What Is Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)
In our last article, we touched on the topic of breed-specific legislation (BSL) and how it perpetuates the unfounded, negative stereotypes surrounding pit bulls. This topic warrants a deeper dive, so we’ll cover what it is, examples of it, the harm it causes, and better alternatives. As always, we’ll wrap up by shining a light on some local heroes doing amazing work in the animal welfare community.
Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) refers to policies that control, limit, or prevent owning certain breeds or types of dogs. BSL has been (and is currently) enacted across cities, counties, and entire states in the U.S (and in many countries worldwide). BSL affects a handful of breeds that these policies deem aggressive — pit bulls are the most frequent subjects, but other large breeds are impacted as well.
BSL contends that certain dog breeds are inherently aggressive, posing a risk to the local community. These policies often cite dog bite statistics out of context, provide data without proper comparisons, and intentionally ignore the overwhelming evidence that indicates that pit bulls are not what people think they are. Many of these policies offer zero data or any kind of analysis to support their claims, just assumptions.
In addition to the fact that no (legitimate) evidence exists to suggest that any breed is more dangerous than the next, breed-specific legislation has actually been proven NOT to achieve its goals of reducing dog bite-related injuries. Hence, the title of the article, BSL truly is total BS.
Examples of BSL
One prominent example that recently has taken a turn for the positive is the pit bull ban in the city of Denver. The ban on pits was put into effect in 1989 and, 30+ years later, it was finally repealed in 2021. The new law is not perfect — it requires an onerous registration system that pit owners must comply with where the city tracks a bunch of health-related and any incident data on your dog (owners of other breeds are not subject to the same red tape), but it is an improvement over an outright ban (one that would see any pit bull euthanized upon coming into animal protection’s possession).
This article by Denver University brings up a great point we didn’t touch on in our first piece. BSL’s negative impact goes well beyond contributing to stereotypes and heartbreaking euthanasia statistics; it does so in a couple of different ways:
Opportunity cost: enforcing BSL requires any locale to commit resources to it. Resources in the form of tax dollars, man-hours, time & effort that could otherwise go toward something more productive. In the case of Denver’s pit bull ban, that cost was in excess of $100 million. Imagine what the city could have done with that money if put to better use. It could have gone toward schools, infrastructure, or homeless shelters. It could have even benefited animal welfare instead of combatting it.
Strain on broader animal welfare community: a ban on any breed in one city impacts more than just the people, dogs, shelters, volunteers, and vets of that city, it impacts surrounding communities as well. Over the course of the past 30 years, the animal welfare communities of Denver’s bordering cities have had the additional strain of taking in any pit that would have been otherwise euthanized if it couldn’t find a home outside of Denver. This contributes to overcowding and underfunding everywhere surrounding the city enacting the ban.
“Using data from Denver Animal Protection, the agency that enforces the BSL, the study found that the city has spent more than $100 million enforcing the ban, with little measurable impact on public safety.” — Alyssa Hurst, Denver University
Outside of Denver, there are other examples of pit bull bans that have recently been lifted (or lapsed) across Colorado in places like Lone Tree, Castle Rock, Commerce City, Aurora, and Fort Lupton. Those who are pro-BSL might be surprised as the resulting data shows no increase in dog bites1 and no evidence of greater community harm by pit bulls specifically.
Local ordinances will often use language like this “ keeping pit bull terriers is prohibited because of the great inherent danger to the public health, welfare, and safety.” But when we look at the data coming out of the aforementioned Colorado cities, there was no increase in any harmful incidents caused by dogs that would lead the community to be less safe. If pits are as dangerous as these policies claim, repealing the policies should reveal that. If there is no increase in incidents of any kind when bans are lifted, how can any government official say, in good faith, that such a ban is on behalf of public safety?
“From 2018 to 2020, seven dogs identified as dangerous animals were removed from the town … This is consistent with prior years, and none of these were pit bulls.” — Taylor Temby, Castle Rock Police spokeswoman speaking on lifting the city’s pit bull ban in 2018
There’s a handful of studies that refute claims that pit bulls are more dangerous than the next breed. One that I’d like to reference here was published in 2013 by the American Veterinary Medical Association. This robust study2 analyzed 10 years of dog-bite related incidents; it found:
Breed is not a factor in dog-bite related fatalities, but rather, irresponsible ownership is the primary cause (these are preventable human factors)
Media reports are a poor source of breed information (more on this later), with frequent discrepancies between a dog’s breed and what was reported
The website BSLcensus.com is an excellent resource to see the breadth of active BSL across the U.S. I reviewed a few of the ordinances currently in place in my home state, Michigan, and was unable to find a single piece of evidence cited to support that pit bulls are dangerous. These ordinances are put into effect solely based on a longstanding assumption that has been proven false many times over.
