In law, breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a type of law that prohibits or restricts particular breeds or types of dog. Such laws range from outright bans on the possession of these dogs, to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establishes a legal presumption that such dogs are dangerous or vicious to prevent dog attacks. Some jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation in response to a number of fatalities or maulings involving pit bull–type dogs or other dog breeds commonly used in dog fighting, and some government organizations such as the United States Army and Marine Corps have taken administrative action as well. Due to opposition to such laws in the United States, anti-BSL laws have been passed in 21 of the 50 state-level governments, prohibiting or restricting the ability of jurisdictions within those states to enact or enforce breed-specific legislation.
Background
It is generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the legal authority to enact breed-specific legislation. The effectiveness of such legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities and injuries remains controversial. Advocates such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the National Canine Research Council argue that breed-specific laws are ineffective and discriminatory, while some trauma surgeons and public health researchers contend that such laws may reduce the frequency and severity of serious attacks. One point of view is that certain dog breeds are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spaying/neutering for all dogs of these breeds, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning them. Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution than breed-specific legislation to the problem of dangerous dogs.
A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely, but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, e.g., forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas in which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places. Finally, some governments, such as that of Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and require all existing dogs of these breeds to be spayed/neutered in an attempt to eliminate the population slowly through natural attrition.
Approximately 550 jurisdictions in the United States have enacted breed-specific legislation in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving pit bull–type dogs, and some government organizations such as the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have taken administrative action as well. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of pit bull–type dogs, to restrictions and conditions on pit bull ownership. They often establish a legal presumption that a pit bull–type dog is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog. In response, 16 states in the U.S. prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact BSL, though these restrictions do not affect military installations located within the states.
Studies A study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2000 concluded that fatal attacks on humans appeared to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull–type dogs and Rottweilers accounted for half of all fatal dog attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998). However, they also concluded that fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and suggested that there may be better alternatives for prevention of dog bites than breed-specific ordinances. Given that many media sources reported that this study suggested that pit bull–type dogs and Rottweilers are disproportionately more dangerous than other dog breeds (Fatal dog attacks in USA & Canada 1982 – 2019), the American Veterinary Medical Association, whose journal published the original article, released a statement detailing that the study "cannot be used to infer any breed specific risk for dog bite fatalities" (for lack of sufficient data on total breed ownership).
A 2018 literature review determined that "injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe." In a 2019 study of patient records, among several breed categories, "pit bull terriers inflicted more complex wounds, were often unprovoked, and went off property to attack. Other top-biting breeds resulting in more unprovoked and complex wounds included German shepherds, Rottweilers, and huskies."
In a 2012 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) reported while some large breeds appear often in bite reports, certain breeds - notably large hounds and retrievers such as Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers - are under-represented in bite statistics relative to their population size. The AVMA review emphasized that identifying the breed involved in a bite incident is often unreliable. It noted that visual breed identification can be inaccurate and that witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a dog involved in a severe attack is a pit bull-type dog. The term “pit bull” itself encompasses a range of pedigree breeds, mixed breeds, and informal classifications, further complicating breed-based comparisons. It further stated that if breed-focused prevention strategies were considered, a cluster of large breeds - including German Shepherds and shepherd crosses - would be implicated, with variation by geographic location.
In 2012, the American Bar Association passed a resolution urging the repeal of breed-specific legislation, stating that it is "ineffective at improving public safety". In 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls, concluding the law was ineffective.
A 2017 survey in Ireland collected 140 responses from people who had experienced dog bites by large dogs. The study found that no significant difference existed between legislated and non-legislated dog breeds for the type of bite inflicted, and the medical treatment needed after the bite. The authors found that non-legislated dog breeds were less likely to be reported to the authorities both before and after the bite compared to legislated dog breeds. The authors argue that breed specific legislation may distort perception of harm, and suggest both owners and dogs targeted by the legislation may experience harmful treatment by the public.
Legislation
Fifty-two countries have some form of breed-specific legislation, and 41 of those have BSL at the national level, as of December 2018.
North America Bermuda In Bermuda, since July 21, 2003, importing or breeding of any "breed of dog that may be perceived as dangerous" is prohibited. Prohibited breeds include: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Boerboel, Fila Brasiliero, Cane Corso, Presa Canario, Neapolitan Mastiff, Tosa Inu, Wolf or Wolf hybrid, and crossbreeds thereof, as well as "any exotic or uncommon breed" at the government's discretion.
Another category, restricted breeds, may be imported/kept once the conditions for keeping these dogs have been fulfilled, new acquisitions require pre-approval, and they may be bred only with a Breeder's permit. Restricted breeds include: Akita, Australian Cattle Dog, Belgian Malinois, Bouvier Des Flandres, Bull Terrier, Bullmastiff, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Dogue De Bordeaux, German Shepherd, English Mastiff, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and any cross of these.
Canada
The Canadian federal government does not regulate pit bull–type dogs, but two provincial governments and some municipal governments in Canada have enacted breed-specific legislation banning or restricting pit bull–type dogs. The following table discusses a sampling of the restrictions in force.
ProvinceLocalityDateTypeDetailsManitobaWinnipegJuly 17, 2013 (amended 2014)BanDogs having the appearance and physical characteristics predominantly conforming to the standards of the Canadian Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club of: American Pit Bull Terrier Staffordshire Bull Terrier American Staffordshire TerrierOntarioAllAugust 29, 2005BanNo person shall own, breed, transfer, abandon or import a pit bull, nor allow one to stray, nor train a pit bull for fighting.
"Pit bull" includes a pit bull terrier, a Staffordshire bull terrier, an American Staffordshire terrier, an American pit bull terrier, or a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those.
Pit bulls were grandfathered (called "restricted pit bulls") if they were owned by an Ontario resident on August 29, 2005, or born in Ontario within 90 days afterwards. Such dogs are subject to restrictions: they must be muzzled and kept on a leash no more than 1.8 meters long when in public or not on enclosed property, and they must be spayed or neutered unless a veterinarian certifies the dog is physically unfit to be anesthetized.
If it is alleged in a proceeding that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a veterinarian's certificate attesting that a dog is a pit bull is evidence of that fact.
United States As of 2018, there was some level of breed-specific legislation in 37 states and over 1,000 cities. Though the federal government of the United States has not enacted breed-specific legislation, four of the five branches of the United States Armed Forces have restricted certain breeds at almost 300 installations (mostly with respect to on-base housing and privatized housing). Over 20 American Indian reservations have also enacted BSL.
The following 17 states prohibit their municipalities from passing breed-specific laws: Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. California prohibits most breed-specific laws, but allows breed-specific spay/neuter.
As of 2021, there were only nine states that prohibited local governments from implementing or enforcing breed-specific legislation. They include: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Washington DC
Below are summaries of some of the breed-specific legislation enacted in the United States. This is not an all-inclusive list of BSL throughout the USA.
StateLocalityDateTypeDetailsColoradoDenverJuly 31, 1989