Breed-specific legislation is the restriction of and legislation regarding certain breeds of dog, often dogs that are considered violent, dangerous, or erratic in their behaviors (Collier, 2006). Proponents of breed-specific legislation point out that there are certain types of dogs that are most frequently used in dogfighting rings, and that these dogs are more likely to be dangerous to the general public. However, research has shown repeatedly that this is not the case; breed-specific legislation and controls on the breeding of dogs (excluding dog-wild canine hybrids)is nothing more than a reactionary response to perceived social ills that have little basis in reality.
Perhaps one of the best examples of the vilification of a dog breed is the case of the American pit-bull terrier, or, most commonly, the “pit-bull.” This dog is an excellent example when discussing breed-specific legislation because in the United States, this is the dog that most commonly comes to mind when discussing breed-specific legislation. This breed has come under fire in recent years because of the exposure of a number of high-profile dogfighting rings (Collier, 2006). Pit-bulls are considered by the general public and news media to be highly dangerous dogs, volatile and violent towards humans and other dogs.
However, when conforming to breed standard, American pit-bull terriers are anything but violent and volatile. These dogs were initially bred to be guard dogs; they are highly intelligent and immensely loyal (Collier, 2006). An American pit-bull terrier that attacks a human being without command is a truly badly-bred pit-bull, in the same way that an aggressive Labrador is a poorly-bred Labrador. Because of the visibly muscular stature of the American pit-bull terrier, it is easy to cast the breed in a negative light; however, no research has shown a properly bred and well-trained American pit-bull terrier to be any more aggressive, violent, or volatile than any other breed of dog (Burstein, 2004). The law cannot, of course, mandate that all pit-bulls that are bred conform to breed standard any more than the law can dictate that all Labradors conform to breed standard; however, the law can ban activities that may lead to violent animals, like breeding for fighting.
The American media has become a cacophony of sound-bites; the news is full of snippets of stories that are designed to catch people's attention and instill fear in the viewer, encouraging them to watch more news (Anderson, 2011). The vilification of the American pit-bull terrier fits into this mold completely; instead of addressing the true issues surrounding violent and aggressive animals, banning the entire breed seems to be the best policy decision to those watching the news. According to Collier (2006):
Studies in the United States have indicated that the “pit bull” is responsible for a significant number of human fatalities resulting from dog attack, but the data on which such studies are based are flawed by methodological shortcomings. Using absolute numbers of dog attacks by breed in Australia, data on attacks on human beings reveal the pit bull terrier to be exceeded by several other breeds. Regardless, the primary problem is that reliable data do not exist for the number of attacks relative to breed population.
For the American pit-bull terrier, this means that the breed has unfairly come under fire from politicians and activists that have incomplete or even potentially wrong information regarding the “dangerous” nature of these dogs. Canine experts largely agree that domesticated dogs to vary in temperament by breed, and pit-bulls may have the ability to do more damage than some other breeds due to their size and strength, but the manner of training is much more important when it comes to the personality of an animal than the breed of the dog (Burstein, 2004). For instance, one of the most commonly-restated pieces of misinformation about pit-bulls is that they have “locking jaws;” this is total nonsense (Burstein, 2004). Pit-bulls, like other dogs have strong jaws, and the defensive nature of the pit-bull makes it unwilling to let go of its victim once it has acquired a hold. However, there is nothing in the dog’s anatomy to suggest that the jaws “lock” in place-- this is more misinformation spread by the media in a campaign to incite fear regarding the pit-bull (Burstein, 2004).
The benefit of the domesticated dog is that it can be trained, regardless of breed. As previously stated, some breeds take more work than others to train, and some breeds present more of a danger to humans when untrained due to size and strength (B and Ow, 1996). However, banning certain breeds of dogs will not reduce the amount of dog attacks, because the problem does not lie with the dogs: it lies with the people responsible for those animals. Responsible dog owners know the behavior of their animals intimately, and understand intuitively and immediately when their dog is feeling stressed and potentially aggressive.
Instead of banning certain breeds entirely, it is important to stress the necessity of good, responsible pet ownership. Rather than banning breeds, a good halfway point between the two sides of the argument would be to require pet owners who own certain breeds of dog to undergo state-sanctioned training sessions; this would ensure that the dogs who have the potential to do damage due to their size are well-trained by state-licensed professionals. Requiring pet owners to obtain a certificate to breed their animals also may be a program that could reduce both dog aggression and the number of animals that have to be housed in shelters, as neglect and lack of socialization can commonly be a cause of aggression in dogs.
References
Anderson, J. (2011). Public policymaking. Boston, MA: Cengage.
B and Ow, J. (1996). Will breed-specific legislation reduce dog bites?. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 37 (8), p. 478.
Burstein, D. (2004). Breed Specific Legislation: Unfair Prejudice & Ineffective Policy. Animal l., 10 p. 313.
Collier, S. (2006). Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified?. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 1 (1), pp. 17--22.
Cornelissen, J. and Hopster, H. (2010). Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation. The Veterinary Journal, 186 (3), pp. 292--298.
Grey, K. (2002). Breed-Specific Legislation Revisited: Canine Racism or the Answer to Florida's Dog Control Problems. Nova L. Rev., 27 p. 415.
Pratt, H. (2003). Canine Profiling: Does Breed-Specific Legislation Take a Bite out of Canine Crime.Penn St. L. Rev., 108 p. 855.
Sullivan, S. (1987). Banning the Pit Bull: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Is Constitutional. U. Dayton L. Rev., 13 p. 279.
Tarr, G. (2013). Judicial process and judicial policymaking. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
