Originally printed in AKC’s In Session, Summer 2009. Updated May 2013

We have all heard theheartbreaking stories: Achild brutally attacked by adog. A beloved family petor a farmer’s livestockkilled or injured by a straydog. Such stories are fartoo common, and every-one agrees our communi-ties must be protectedfrom dangerous animals. When faced with thisdilemma, many publicofficials have turned tobreed-specific legislation(BSL) as a possible solu-tion. Breed-specific legisla-tion is any bill that seeks toban or place severe restric-tions on owners of a partic-ular breed of dog or dogswith certain physical char-acteristics, regardless ofwhether or not the dog is aproblem in the community. Like racial profiling for dogs, BSLunfairly penalizes responsible dog ownerswithout holding owners of truly danger-ous dogs accountable. This is why theAmerican Kennel Club, the AmericanVeterinary Medical Association, theNational Animal Control Association, theAmerican Bar Association, and a host ofother respected national organizationsoppose BSL and recognize the inequitiesand inherent fallacies of such laws.

A Declining TrendAround the world, governments arerecognizing the inherent problems withBSL and revising their dangerous dogpolicies. Italy, for example, repealed itsbreed-specific policies after six years ofcostly enforcement and ineffectiveness.In June 2009, the Dutch governmentannounced its intent to remove its “pitbull” ban after determining that it didnot decrease dog bites or improve safetyin the Netherlands.

In the United States, the AmericanKennel Club (AKC) sees multiple statelegislatures and local governmentsintroduce bills each year with breed-specific components. These bills takemany forms and do not always simply

ban the ownership of certain breeds.Some include a mandatory sterilizationof specific breeds, liability insurance

requirements, or higher licens-ing fees. Some automaticallydesignate specific breeds as“dangerous”, thereby subjectingsome responsible dog owners tospecific laws not applicable toowners of other breeds.The AKC plays an active rolein stopping breed-specificlegislation. Since 2005, theAKC has actively opposedmore than a dozen state initia-tives to enact breed-specific leg-islation. Only one of these billsbecame law. In 2012, the AKCactively supported the success-ful repeal of Ohio’s statewidebreed-specific laws, which hadbeen in effect for over 20 years. This resulted in numerouscommunities throughout Ohiore-examining – and in manycases repealing – their breed-specific policies. TheCincinnati City Council, for

example, repealed their long-standingpolicies by an 8-1 vote in April 2012.Ohio communities are not unique inthis trend. Each year, the AKC workswith counties and municipalities acrossthe country that are seeking to amendor repeal their breed-specific laws aslocal governments and animal controlrecognize the ineffectiveness of thesepolicies in addressing concerns withdangerous dogs.

Policy and ImplementationConcernsThere are a number of inherentproblems with breed-specific legislation.Banning a specific breed punishesresponsible dog owners who have well-trained dogs of that breed, while irre-sponsible owners who want a “danger-ous dog” as a status symbol will simplychoose another breed. Public officials areleft continuing to add to a list of forbiddenbreeds. Italy’s list grew to over 90

Issue Analysis: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Doesn’t Work

“Like racial profiling,BSL punishesresponsible dogowners withoutholding owners oftruly dangerousdogs accountable.”

Students pose with ‘Turbo’, an AKC-Champion Rottweiler participating in theschool’s “Read to a Dog Program”

breeds before the statute was repealed. Animal control officers must alsobecome dog breed experts in order todetermine whether a specific dog is onthe list of regulated breeds. In Iowa, forexample, a dog owner had to fight forthe right to keep her dog after animalcontrol officers determined the mixed-breed dog violated the community’s

breed-specific ordinance – even thoughneither the owner nor their veterinarianimmediately identified the dog as beingany the banned breeds. Some commu-nities have attempted to define a dangerousdog as any dog that has certain physicalcharacteristics. This forces local officialsto focus more on a dog’s appearancethan its behavior – and often results inincorrect identification.Breed-specific laws also often lead toincreased costs to the community, asmany owners abandon their householdpets at local shelters because they are nolonger permitted to own them, or areunable to comply with the strictregulations imposed on them. In manycases, the owner must choose betweenrelocating to a different town or gettingrid of their dog. Many of these dogs endup being housed and/or euthanized atthe shelters at the taxpayer’s expense.

Better AlternativesStrict enforcement of animal controllaws (such as leash laws) and guidelinesthat clearly define dangerous behavior inall breeds are more effective in protect-ing communities from dangerous ani-mals. Dangerous dog guidelines shouldestablish a fair process by which a dog isdeemed “dangerous” or “vicious” basedon stated, measurable actions, not merelybased on breed. These laws should alsoimpose appropriate penalties on irre-

sponsible owners and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogsproven to be dangerous. Increased public education efforts alsoprove effective, as they address the rootissue of irresponsible dog ownership.Salt Lake County, Utah, implemented aprogram in 2009 to train “pit bull”breeds in an attempt to lower the numbersbeing euthanized in local shelters. Thisprogram utilizes the American KennelClub’s Canine Good Citizen® programto teach owners on how to properly trainand socialize their dogs. (www.animalservices.slco.org)

If a community truly wants to fix theproblem of dangerous dogs, then itneeds to abandon the idea of breed-specific legislation. Time and time again,communities that have enacted BSL getunenforceable and costly laws, but nosolution to the problem. Addressing theissue of irresponsible ownership is amuch more effective method of animalcontrol. The AKC GovernmentRelations Department is available tohelp communities develop dangerousdog policies that properly protect citizensand responsible dog owners.

DID YOU KNOW?

• A study published by the Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances found thatowner behavior has a direct impact on dog aggression and personality. Thestudy of approximately 50 purebred breeds concluded that the time an ownerspent caring for and training a dog is inversely correlated to the level of aggres-sive behavior the dog exhibits. (“Factors Links to Dominance Aggression inDogs.” Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. 8(2): 336-342, 2009.)• Doug Kelley, Director of Denver Animal Care and Control, stated in a 2006interview with the Arizona Daily Star that the ban on “pit bulls” did not decreaseownership of the breeds in the community. A study of the numbers over a sixyear period showed that the number of “pit bulls” seized and impoundedincreased by approximately 800 percent. (Sorenson, Dan. “Dangerous breedban in Denver yields few clear results.” Arizona Daily Star, December 3, 2006.)• A number of the breeds commonly placed on banned lists, including AmericanStaffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds are used as therapydogs, search-and-rescue dogs, police/military working dogs, and service dogs forthe disabled.

“Many of these dogs end up beingeuthanized at thetaxpayer’s expense.”

AM

ER

ICA

N S

TAF

FO

RD

SH

IRE

TE

RR

IER

S -

IS

AB

ELL

A F

RA

NC

AIS

©A

KC