Cities Should Discriminate Against Breed Discrimination

Ten years after breed-specific legislation (BSL) was passed in Ontario—with no decrease in dog bites—Montreal may be following suit. In recent years pit bulls have fallen victim to BSL, which claims to decrease dog attacks by supposed vicious dog types. Yet, BSL laws have proven ineffective and harmful to dogs and owners.

In 2005, Ontario passed BSL specifically targeting pit bulls after several high profile dogs attacks. But it’s not just Canadian cities that have adopted BSL. Denver, Colorado, Prince George County and Port Deposit, Maryland are among several localities in the United States that have supported such legislation. Yet, according to The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), breed-specific laws are ineffectual and do not improve public safety.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC), a federal entity that aims to protect the American people from health, security and safety threats, has acknowledged the futility behind BSL’s assumption that certain dog types are more violent. The CDC—long cited as a non-partisan, objective source in public health debates—monitors fatal dogs bites. Pointing to a 2000 center report, Americans Against BSL noted that “After 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds of dogs are involved in fatal attacks; according to a CDC spokesperson, that information is no longer to be of discernable value.”

In 2013, the White House, citing this CDC report, called BSL “largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”

Indeed, BSL is just that—potentially wasting upwards of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money. Expenses for euthanasia, kenneling and enforcement add up, year after year. For example, in 2008 alone, BSL cost the city of Omaha, Nebraska half a million dollars to enforce. Moreover, breed specific legislation is hard to implement due to mixed breed dogs and small budgets for animal control agencies.

BSL has ramifications that some of its advocates perhaps haven’t considered. When a dog is banned, the owner—instead of trying to find a home for the dog—may try to hide it instead. Paradoxically, this could cause those animals to have antisocial behavior. Additionally, decreased vet visits and a lack of vaccinations caused by this possibility could result in greater public health concerns. By barring specific breeds the community becomes terrified of the way a dog looks instead of the way it acts—a misunderstanding that could do unintentional harm.

Evidence indicates that criminals may also find the status of outlawed dogs desirable. The CDC believes it is the person who owns the dog that should be investigated for neglect or training the dog to be aggressive. The center notes, “Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive.”

Indeed, breed-specific laws targeting “pit bulls” are poorly designed by definition; pit bulls are not in and of themselves a breed. Rather it is a blanket term for dogs having a specific appearance. Breeds like Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Pit Bull Terriers all fall under the “pit bull” category. In part for this reason, BSL is difficult to enforce.

Research suggests that bully breeds are wrongly identified as a public health threat. The American Temperament Test Society (ATTS) tested various dog types for temperament. Those frequently labeled as pit bulls showed better temperament than other dogs that many in the general public would consider safe. For example, the Bull Terrier passed the test with 91%, the American Pit Bull Terrier passed with an 87%. By contrast, the Golden Retriever, a dog most people consider the “American family dog,” scored 85%. ATTS testing illustrated that, in determining a tendency for violence, how a dog is trained is far more important than the label it carries.

Other public policy solutions exist that can crack down on dog bites but are free from BSL’s extensive drawbacks. Breed neutral measures, such as legislation holding owners financially or criminally accountable for dogs’ actions, more stringent dog licensing laws, or low-cost and easily available sterilization are all viable options according to the ASPCA.

BSL is a mirage. It offers communities no public health benefit while potentially worsening their quality of life. With viable, practical and cost effective alternatives available why not take those paths to mitigate the harm to humans and dogs alike?