“Denver enacted BSL in 1989. Denver has since experienced a higher rate of hospitalizations as a result of dog bite related injuries than breed-neutral Boulder, CO” — American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior on BSL (prior to the ban being lifted)
Why Is BSL So Harmful
We covered how BSL is ineffective. This should not be surprising. BSL is not based on science. There is no data to support it as a means for improvements in public safety. Therefore expecting BSL to change a problem that doesn’t even exist is a fool’s errand. Politicians touting BSL as a way of making their communities safer are pumping a fake narrative to their constituents, hoping they feel safer. In reality, their community is no more or less safe, for humans, though it certainly is far more dangerous for innocent animals.
I continue to harp on this, but it’s incredibly important. BSL is not based on science, facts, or reliable data of any kind. When policies are tied to nonsense, they perpetuate nonsense. If BSL is not based on any legitimate evidence, then illegitimate evidence is what will be used to enforce it.
BSL is enacted by evaluating a dog’s appearance and discerning whether it belongs to a certain breed. However, there is no way to prove that any given dog belongs to one breed or the next by appearance alone. BSL puts non-animal experts in a position to make these judgment calls which can’t even be reliably made by the foremost experts — veterinarians. It is now recommended that not even veterinarians try to determine a dog’s breed solely by its looks. If the best animal experts we have can’t reliably identify breed by appearance, how can we expect the average person to be able to?
Putting these judgment calls into the hands of non-experts makes it really easy to discriminate against pit bulls, as the media has inaccurately portrayed them as dangerous and aggressive. Therefore, the average person is more likely to inaccurately suggest any aggressive dog is a pit bull due to confirmation bias. This phenomenon has truly awful consequences.
BSL also distracts from teaching responsible ownership. BSL would contend that certain breeds are naturally more dangerous. The flip side of that assumption is this — breeds not cited in these policies are naturally not dangerous, disincentivizing proper training and socialization. This puts the burden on animals instead of owners. In reality, irresponsible ownership is the primary cause of dog bites and other harmful incidents. These are factors that humans have more control over than their dogs. What if we redirected resources put toward BSL and focused on training and education efforts? What if they went towards shelters that could then hire more staff and conduct more outreach to better train and socialize dogs before they get adopted? If officials enacting BSL truly want to contribute towards public safety, they’d be wise to change their course.
Aside from distracting from real problems and proving ineffective at achieving what they set out to do, BSL has other, more devastating repercussions. We touched on this in our last piece, but some things bear repeating:
Dogs labeled as pit bulls spend 3x longer in shelters than other dogs
Only 1 in every 600 pit bulls finds a forever home
Studies estimate that up to 1 million pit bulls are euthanized per year
About 75% of municipal shelters euthanize pit bulls immediately upon intake
Pit bulls have a 93% euthanasia rate
The media has contributed in a major way to the above statistics. Someone without an informed opinion on these topics might ask — “if not based on data, where do these assumptions come from?”. You can find your answer below:
The above issue of Sports Illustrated was released in 1987. It’s clear from the cover that it hoped to evoke fear in the hearts and minds of its readers, taking advantage of the hysteria of the drug war and the corresponding rise in dog bites across the U.S during that time. Unfortunately, pit bulls were often the subject of such articles talking about aggressive behavior in dogs. Society began to collectively accept that these stories were reflective of all pit bulls. Too many people became desensitized to the heartbreaking consequences those stereotypes would have on these beautiful animals.
An Alternative Approach
So what might an alternative approach look like? Breed-Neutral Legislation is a much better solution. Breed-Neutral Legislation (BNL), in short, represents policies that do not discriminate based on breed. No dogs are deemed inherently dangerous, but rather each individual dog may be deemed dangerous only if they exhibit dangerous behavior.
“Uses an individual dog's history of problematic behavior and irresponsible ownership as the primary factors for regulation.” — pitbullinfo.org on BNL
BNL is a better solution to improving public safety for many reasons:
Promotes responsible dog ownership across ALL breeds
Encourages behavioral training at a young age, putting a focus on human and dog socialization
Enforces animal control tactics that are proven to work and intervention by experts for any dog that is exhibiting dangerous behavior
If we can work together to encourage responsible ownership, while breaking down the negative stereotypes unfairly assigned to select breeds, our communities will be much safer for both dogs AND humans.
“Peer-reviewed studies have concluded that preventable factors related to irresponsible ownership are the primary cause for the majority of dog bite-related fatalities and that breed is not a factor. BSL does nothing to address the relevant and most significant factors that are scientifically linked to serious dog bite-related incidents such as a dog's history of negative behavior, previous bite-related incidents, and factors related to irresponsible ownership.” — pitbullinfo.org, refuting BSL
There has been a number of studies done that have shown the positive impacts dogs can have on our lives, it certainly isn’t a one-way street. The idea of any given locale redirecting their investment into BSL towards supporting animal welfare and creating stronger ties between the community and animals is something that really resonates with me. The media pushing misinformation might result in some families not adopting a dog when they otherwise would have. Those families are missing out on a variety of benefits3:
Lowered stress levels, blood pressure, and cholesterol resulting in improved heart health
Getting more sunshine and exercise via regular walks
Helping with the socialization of children, and helping teach them responsibility at a young age
As a dog owner myself, I can attest to the positive impact my dog, Zoey, has had on my life. It breaks my heart to think about the number of pit bulls just like her that never had a chance at a forever home because of breed-specific legislation and public misconception surrounding the breed.
