Are Breed-Specific Laws Effective?

Dealing with Reckless Owners and Dangerous Dogs in Your Community

Dogs permitted by their owners to run loose, and dogs who attack people or other animals, are real and often serious problems in communities across the country; but how to best address dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs can be a confusing and sensitive issue. 

"Breed-specific" legislation (BSL) is the blanket term for laws that either create heightened requirements and restrictions for the licensing and ownership of certain dog breeds or ban such breeds completely in the hopes of reducing dog-related incidents. Some city/municipal governments around the country have enacted breed-specific laws, which most commonly relate to American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers, Rottweilers and other breeds that share similar appearances or characteristics. However, the problem of reckless dog ownership and dangerous dogs will not be remedied by the "quick fix" of breed-specific laws, which do not consider the demonstrated behavior of the specific dog being regulated. 

It is worth noting that in some areas, regulated breeds include not just those listed above, but also a variety of other dogs, including American Bulldogs, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers or any mix of these breeds – and dogs who simply resemble these breeds. On the bright side, many states and localities favor laws that identify, track, and regulate dangerous dogs based on their individually exhibited behaviors, regardless of breed, and/or prohibit BSL. 

Are Breed-Specific Laws Effective? (And What is the Alternative?) 

Data does not support BSL for dogs. In fact, there is no reliable evidence suggesting that the breeds commonly targeted by BSL are inherently more dangerous than other dogs.  Even in oft-cited studies of fatal dog attacks, researchers note that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error.  These researchers cite inherent difficulties in breed identification and in calculating a breed’s bite rate due to a lack of consistent data on breed population and the actual number of bites occurring in a community.   

Rather than focusing on breed, experts note there are a variety of factors affecting a dog’s tendency toward aggression, including heredity, early experience, socialization, training, sex and reproductive status.  Risk factors, across all breeds, which tend to correlate with canine aggression include failure to neuter or spay, breeding and raising a specific dog for elevated aggression, abuse and neglect and inadequate training or supervision.  For example, unaltered males are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered dogs and are involved in roughly 75% of reported bite incidents. 

Researchers have found that most dog-bite-related fatalities are characterized by coincidental, preventable factors, other than breed.  As such, a law intended to address issues surrounding dangerous dogs will be most effective when it focuses on the risk factors associated with aggressive canine propensities rather than breed.  

A study published in April 2022 confirmed that “dog breed is generally a poor predictor of individual behavior.” After sequencing the DNA of 2,155 dogs and surveying 18,385 dog owners, the researchers determined that while pit bulls score among the highest breeds for human sociability, in reality, breed accounts for only about 9% of the variations in a given dog’s behavior. In covering the study, the Los Angeles Times noted, “A dog’s age and sex were often far better predictors of its behavior, and for some traits – most notably aggression – breed made no difference at all.”   

Given this evidence, it is clear that BSL is not an effective means to regulate reckless dog owners and dangerous dogs.  Instead, states and localities should formulate breed-neutral laws that focus on the behavior of individual dogs and their guardians. 

What's Wrong with Breed-Specific Laws?

BSL has a host of negative and wholly unintended consequences: 

• Dogs are forced into hiding 
  Rather than give up their beloved pets, owners of highly regulated or banned breeds often attempt to avoid detection of their "outlaw" dogs by restricting outdoor exercise and socialization and forgoing licensing, microchipping, and proper veterinary care, including spay/neuter surgery and essential vaccinations. Such actions have implications both for public safety and the health of these dogs. 
   
• Good owners and dogs are punished 
  BSL also causes hardship to responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised, and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breeds. Although these dog owners have done nothing to endanger the public, they are required to comply with local breed bans and regulations unless they are able to mount successful (and often costly) legal challenges. 
   
• Communities develop a false sense of security 
  Breed-specific laws have a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. When limited animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, without regard to behavior, the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer:
  • Dog license laws
  • Leash laws
  • Animal fighting laws
  • Anti-tethering laws
  • Laws facilitating spaying and neutering
  • Laws that require all owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed 
     
• Constitutional rights may be violated 
  Many BSL laws fail to protect the Constitutional rights of dog owners.  Such laws can sometimes lack the procedural due process to which owners are entitled, failing to provide an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in the process, and removing their dog from their possession before such a hearing takes place.  BSL can also be Constitutionally vague, failing to provide dog owners with sufficient information to determine whether or not they are in compliance.  Specifically, if BSL includes restrictions or bans for dogs that “have the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly [of certain breeds],” there is no clarity  as to how one can determine whether a specific dog has those appearances and characteristics, nor is it specified what training a person must have to make such a determination.  Such decisions are often left to personnel who lack training in dog breed verification.   

The ASPCA is here to assist states and localities to develop more effective, breed-neutral laws. 

Recognizing that the problem of dangerous dogs requires serious attention, the ASPCA seeks the development and enforcement of effective breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable and keep our communities safe. For help in drafting breed-neutral laws, or revising existing BSL to become breed-neutral, contact the ASPCA's Government Relations department. 

Citations 

Sacks, J., Sinclair, L., Gilchrist, J., Golab, G., Lockwood, R., 2000.  Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 217, 836-840. 

Lockwood, R., 1999.  The ethology and epidemiology of canine aggression, The Domestic Dog:  Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People, Serpell, J. (ed), Cambridge University Press, 1995; republished in Favre, D., and Borchelt, P.L. (eds.), Animal Law and Dog Behavior, Tucson, Arizona: Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company, Inc., 132-134.   

Patronek, G., et al., Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009), 243 J. Am. Veterinary Med. Ass’n 1726. 

Purtill, Corrinne, What a Dog’s Breed Can, and Can’t, Tell You About Its Behavior, Los Angeles Times (April 28, 2022).

Morrill, Kathleen, et al., Ancestry-Inclusive Dog Genomics Challenges Popular Breed Stereotypes, Science, Vol. 376, No. 6592 (April 29, 2022).