Breed-specific legislation

 

Breed-specific legislation (BSL), is any law, ordinance or policy which pertains to a specific dog breed or breeds, but does not affect any others. The term is most commonly used to refer to legal restrictions or prohibitions on the breeding and ownership of certain breeds.

Some examples of BSL:

• Restrictions on or the prohibition of ownership of American Pit Bull Terriers in the United Kingdom, some municipalities of the United States.

• Restrictions on the ownership and a prohibitation on the breeding of "pit bull type" dogs (i.e. Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers or any other dog with a substantially similar appearance) in Ontario, Canada.^[1]

• Restrictions in Australia prohibiting the importation of the Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and the Brazilian Mastiff. There is also a more stringent ban in Sydney, Australia restricting the sale, acquisition, breeding or giving away of any of the aforementioned breeds. ^[2]

• Restrictions on the availability of homeowners insurance for owners of many breeds, including American Pit Bull Terriers, Rottweilers, Dobermanns, Akitas, in some areas of the United States ^[3].

• Proposed legislation in some Australian states that would prohibit the breeding of any breed of dog not recognized by the Australian National Kennel Council, or restrict or prohibit breeding certain breeds.

• The requirement that Greyhounds wear muzzles in public in some Australian states.

• The Dangerous Dogs Act of the United Kingdom legislatively drafted prohibitions for certain types of dogs; most notably pit-bull type dogs.

Pros and cons

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Proponents of BSL usually cite the need to protect the public from dog breeds viewed to have inherent tendencies to aggressive behavior. Many tend to believe that dangerous dogs must be certain breeds in order to make them this way. Some proponents believe that a pit bull has superior jaw strength, different muscular ability, and the like. However, the idea that a pit bull has superior jaw strength is a complete myth. ^{[4] [5] [6]} Interestingly this myth was also supposedly true for Doberman Pinschers, but now it is no longer considered true for the Doberman. The musculature assertion is also false. Consider that while the American Pit Bull Terrier does well in weight pull competitions, it is by no means superior in that other breeds in the same weight classes have beaten these dogs.^[7]

Proponents point to specific studies done, particularly the CDC study (Center for Disease Control). However, it should be noted that the CDC itself and the authors of this study note that the study does not support Breed Specific Legislation nor that the article can be used to determine which dogs are inherently more dangerous.^[8] On the other hand, certain evidence shows that where BSL has been implemented, there is no proof that it actually produced the intended effect. Recently, laws are being pushed for implementing mandatory spay/neuter ONLY for those breeds proven to be dangerous, such as the law in California (Senate Bill 861, codified under the dangerous dog laws)and currently being challenged in Federal court.

Opponents believe that many of the policies created by BSL have been randomly or illogically developed, and are often capriciously or inconsistently enforced. For example, though "Pit Bulls" are primarily the focus of BSL, there is no consensus on what a "Pit Bull" actually is. The term "Pit-Bull-Type-Dog" has been used to describe over ten very different breeds, including Bulldogs, Boxers,Chow chows and Bullmastiffs. Additionally, Rottweilers, though having shown a virtually equal propensity for dog attacks, are rarely included in dog bans or BSL. Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherd Dogs, Great Danes, Husky-type dogs, Alaskan Malamutes and Mastiff-Type Dogs also frequently injure people, but do not experience the same scrutiny as Bull Breeds. ^[9]

Some believe an alternative to Breed Specific Legislation might be the consistent enforcement of existing dog laws. Others believe that offending dogs and people should be judged on a case by case basis, as dog attacks happen infrequently enough to warrant careful attention to each instance.

Additionally, there maybe some constitutional issues with Breed Specific Legislation.^[10] Since determining a dog's breed is extremely difficult any such laws targeting breed maybe considered vague from a constitutional stand point and violate the dog owner's right to due process. Further, any dog can be dangerous in the right situation. For example a 4 pound pomeranian killed an infant. ^[11] As such, any law that targets one breed over another may violate the right to equal protection.

