The Truth About Breed Specific Legislation

The Truth About Breed Specific Legislation

Dogs are often referred to as being man's best friend, but the relationship between the two isn't always friendly. Historically, the news reported on television and in the newspapers has been known to share horror stories about a dog attacking a human being. In response to these attacks, the government has tried to make their communities feel safe by instituting different animal-related laws such as laws requiring leashes, licensing laws and laws against organized dog fights. When these laws failed to reduce dog attacks, the government proposed what is referred to as "breed specific legislation" - which is defined by the American Kennel Club as a statute or regulation that is directed towards one or more specific breed of dogs.

These laws focus mainly on breeds that have traditionally been labeled as dangerous. Breed specific legislation (BSL) is an ineffective way to deal with this ongoing problem and should not be allowed. Breed specific legislation started in the 1980's as a response to an increase of dog-related fatalities and attacks. These laws are often the government's way of showing its community that it has taken some sort of action regarding a current problem.

From various states, including New Mexico and Florida, these laws range from banning the breeding (or otherwise acquiring a particular breed altogether) to giving the officials the authority to seize and euthanize said breed if discovered. Depending on the actual laws in place, each state has experienced a wide range of results.

Denver, for example, claims its breed specific legislation has dramatically reduced dog attacks. After four years of enforcing their BSL, Iowa alleges that their dog attacks decreased from 29 in 2004 to no attacks in 2008. Not all states find that these laws are noticeably effective, however. Germany, Italy and Holland have all repealed their BSL after being faced with studies and statistics that proved that BSL did not lower the rate of dog -related attacks and that the dogs involved in the attacks were not the ones listen in the ban.

The U.S. courts are constantly faced with communities proposing the repealing of BSL citing these laws as unconstitutional. It is undeniable that there are aggressive and dangerous dogs in our communities. These dogs (as well as their owners) must be controlled and punished on a case-by-case basis, but BSL does not allow that. There are several reasons that BSL does not work and is not enforceable. Behavior problems exhibited by a dog are the owners' responsibility and are not limited to large breeds only.

Irresponsible owners lead to irresponsible and out of control dogs - regardless of size or breed. The flaw with statistics about dog attacks is there isn't a reliable way to prove that the breeds that were involved in the attacks are now the breeds that are being banned. There are critical details that should be investigated when a dog attacks a human being, but they are often mistakenly ignored and considered unimportant.

Some examples of the important facts that can affect an animal is whether or not an animal is spayed/neutered, how much time has passed since they were last fed, whether they have been tethered or chained outside for long periods of time, their past exposure to social interactions with humans, and how much care they are shown by their caretakers. These details are the direct responsibility of a dog owner and are clearly within the owners' control. Like racism in humans, certain breeds of dogs (usually large dogs) are riddled with negative stereotypes that the American public instantly associates with them. Breeds and mixed dogs can be hard to identify. As a result, innocent dogs are being euthanized as a result of stereotyping and paranoia. For example, "pit bull" is a type of dog, not a breed.

There are several breeds that can be mistaken for a pit bull and suffer the consequences regardless of their own deeds. Punish the deed, not the breed is the best explanation for this. According to the Endangered Breed Association, "Although BSL has focused on a few breeds such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, and chows, statistics show that serious attacks have been inflicted by a variety of dog breeds, including many which have not been subject to BSL.

In addition, opponents of BSL have pointed out that those in charge of law enforcement do not always accurately identify breeds, and that the imposition of penalties on dogs and their owners merely as a result of breed identification can be unjust and arbitrary." A serious concern in communities is organized dog fighting and criminals who use dogs for illegal purposes. The government thought the easiest way to solve this problem was to ban pit bulls and rottweilers which are often the breeds that are the victim of these crimes.

Statistics have shown that criminals simply switch to a breed that is not banned and the problems remains. Most BSL aims to ban large breed dogs such as shepherds, pit bulls or rottweilers. But according to Pit Bull Rescue Central, it is these large breed dogs that are best suited for jobs in the service industry that assist humans such as therapy dogs, assisting a handicapped person, search and rescue, and police dogs. It is inhumane to rely on these animals to work with and love us and then demand the entire breed be euthanized without cause.

BSL does not allow for exceptions of working dogs but instead targets all dogs of a certain breed- regardless of temperament or behavior. It is unethical and arbitrary to euthanize an animal based solely on their breed's reputation which is why BSL is opposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Kennel Club, ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States, as well as many other prominent animal welfare associations. These organizations do not ignore the problem of aggressive dogs but stress that BSL does not solve the problem. Any dog regardless of breed can be considered dangerous and attack a human. These organizations recommend laws that affect the root of the problem- irresponsible owners.

Appropriate laws would instruct owners with aggressive dogs as well as punish the owner when these laws are broken. Laws known as generic vicious dog laws call for a known aggressive animal to be muzzled when off his own property, kenneled in a escape proof confinement when outside on his property and to never be allowed off leash, as well a requirement that the owner purchase a liability insurance policy.

The AKC as well the ASPCA also offers classes and seminars to educate owners and help them become responsible dog owners. San Francisco has had great success with their animal related laws- specifically requiring all animals to be spayed or neutered. This law has not only decreased the percentage of animals in shelters but is effective because an unneutered dog of any breed is twice as likely to bite as a neutered dog. All these alternatives allow each dog and owner to be judged by their deeds and not their reputation.

Every year studies and statistics continue to prove the ineffectiveness of breed specific legislation. As long as these laws are enforced, responsible dog owners will continue to suffer the consequences of irresponsible owners as well as countless dogs arbitrarily losing their lives through no fault of their own. Breed specific legislation is ineffective and should not be allowed.