Many people around the world have loveable household pets that are a part of their family. In the United States alone, there are nearly 60 million dogs residing in 35% of American households, and a portion of these 60 million lives is affected by breed-specific legislation, or BSL, because individuals of their breed have been reported as being dangerous (Overall 1923). BSL targets a “breed in question [that] has a record of bite frequency that supports the view that the breed shows a high level of aggression toward people and… has a potential to be dangerous because of its physicw3zal characteristics and its functional history” (Collier 17). The effects and proposals of BSL are not isolated to the United States. Some countries in Europe and Australia have also enacted their versions of BSL, for example, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in the United Kingdom and in Spain, the Dangerous Animals Act of 1999 (Collier 17, Rosado 167). Some specific pieces of foreign BSL even restrict the importing of the American pit bull terrier into their country. Scholars from around the world, basing their opinions on previous legal cases, statistical research, or the validity of available statistical information, speak their piece on the effectiveness and justification for the implementation of BSL.



Colleagues Matt Wapner and James Wilson question the justification for enforcing specific pieces of BSL that prohibit the ownership of any pit bull-type dog in the United States. They discuss previous Supreme Court cases that either supported or struck down BSL based on U.S. Constitutional grounds, and for those which supported the BSL, the effectiveness of that ordinance. Generally, the laws are written in a way that affect the dog owner's 14th Amendment rights in one or two ways. The “ordinances addressing only [one] breed of dog are argued to be underinclusive and, therefore, violate owner's equal protection rights… [or] have been argued as unconstitutionally vague… violat[ing] due process” (Sacks 839). In the Supreme Court cases reviewed in Wapner and Wilson's article, these two points are seen in the America Dog Owners Association case opposing the BSL ordinances in the city of Lynn, Massachusetts.

Wapner and Wilson's first presented Supreme Court case strikes down the BSL ordinance. In America Dog Owners Association v City of Lynn, Wapner and Wilson state that “the court… held that the statute's vagueness violated the constitution on [two] grounds” (1553). The actual piece of legislation was found to be too vague to even be upheld in a court of law because “[t]wo separate definitions of a ' pit bull ' were in question” (Wapner 1553). On the other hand, the second Supreme Court case presented by Wapner and Wilson deciding the constitutionality of imposing BSL in Yakima, Washington in response to a “rash of dog bite incidents involving pit bull-type dogs” was upheld (1553). The Supreme Court decisions were based on the following conditions grounded by a previous case, Seattle v Huff, which stated that “for a statute to be constitutionally void because of vagueness, the plaintiff must prove that [one] of [two] conditions was lacking, 'adequate notice to citizens and adequate standards to prevent arbitrary'” (Wapner 1554). The Yakima ordinance was not found lacking either of these. Wapner and Wilson note that, while it was upheld by the Supreme Court and implemented by authorities, that “in effect… the Yakima ordinance does not so much outlaw ownership of pit bull-type dogs, as it outlaws official registration of dogs as [one] of the [four] stated breeds” (1554). In other words, instead of dog owners getting rid of their pit bull-type dogs, they simply quit officially registering their dogs as any of the targeted breeds to avoid the ordinance, and so the effectiveness of the Yakima ordinance was nil. This insignificant impact on the problem of the frequency of dog bites led Wapner and Wilson to the conclusion that “[l]aws that prohibit ownership of animals on the basis of breed, rather than on the basis of behavior, unnecessarily indict many animals that do not have any vicious or dangerous propensities” (1554). They also believe that for this reason, veterinarian involvement is necessary and strongly encourage their involvement in the “legislative process to ensure that laws restricting the ownership and keeping of dangerous animals are not based on breed or species, but on whether individual animals have a propensity for vicious or dangerous behavior” (Wapner 1554).



Across the ocean in Spain, Belén Rosado and three of her colleagues determine whether legislation restricting dog ownership, both breed specific and non-breed specific, is effective on reducing the occurrence of dog bites. Rosado and her colleagues define the difference between breed specific legislation and non-breed specific legislation, or nBSL, saying that nBSL “includes different regulation measures to promote responsible dog ownership regardless of the animal breed” whereas BSL implements “a series of regulation, including banning measures, applied to the so-called 'dangerous breeds'” (167). They also point out that “[c]anine aggression directed toward people has given rise to an enormous interest both in the media and in the scientific literature during the last [two] decades” (166). The attention from media was also noticed by Wapner and Wilson in an excerpt from an article of American Law Reports Fourth which they describe as a “hyperbolic description [that] paints pit bull-type dogs as the devil dogs that guard the gates to hell and reflects the animosity some members of the public feel toward these animals” (1552). Also in Stephen Collier's article, he comments on Cohen and Richardson's analysis of “the media's shortcomings in professionalism in their creation of the pit bull's reputation, and [adds that] their analysis is as valid for Australia as it is for America” (Collier 18).

Unlike Wapner and Wilson, Rosado and her colleagues researched statistics from previous literature of the frequency of dog bites in relation to the implementation of BSL, focusing on dog breed, as well as conducting a research study of their own to determine the effectiveness of BSL and nBSL. The first study pulled by them, conducted by B. Klaassen, J.R. Buckley and A. Esmail, is, “to [their] knowledge”, the only study carried out over “long periods of time both before and after the legislation” (Rosado 167). Rosado and her colleagues found that the “study showed that the implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in the UK had limited effect on the rate of patients treated for dog bites in [one] urban Accident and Emergency department” (167). They also found that “the so-called [dangerous breeds] contribute to only a few of the dog bite-related incidents” based on several studies (167). In their own study, they based their canine population data “from the 2004 municipal census of the [three] main urban areas… [through] a tax code linked to the rabies vaccination that remains mandatory once a year in this region” (167). They then established two separate five-year periods of times, pre-legislation and post-legislation and gathered data on dog bite-incidents focusing on the dog breed involved.

