Introduction
Certain dog breeds face major restrictions in cities, counties, and entire states across America. Breed-specific legislation, often referred to as BSL, has generated much controversy as some governments have banned particular breeds outright. The restrictions primarily target pit bull-type dogs such as the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
Advocates claim this legislation reduces vicious dog attacks, while critics argue it unfairly discriminates based on breed stereotypes. Understanding the debates around banned and restricted dogs provides insight into animal laws, public perceptions, and efforts to build safer communities.
Most Restricted Breed – Pit Bull
The pit bull is by far the most legislated against and banned breed of dog in the United States. The history of the pit bull can be traced back to 19th century England, Scotland, and Ireland. The original breeds used to create the modern day “pit bull terrier” were the Old English Bulldog and Old English Terriers. These dogs were bred for the cruel sport of bull baiting, where they were pitted against bulls and each other in fights. Once bull baiting was banned in 1835, these dogs were then used for dog fighting. Bull baiting dogs were crossed with smaller terriers to create more agile dogs suited for fighting in pits. Immigrants later brought these dogs to America, where they continued to be used in dog fighting. Over time, pit bulls were also bred to be working dogs on farms and family companions.
Breed-Specific Legislation
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) refers to laws that target or restrict ownership of certain dog breeds, most commonly pit bulls. BSL ranges from outright bans on owning certain breeds to restrictions such as muzzling in public or extra insurance requirements.
Pit bulls are the most common target of BSL in the United States and certain cities or counties have enacted restrictions or bans, including Denver, Miami-Dade County, and Aurora in Colorado. Other breeds targeted by BSL include Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, and Chow Chows.
Proponents argue BSL protects the public by reducing bites and attacks from breeds considered inherently aggressive. Critics say BSL is ineffective and discriminatory, punishing responsible owners for the actions of irresponsible ones. They argue dog behavior depends on breeding, socialization, and training rather than breed alone.
Where Pit Bulls are Banned
Pit bulls are banned in hundreds of cities and towns across the United States. Some of the major areas that prohibit pit bull breeds include:
- Denver, Colorado
- Miami-Dade County, Florida
- Sunrise, Florida
- San Francisco, California
- Kansas City, Missouri
- Iowa City, Iowa
- Yakima, Washington
- Salina, Kansas
At the state level, pit bulls are banned in Alaska, Louisiana, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico. Many housing authorities and landlords also enforce breed restrictions against pit bulls in rental properties. Overall, pit bull bans are prevalent in regions throughout the United States.
Reasons for Bans
The main reason pit bulls are banned in many places is due to concerns about the breed’s aggression and likelihood to attack. Some key facts that lead to bans include:
– Pit bulls have historically been bred as fighting dogs, leading some to perceive them as inherently aggressive.
– Statistics indicating pit bulls are responsible for over 65% of fatal dog attacks on humans, despite making up only 6.5% of the U.S. dog population.
– Reports of pit bull attacks resulting in serious injury or death, especially on children, has caused public concern.
– The strength of a pit bull’s bite, around 235 pounds of pressure, coupled with their tendency not to show warning signs before attack has raised alarm.
– Some claim pit bulls have a lethal “hold and shake” bite style and are less likely to release their grip when attacking compared to other breeds.
– The concern that pit bulls are unpredictable about when, where and who they will attack is behind much of the push for breed bans.
Counter Arguments
Pit bull advocates argue that breed-specific legislation is discriminatory and ineffective. They claim pit bulls are unfairly stereotyped as aggressive and dangerous, when in fact a dog’s behavior depends on how it is raised, trained, and supervised by its owner. According to advocates, banning specific breeds does not address the real factors that contribute to dog bites, such as reckless ownership, lack of training and socialization, abuse, and irresponsible breeding practices. They point to studies showing pit bulls score well on dog temperament tests, are not disproportionately involved in dog bite incidents compared to other breeds, and were once considered “nanny dogs” trusted with children. Advocates argue breed bans are impossible to enforce, punish responsible owners, and fail to increase public safety — as bans in some areas have simply led to rises in bites from other breeds. They favor enforcing existing dangerous dog laws without any breed discrimination, promoting responsible ownership, requiring leashes in public, and addressing root causes of dog aggression instead of singling out certain breeds.
