Breed Specific Legislation, or BSL, is any form of legislation that is designed to affect a specific dog breed. Many of these dog breeds have been labeled as “dangerous.” BSLs come in many different types. The main types of BSLs require the dog to be spayed or neutered, require the dog to be muzzled in public, or the complete ban of the breed from the area. BSLs are enacted to prevent future fatal dog attacks in the city or state it was enacted in. Breed Specific Legislation has been proven to be ineffective at preventing these future dog attacks and unethical, which is why they should be replaced with a more effective form of legislation, such as Behavior-Based Animal Control Laws.  

To understand the controversy behind Breed Specific Legislation, people must first understand the differences between how the government views pets and how the owners view their pets. The government views pets as property, nothing more nothing less. The owners, on the other side, view their pets as family. The pet takes the place of children that have since grown up and moved out. For some families that can’t have children the pet becomes the child. Also in some families with children the pets become a brother or sister to the children in the family. People must also understand why dogs bite to understand the controversy behind BSLs. Dogs will bite for three main reasons. These are that the dog is feeling scared, threatened, or just overly excited. It is due to some cooccurring factor that leads them to feel this way. Cooccurring factors are things such as a history of abuse or neglect, the failure to neuter the dog, and the absence of an able-bodied person to stop the dog. 

Breed Specific Legislation was first seen in Hollywood, Florida in 1980 and became increasingly popular throughout the 1980s. BSLs were created as a response to the increasing number of fatal dog attacks in the area. Many BSLs were created through the panic policymaking model. This means that they were created during an overemotional time when people were panicking about safety. At the same time, illegal dog fighting syndicates were becoming popular around the world. 

Illegal dog fighting syndicates teach dogs to be aggressive toward everything and everyone. The dogs are made to maul and attack each other in a rink while people chant and take bets on which dog will come out alive. Dogs are starved when they lose a fight, or they are beaten until bones are broken and they can’t move. Pit bulls, which is the most common group of breeds affected by BSLs, are also a favorite among these dog fighting syndicates. They are a favorite because of their blocky, muscular build and their trainability. Pit bulls were also seen as a status symbol by the syndicate bosses. The boss’s pit bull had to be the meanest and most vicious inside and outside the dog fighting rink. Even with all of this it doesn’t mean the dogs can’t be rehabilitated. A study by Katherine Miller and her associates proves this. Miller and associates studied the relationship between heavy scarring and a dog’s aggression toward other dogs and humans. They did the study because many times after the take down of a dog fighting syndicate the dogs seized that are mauled are automatically euthanized without being given a chance to show their true nature. They are euthanized because of their scars. Miller’s study shows that there is no relationship between aggression and the scarring, and that many dogs can be taught to not be aggressive even with their background. But, the opposite is also true. 

Carl Safina talks about how people effect animals in his Ted Talk. He talks about how animals do have feelings and by killing their family members and hurting them people create negative emotions that animals will associate with people after the fact. This is true from the biggest of elephants to the smallest of dogs. When animals are abused they become scared and timid around people. They will also react violently if they believe they must protect themselves or their family. The good thing is that animals can also be taught that not all people cause these negative emotions, and that they don’t have to always be on their guard around people. Carl Safina proves this when he talks about the elephants in Africa. Safina described a study done by scientist in Africa. These scientists played the recording of tourist talking and herders, who often hurt the elephants, at a watering hole and noted their reactions to the two recordings. At the end of describing the speech Safina says, “Not only do elephants know that there are humans, they know that there are different kinds of humans, and that some are OK and some are dangerous.” This shows us that it is true that animals can be taught that not all people are bad with the right treatment. Many dogs that have been abused can go on to be perfect family pets, but there are some that never will be fully functional around people. It depends on the intensity and extent of the abuse. It also depends on the disposition of the dog. 

With all this said, it is time to address the ineffectiveness of Breed Specific Legislation. In a study done by Amy Marder, Gary J. Patronek and Margaret Slater on the number of dogs that would have to be banned for BSLs to be effective, it was found that BSLs lacked at preventing the appropriate number of dogs. Also, they said that the number of dogs needed to ban was implausible and unreachable. This shows that no matter how many BSLs are enacted the number for dogs needed to be banned to make a significant difference will never be met. 

