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.” 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 fatal dog attacks in the city or state in which the BSL is enacted. Breed Specific Legislation has been proven to be ineffective at preventing these future dog attacks and they have been viewed as unethical practices. This is the reason why they should be replaced with a more effective form of legislation, such as Behavior-Based Animal Control Laws.  

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 were unable to accurately ban the number of dogs needed to significantly lower the number of dog bite attacks in the United States. (Marder 790) 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 of dogs needed to be banned to make a significant difference, will never be met. 

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. (Brisbin 479) 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 solid, 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 ring. Despite the aggression training that pit bulls receive, there is no merit to the categorical statement that these dogs cannot be rehabilitated. A study by Katherine Miller and her associates proves this. Miller and associates studied the relationship between “heavy scarring” (Miller 2679) 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. They are euthanized because some people believe that if a dog is more scarred, they will be more aggressive. (Miller 2789) 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.” (Safina) This shows that animals can be taught through proper treatment and training methods, that all people are not going to harm them. Many dogs that have been abused can go on to be perfect family pets, but there are some that will never be fully functional around people. It depends on the intensity and extent of the abuse. It also depends on the disposition of the dog. 

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 reducing the number of dog bites, which at that time, was around 6,500 a year. Prior to the enactment of the BSL the number of dog bites in a year was the same. (Lefkowitz) 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. (Lefkowitz) 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. 

In addition to the above information, breed specific legislation affects the dog owners. BSLs cause many problems for the owners of “dangerous” dog breeds such as financial, physical, emotional. One of the financial difficulties that owners may experience is the need to buy liability insurance for the dog. They also could be fined up to $22,500 for not complying with the BSL restrictions. Bilik tells the story of a woman in Brisbane, Australia and her nine-year old pit bull, Kane. The animal 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. She would not be able to get him back until the appeal was processed. Instead of putting Kane through the stress of being impounded, she was forced to put him down. After Kane was euthanized, she received a letter from the council saying she had to renew his registration. (Bilik) 

Stories such as this lend themselves to the understanding of people’s emotional ties to their pets. 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 take them to their new home. The family says they will never forget or forgive the decisions they were forced to make nor will they forget the emotional pain those decisions caused. (Bilik)

In addition to the financial and emotional burdens caused by BSLs, people who own dogs who are deemed dangerous are at risk of physical pain. A German dog trainer in Australia was forced to move into a one-room apartment with no hot water just to keep her pit bull and two cross-breeds. She would be spat upon as she walked her dogs. People would throw rocks at her and the dogs, and children would kick the dogs from behind. She sought help from the police but instead of offering help to her they felt they had to protect people from her dogs. (Bilik)

Are BSLs ethically right if they cause so many problems? John Rawls was a political and ethical philosopher and professor at Harvard University. He said in his most influential work, A Theory of Justice, that to achieve justice there must first be fairness. (Rawls 582) This brings up the question, is it fair to impose laws on dog owners and dogs that have done nothing wrong? In the U.S., there is a significant push for justice for 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. In it, Mill said that happiness applies to all sentient creation. (Mill 417) 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 happiness to the largest number of people the most happiness. (Mill 418) In the U.S. alone, over 43,346,000 households own a dog and there are over 69,926,000 dogs. (AVMA) 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 number does not include people who do not claim ownership of a dog, but express happiness when surrounded by one. So, do these people not have the right to be happy and still have their dogs or gain happiness in another friend’s dog?

Considering the aforementioned, should it not be reasonably concluded that there is a problem with Breed Specific Legislation? Literature strongly suggests that BSLs are ineffective and implausible. It has been proven to cause pain and suffering for dog owners. If the proof is credible, why do government agencies continue to call for this type of legislation? Why should we not get rid of BSLs and replace them with something that works? We should embrace legislation that does not cause unjust pain and suffering to innocent people and dogs. Behavior-based animal-control laws would help to reverse the effects of previously enacted BSLs. Behavior-based laws would be effective at reducing the number of dog bites and helping to stop unwarranted pain. Another solution to the reduction of dog bite attacks is to educate people on how to properly interact with dogs. 
