importance of heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization, and training in determining a dog's aggression. This means that breed-neutral laws that focus on these factors are a more effective approach.

A breed-neutral approach may include enhanced enforcement of dog license laws, increased availability to low-cost sterilization services, and graduated penalties for dogs deemed dangerous. These laws hold dog guardians financially accountable for failure to adhere to animal control laws.

A unique perspective: How to Change Your Dog's Breed on Paperwork?

Studies have shown that unneutered male dogs are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered dogs, and chained or tethered dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than dogs who are not chained or tethered. This highlights the importance of addressing these factors in breed-neutral laws.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) supports effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for the actions of their animals. In fact, the ASPCA seeks to help draft animal control laws that prioritize breed-neutral approaches.

Here are some key components of breed-neutral laws that have been found to be effective:

These breed-neutral laws address the root causes of dog bites and attacks, rather than simply targeting specific breeds. By focusing on individual owner behavior and responsible pet ownership, we can create safer communities for both people and animals.