The results of Rosado and her colleague's analysis showed that seven breeds consistently “accounted for greater than 70% of the bite incidents across the [two] periods of study… [and] no [dangerous breeds] were included among the [seven] most bite-causing breeds” (168). Their results were also separated demographically among owners based on rural areas or urban areas. They found a significant difference in the frequency of dog bite incidents between the two areas, rural areas having the higher percentage (Rosado 169). They discussed that these results could be attributed to “ physical environment-related factors… [and] it could be hypothesized that the physical environment by itself might indirectly raise people's consciousness in densely populated areas promoting a more responsible dog-ownership” (170). In addition, their statistics showed that an increase of dog bite incidents in German Shepherd dogs correlated with an increase in the breed's popularity, “suggest[ing] that the breed of dogs most often involved in bite incidents co varies with the popularity of the breed” (170). Rosado and her colleagues' research also showed that the dogs denoted as dangerous breeds “were involved in a small proportion of the incidents during both [five]-year periods” (170). In the end, they find that “[t]he present results suggest that BSL was fundamentally flawed because both the involvement of [dangerous breeds] in biting episodes during the non-legislated period as the target population according to the reference urban census was very small… [and] the nBSL measures also proved to be ineffective in decreasing the incidence of dog bite-related incidents… [because it] at first was ambiguous and vague at defining the concept of 'dangerous dogs'” (172). The Spanish Dangerous Animals Act was found to have no significant effect on the frequency of dog bite incidents and the targeted dangerous breeds were minimally involved in these incidents.



Stephen Collier discusses the justification of BSL against the pit bull terrier in Australia, where “[d]ogs are kept by approximately 40% of… households” (17). The American pit bull terrier is the only breed which “has been subjected to breed-specific controls” (Collier 17). Collier compiled statistics found from Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom to find any validity in the justification of BSL. In Australia, the Commonwealth import ban was introduced into the Companion Animals Act stopping any further importing of American pit bull terriers into the New South Wales province. He points out that “when the Commonwealth import ban was announced, there had been no recorded attacks upon people by American pit bull terriers in Australia” (18). Collier further comments on the timing of the barrage of breed specific legislation around 2005 saying that “these measures were announced during periods of intense news media focus upon the 'dangerous dog' issue occasioned by a number of serious attacks, especially upon children” (18).

Different from Rosado and her colleagues' tactic with statistical analysis, Collier analyzes the actual statistics in proposing his position. He points out, from Karen Overall and Molly Love's study, that “[f]or any data on attacks to be used in BSL, it is necessary to calculate the population attributable fraction percentage (PAF%), which is a measure of the breed's impact on the overall population… [but] [o]ften, PAF% is estimated from licensing records [and] these numbers may not reflect true breed distributions” (18). In addition to this flaw, “[b]reed identification is seldom verified or consistent, and even experts cannot always tell whether a dog is a pit bull… [and] breed identification often is based upon newspaper accounts” (18). Without a proper denominator value for the PAF%, and an infallible breed identification system, putting together accurate data to support BSL is unattainable. Collier also adds that “we do not have good data on the frequency of dog attacks… [and] an unknown, but probably high, proportion of attacks is treated by general practitioners or at home and never reported to a central authority” (18). Due to this, Collier finds that the actual dry numbers are insufficient by themselves to support BSL. Outside of the numbers, he also points out the assumption “that the owner population of each breed is demographically identical in relation to responsibility, attitude to dogs, level of care, compliance with regulations, and so on” (19). Upon review of the aforementioned data found from collected research, Collier finds that “the [American pit bull terrier] has a significantly worse attack record relative to its population than other breeds, but that calculation is questionable as discussed previously” (20). Collier's final statement before concluding is the “truism that all dogs can bite and that dogs of any breed can be dangerous” and he points out that “American records indicate that several toy breeds have killed infants, and a recent unpublished Australian study recorded very serious injuries to children inflicted by toy breeds” showing that dogs do not have to have a physically threatening stature to be dangerous and cause harm (20).

Collier's findings lead him to agree with Wapner and Wilson, and Rosado and her colleagues. He states that “[t]he question to be considered by policy makers is whether [American pit bull terriers] and other breeds exhibit sufficient frequency of aggression to justify breed-specific laws against them” (21). His studies show that “there is no evidence from Australia or elsewhere” that shows a significant reduction in the frequency of dog attacks (21). Because of this he finds that “[i]t is questionable whether laws to extirpate a breed can be justified when, by the worst case data, 90% of its individuals are not recorded to attack a person or animal over their life span” (21).



Three different countries, three different articles - multiple colleagues all had separate unique ways of arriving to their conclusions. Whether through Supreme Court case histories and effectiveness, statistical research and studies, or analyzing previous statistical research done by other colleagues, each found a way to determining their ultimate proposition. And although each article opened new ways to argue on the justification or efficiency of BSL, each came to the same conclusion through different methods of research that BSL is unjustifiable and inefficient.



Some great Anti-BSL Propaganda be ~CanisEnthusiast