Why BSL Doesn’t Work

There are many different studies and evaluations from a number of different perspectives showing that breed-specific legislation is both unfounded and ineffective. Below you will find the different arguments against the use of BSL.

 

Breed Categorization

The interpretive nature of the term “pit bull” and the consequences of this categorization results in serious problems, both in policy and for individuals.

“Pit bull” is not actually a breed, but rather a group of “individuals with a common general phenotype” (American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, 2014). Many widely recognized organizations, including the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), the American Bar Association (ABA), the National Animal Care and Control Association (NACA), and the American Kennel Club (AKC) oppose the use of BSL at least partially because of the inherent unreliability and subjectivity in breed identification.

Both the AKC and the AVSAB have made statements opposing BSL and in these publications noted the difficulty of identifying breeds visually and assuming temperament solely based on presumed breed.

 

Legal

In the same vein as breed identification issues, the report attached to the ABA’s Resolution 100 states that the tendency of these types of policies is to “vaguely define the targeted breed. ” It recognizes that “pit bull” is actually a colloquial term used as an identifier for a “genetically diverse group of dogs,” of which no formal breed designations have been made (Aliment, 2012).

Consequently, these policies often infringe on a citizen’s right to due process because the subjectivity of “dangerous breed” categorization does not give the public adequate notice to follow the laws and thus fosters the possibility of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement (Aliment, 2012). In her work “Canine Profiling: Does Breed-Specific Legislation Take a Bite Out of Canine Crime?” Pratt succinctly explains this in terms of the “void-for-vagueness” principle; if the definition of what breeds are banned is not clear, then citizens cannot be expected to follow the law and there (Pratt, 2004). In their handbook, the NACA also addresses the fact that “identifying a specific animal’s lineage for prosecution may be extremely difficult” and as such suggests dangerous/vicious dog laws based on behavior, not breed. The reliance of BSL on breed identification by phenotype leaves it on unsteady footing both scientifically and legally.

 

Misinformed Policies

And beyond the inaccuracy of breed identification, the popular view of the natural temperament of pit bull- type dog and resulting approaches to policy are generally falsely informed as well. Authorities on dog behavior, including the NACA, AVSAB, and AKC all echo the sentiment of “deeds, not breeds” (AKC).

In the NACA’s guidelines on dangerous/vicious animal policies, they state that because “any animal may exhibit aggressive behavior regardless of breed,” policies should be focused on the individual animal’s behavior. This is particularly interesting because it comes from an organization of people who are actively charged with enforcing these policies, highlights the practical difficulties of BSL, and suggests more reliable solutions.

On the other hand, AVSAB comes the different perspective of veterinarians and behaviorists. Similarly, they explain that “breed alone is not predictive of the risk of aggressive behavior” but instead both dogs and owners must be evaluated on an individual level to create a safe environment. The AKC, a distinctive organization focused on breeds and training, repeats the same idea in their position paper stating their disapproval of BSL. The reliance on the uninformed general idea that

 

Data Validity

Another issue that impacts the validity of BSL is the difficulty in obtaining accurate data when it comes to dog bite statistics.

In their ten-year retrospective study on the impact breed-specific legislation had on fatal dog bites in Spain, Mora et al noted the complex multidisciplinary approach that it takes to accurately assess bites themselves. This sentiment is also present in the broader work of the AVSAB in their position statement.

The great variance of dog bite data, similar to crime data, comes from potential lack of self-reporting and/or proper documentation by the relevant authorities (AVSAB, 2014). Additionally, it notes the impact of media portrayal on people’s perception of dog bite tendencies. Because of the myth that pit bull-type dogs have “locking jaws” and potentially incorrect visual breed identifications by the media, the general public felt that there was a disproportionately large number of dog bites by pit bulls (AVSAB, 2014). However, the likelihood of a dog to bite depends on many factors outside of breed, such as socialization, situation, and individual temperament, and in looking at multiple studies, a singular most aggressive breed or group of breeds could not be determined as findings across the literature were not consistent (AVSAB, 2014).

A study by Creedon and Ó Súilleabháin in Ireland showed just this by examining dog bite injuries. The study found that there were variances between legislated and non-legislated breeds when it came to factors surrounding the bite, such as the reports to authority, perception of aggressiveness, and location of bite, but none when it came to the actual medical treatment required for bites, the type of bite , age and relationship with victim, history of aggression, or repeated incidences. This shows that most of the supportive statistics are more related to how people perceive a dog than the natural tendencies of the dog itself. Said succinctly in Beaver et al, “dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.” This source goes on to explain the impact of breed popularity, reporting variability, and breed misidentification in skewing the numbers.  It is very difficult to find reliable literature in field of animal behavior that supports the idea that aggression is highly dependent on breed and that BSL properly addresses violent dog-human interactions.

 

Ineffective

Not only is supporting research for BSL questionable, but evaluations of BSL almost exclusively reveal a lack of efficacy in actually preventing violent dog-human interactions.

The Mora et al study in Spain showed that “the implementation of breed-specific legislation in Spain (1999 and 2002) does not seem to have produced a reduction in dog bite-related fatalities over the last decade.”

Similarly, the study by Dr. Ott et al in Lower Saxony revealed that temperament tests of legislated breeds and golden retrievers showed no significant difference. This finding actually resulted in the repeal of the legislation in question.

The ABA report by Aliment also notes the findings of the Vicious Animal Legislation Task Force that studied the efficacy of BSL in Prince George’s County, Maryland. According to those findings, the ABA evaluated the policy to be “inefficient, costly, difficult to enforce, subjective and questionable in results.”

Likewise, the AVSAB position statement summarizes the results from cities in the United States and other countries, all of them finding that BSL is not effective in reducing dog bite incidences and/or that other programs are more effective.