Recent developments

Some cities are removing breed specific ordinances to comply with the Sixth District ruling. Others are waiting to see how the Ohio Supreme Court will rule in the appeal of City of Toledo v. Tellings. To see the Ohio Supreme Court docket in this case, search for case no. 2006-0690 at Ohio Supreme Court's Public Case Inquiry.

Pending Ohio HB 533 would remove the language from ORC 955.11 automatically defining pit bulls as vicious dogs. Any action on this bill awaits the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in the Tellings case. ^[12]

In the Ohio Supreme Court earlier this year (2007), the ASPCA (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Society) filed an amicus brief in support of the Tellings decision, supra, in which it states:

"The trial court and the Sixth District agreed that the most current research indicates that dogs deemed to be pit bulls are not more dangerous than dogs of other breeds, so temperament cannot provide the rationale for the Ohio pit bull law and the other challenged statute, Toledo’s ordinance prohibiting ownership of more than one adult dog deemed to be a pit bull (T.M.C. §505.14(a)).

Surely, then, these laws regulating pit bulls as vicious dogs must have a positive impact on public safety, their touted purpose. However, this, too, is not the case: while in 1996, 14.6% of animal control agencies reported local problems with dogfighting, by 2004, the number of agencies reporting local problems with dogfighting had skyrocketed to 29%.

Further, Lucas County’s own data indicates a similar spiking in dog bite numbers (approximately 640 bites) in 2001 – more than a decade after the enactment of Ohio’s pit bull law and the Toledo ordinance.Given the absence of evidence to support the notion that dogs deemed to be pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs and should be regulated on this basis, as well as the failure of the Ohio and Toledo pit bull laws to address canine aggression in any meaningful way, these laws appear to have only two outcomes:

(1) the unavoidably arbitrary enforcement of irrational policy, including the unreasonably disparate treatment of different classes of persons, and (2) the consequent grievous harm to property and liberty that flows from such wholesale compromise of procedural and substantive due process rights."

(Amicus brief submitted on behalf of the Tellings case by ASPCA attorney Debora M. Bresch, Pro Hac Vice, in the appeal of the Tellings case in the Ohio Supreme Court, November 28, 2006.) The result in the Tellings case of Ohio shows the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision,(see same site as above, ^[13] which can be viewed by searching for case no. 2006-0690 at Ohio Supreme Court's Public Case Inquiry. Proponents have indicated they will submit an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which is purely discretionary in review, and where few cases are chosen for hearing.

As for discussion regarding any anti-BSL groups, there are many of them. The Coalition of Human Advocates for K9's and Owners (CHAKO) filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco to challenge its Pit Bull ordinance. The American Dog Owners Association (ADOA) has also been involved with dog-related cases. The American Canine Foundation (ACF) has a federal case pending in both California (Case No. C06 04713), Colorado (Case No. 061510), and ACF is giving assistance to federal cases being filed in both Washington (not assigned case number yet) and Arkansas (pending final draft) which deal with breed specific law; however you must be able to view the Federal PACER system to read the cases. See http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ (There is a per page fee to view documents.) For specific information regarding the political climate and breed specific legislation specifically, see http://www.dogpolitics.typepad.com, which gives up to date information on breed specific topics, groups,debates,proposed laws.

See also

• Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
• Dog attack
• List of dog fighting breeds
• Wolfdog

References

• The Age, September 4, 2005, Crackdown on dangerous dogs [1]
• Adam Morton in The Age, September 5, 2005, War on terrier given teeth as the law gets tough [2]

External links

• Breed Specific Legislation in the United States. From the Animal Legal & Historical Center
• www.understand-a-bull.com
• Chako
• BSL Updates from National American Pit Bull Terrier Association
• Bull 911

• Dog Legislation Council of Canada
• TABS - Source for current local and national BSL laws
• Breed Specific Legislation Information
• Deed Not Breed UK Campaign against breed specific legislation
• Defending Dog
• Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue. Information, Education, Advice & Support for UK dog owners. Opposed to BSL.
• Rover's Law - Megan's Law for Bad Dogs

Donate to Wikimedia