Alternatives to Breed Bans
While some municipalities have opted to ban pit bulls, many experts argue there are better alternatives that do not discriminate against a specific breed. Some potential options include:
-
Enforcing laws and regulations around responsible dog ownership and animal welfare – such as leash laws, containment requirements, licensing, neutering/spaying etc. Holding all owners to the same standards of care and control for their dogs regardless of breed.
-
Increasing public education around dog safety and bite prevention, especially focused on parents and children.
-
Improving access to affordable obedience training and socialization programs, which can reduce problematic behaviors. Some shelters and rescues offer free or low-cost classes.
-
Cracking down on illegal dogfighting operations and puppy mills, which can promote aggression in dogs.
-
Developing non-breed specific dangerous dog laws that put the focus on individual at-risk animals based on their behavior.
Experts argue these solutions address irresponsible owners and enhance public safety without discrimination. They help hold all dog owners accountable while allowing responsible owners to keep their family pets.
Effectiveness of Breed Bans
There has been much debate over whether breed-specific legislation and bans on pit bulls are effective at reducing dog bites and attacks. Several studies have looked into the data:
– A 5-year study in Spain found no reduction in dog bites after enacting a pit bull ban. In fact, dog injuries rose after the ban as owners switched to other breeds like Rottweilers, which were not banned.
– Research published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior found that breed is not a reliable predictor of aggressiveness. Controlled studies showed other factors like early socialization had a bigger impact.
– A report by the American Veterinary Medical Association notes that no breed ban has ever significantly reduced dog bites. They conclude that “breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness.”
– The White House under President Barack Obama publicly opposed breed-specific bans, noting that other factors like owner responsibility are more important indicators of risk.
– Multiple peer-reviewed studies show no difference in biting risk between legislated breeds like pit bulls versus unlegislated breeds.
The consensus from veterinary and animal behavior experts is that breed-specific legislation does not appear to be effective at reducing bites or enhancing public safety. Multifactorial approaches that go beyond just the breed of dog seem to be necessary for effectively addressing the risk of dog bites and attacks.
Other Restricted Breeds
In addition to pit bulls, some jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation against other dog breeds like Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, and Chow Chows among others. These breeds are often included in bans or restrictions due to perceptions that they are aggressive or dangerous.
For example, some apartments or homeowner associations ban residents from having Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Dobermans and other large breed dogs. These restrictions are sometimes put in place due to fears over liability should an incident occur, though like pit bull bans, their effectiveness is questionable.
Advocacy groups like the American Kennel Club argue that dogs should be judged by their individual behavior, not their breed. They oppose breed-specific laws against German Shepherds, Rottweilers and other dogs, which they view as a form of canine discrimination.
While pit bulls tend to receive the most attention and controversy, it’s important to note that any dog of any breed can become aggressive given the wrong circumstances. Many experts argue that responsible ownership and training are more important factors than simply banning certain breeds of dog.
Conclusion
In summary, certain dog breeds like pit bulls face bans across parts of America due to concerns about the danger they may pose. However, the research shows breed alone is not an accurate predictor of aggression in dogs. More humane and effective solutions involve proper training, socialization, licensing, and stronger animal cruelty laws. While public safety is important, bans unfairly target responsible owners and dogs based solely on their appearance. With education and alternatives to outright bans, communities can implement more ethical and fact-based policies.
The debate around breed-specific legislation is nuanced, with reasonable arguments on both sides. But the latest science and expert opinion increasingly recognizes breed as just one factor among many that shape a dog’s behavior. As more local governments explore breed-neutral laws, the era of singling out particular breeds may be coming to an end. Still, prejudices persist, and pit bulls remain America’s most controversial and restricted dog.