Breed Specific Legislation On The Decline

BSL regulations are difficult for cities to enforce, and it’s hard to find proof that they work anyway. One county in Maryland that banned pit bulls spent more than $250,000 enforcing the ban, with no measurable improvements to public safety.

Several highly respected organizations and agencies that have studied BSL have concluded that these laws aren’t just ineffective, but often have unintended consequences. The ASPCA says they force owners and dogs into hiding, punish responsible owners and dogs who pose no danger to the public, and may even create a high-status “outlaw” image for human criminals and outlaws, who don’t make the most responsible dog owners.

The Centers for Disease Control studied the issue and took a stance against BSL, citing especially the unreliability of dog bite data as well as the difficulty in identifying specific dog breeds in mixed breed dogs who appear to look like the banned breeds, but aren’t.

Thanks to states taking action to halt municipal governments from banning certain dog breeds, discrimination against owners of pit bulls, bulldogs, mastiffs, and other breeds aren’t gaining much traction anymore.

Many cities across the U.S. have attempted to ban certain breeds, declare them as dangerous, and/or require owners to keep their dogs muzzled, or leashed away from any public areas.

Washington State enacted legislation to prohibit such bans after they were enacted by the cities of Yakima and Pasco. Eighteen other states already have such bans in place.

Nationally, the trend is toward replacing this kind of breed-specific legislation (BSL) with more neutral laws that make humane care, custody and control of dogs the duty of every dog owner, regardless of breed. Most animal control ordinances already impose fines and punishments for dog attacks of any kind.