Breed Specific Legislation had been proven to be ineffective at lowering the number of dog bites in that area. This was seen in Baltimore, Maryland in the 1970s when they had a BSL. The BSL was ineffective at dropping the number of dog bites, which was said to be around 6,500. The same number it was at before the BSL. With this information, the Baltimore government decide to enact a strong behavior-based animal-control law instead. Today, with the new laws in place, the number of dog bites has dropped by almost 90 percent. This can also be shown in other US cities, such as New York, that have opted for strong behavior-based animal-control laws instead of BSLs.

Now that the ineffectiveness of BSLs have been discussed, it’s time to discuss the effects BSLs have on the dog owners. BSLs cause many problems for the owners of “dangerous” dog breeds whether this is financially, physically, or emotionally. It financially effects the owners because many BSLs now cause the owner to have to buy liability insurance for the dog. They also could be fined up to $22,500 for not complying to all the restrictions. A specific case of the financial problems BSLs cause is of a woman in Brisbane, Australia. Her nine-year old pit ubll Kane was taken from her home while she was at work by Animal Control Officers. She was not informed until three days after he was taken that the council had seized him. She was told she could appeal the decision but it would take five months before a decision would be made, and she would have to pay $75 per week to keep him alive and couldn’t get him back till the appeal was done. Instead of putting Kane through the stress of being impounded, she was forced to put him down. After the council destroyed Kane, she received a letter from the council saying she had to renew his registration. This leads into the emotional problems that occur for the owners of dogs because of BSLs. 

Many owners of any kind of pet have some type of emotional connection to that pet. Most of the time it is affection and love for the pet. This was the case for Jahni and her husband, an Australian couple moving to America. After battling with the authorities to get their two beloved pit bulls, 17-month-old Dback and five-year-old Cece, they were forced to euthanize both dogs because they were not allowed to bring them home. The family says they will never forget or forgive the decisions they were forced to make and how much pain it has caused them.

A case of the physical pain caused by BSLs and “dangerous” dog stereotypes is the case of a German dog trainer in Australia. She was forced to move into a one-room apartment with no hot water just to keep her pit bull and two cross-breeds. Then, she would be spat on as she walked her dogs. People would throw rocks at her and the dogs, and children would kick the dogs from behind. She went to the police for help and instead of helping her they said they had to protect people from her dogs. 

Are BSLs even ethical and morally right if they cause so many problems? John Rawls was a political and ethical philosopher and professor at Harvard University. Rawls has a theory of justice as fairness. He said in his most influential work A Theory of Justice that to achieve justice there must first be fairness. This brings up the question, is it fair to impose all these laws on dog owners and dogs that have done nothing wrong? In the U.S., there is a heavy push for justice in any situation. If people in the U.S. look at justice as fairness, they would see that there is no justice in persecuting the innocent. 

John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher, economist, and moral and political theorist. He has been called the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the 19th century. Mill wrote a work called Utilitarianism. Mill said that happiness applies to all sentient creation. Sentient means to be responsive or conscious. Dogs are responsive and conscious, so shouldn’t happiness be applied to them? In Utilitarianism, Mill discussed the Greatest Happiness Principle, which states that we must do whatever brings the most amount of people the most happiness. In the U.S. alone, over 43,346,000 households own a dog and there are over 69,926,000 dogs. In the U.S., the average household is made up of 2 people. With this, it can reasonably be shown that BSLs could affect 156,618,000 sentient beings. This does not include others people who do not own a dog but have friends or family that own dogs. So, do these people not have the right to be happy and still have their dogs or gain happiness in another friend’s dog?

With all that has been said, can it not reasonably be concluded that there is a problem with Breed Specific Legislation? Breed Specific Legislation has been proven to be ineffective. It has been proven that it will never be effective. It has been proven to cause pain and suffering for dog owners. So, why do people and governments keep calling for a legislation the hurts those around them without helping to do anything? Why should we not get rid of BSLs and replace them with something that works? Something that doesn’t cause unjust pain and suffering to innocent people and dogs? Behavior-based animal-control laws could help to reverse the effects of BSLs if put into place. Behavior-based laws would be effective at reducing the number of dog bites and helping to stop unwarranted pain. They would just be better all the way around, which is why they should replace BSLs everywhere.