Article Spotlight: Doddridge County Animal Shelter Volunteers: Mary and Gregg Mikowski
A couple of months ago I was driving east on Rt.50 toward my hometown of Parkersburg, WV. I’ve made this drive often over the past few years and I always stop at the same locations to walk my dogs. For whatever reason on this day, I decided not to stop at the usual spot. Convinced that my 4-year-old “Super Staffie”, Anna, was upset about my decision to not stop, I quickly pulled over at the next turn to appease her. While Anna was enjoying the new smells and fresh creek water to splash around in, I noticed a sign on the road that simply read “Animal Shelter.” It was about 4:30 p.m. on a hot and sunny summer Friday, so I didn’t know if anyone would be there. Still, I figured I would check it out. When I arrived, I saw a lady walking a skinny, over-bred, brindle-colored coon dog named Delilah who was recovering from nourishing a litter of pups. I inquired about Delilah and told her about my love for rescuing dogs. Within a few minutes, I was walking through the kennels and meeting the dogs.
That lady was Mary Mikowski. She and her husband, Gregg, are superstar volunteers at the Doddridge County Animal Shelter. Mary is retired but remains a licensed M.D. She has the energy of a wide-eyed 18-year-old (Gregg can confirm this) and puts her energy to use volunteering at the local clinic helping the people in surrounding areas, her efforts go far beyond just the animal shelter.
Mary lives a very active lifestyle between volunteering, beekeeping, and owning horses. One activity she enjoys is stand-up paddleboarding with her loving heeler, Tikka, sitting co-pilot. She and Gregg have 4 dogs total, 2 of which they have adopted from the shelter. Gregg humbly admits that he can’t keep up with Mary any longer. Nor can I or most people on this planet, but he also has an infectious level of positive energy. This has allowed him to be an avid cyclist (he recently rode 73 miles to celebrate his 73rd birthday), raise 2 children, and find time to volunteer at the V.A. Hospital as well as the animal shelter.
Mary and Gregg serve as a positive example for volunteers in any field but especially for animal shelter workers. Mary wants to encourage other retirees to consider spending some time volunteering at their local animal shelter because it not only helps the animals, it’s beneficial to the retirees as well. She believes that retirees make good volunteers because they are reliable, responsible, and patient with the dogs. They can help keep each other active, engaged, and healthy.
The Importance of Dog Walking and Socialization
Mary and Gregg both take on multiple roles at the shelter. Gregg plays the role of the do-it-all handyman who is always thinking of ways to improve or maintain the structure and keep things in working order. This role can never be overlooked because, in a working facility like an animal shelter, things tend to wear down. Most importantly, he truly cares about these dogs. It’s evident when you hear him speak about how in the 2 years of volunteering there, the most rewarding aspect has been the strong attachments he’s made with a few of the dogs that he says, “I will probably never forget, it gives me great pleasure knowing I was a part of their lives.”
Mary does everything from cleaning kennels to beautifying the building’s appearance via landscaping, to taking dogs to and from medical appointments. Her most important role, however, is walking the dogs and spending quality time with them outside the kennel area. They both take it upon themselves to ensure that ALL the dogs at the shelter are walked or taken out of the kennels for socialization every single day, no matter what.
The importance of Dog Walking and Socialization cannot be understated to the health and adoptability of shelter dogs. Read-up!
This act not only speaks to Mary and Greg’s commitment and selflessness, but it’s incredibly important. Data shows that behavioral problems that stem from dogs not being properly socialized and trained to walk on a leash are the top reasons they are taken (or returned) to a shelter. The majority of shelter dogs’ days are spent entirely in these kennel spaces. This is not only inhumane, it highly decreases the chance of improving bad behaviors. Failure to consistently walk shelter dogs and work on socialization makes them less and less adoptable. Every minute they spend in a kennel decreases their chances of finding the forever home every dog deserves.
Walking the dogs multiple times every single day should be a top priority for the people that work in aminal shelters. Unfortunately, time and budget issues in most areas don’t allow for that. More people offering to volunteer would be a big help, but, simply put, the local governments need to allocate more funds to animal shelters. The full-time staff are too few and too often drastically underpaid. Data suggests that shelters would have a higher success rate of adoptions (without returns) if they were able to prioritize hiring people to walk dogs and clean. Any locale enacting some form of breed-specific legislation also serves as a barrier to these poor animals being adopted. BSL needs to be done away with. Period. Even a portion of the funds used to enforce BSL would go a long way towards improving animal welfare.
The women at the Doddridge County animal shelter do a great job of getting the dogs adopted locally. Utilizing sites like adoptapet.com and petfinder.com to reach people from outside the area helps more dogs get adopted. Websites like these have been a huge help to rural shelters, as there are often not enough potential adopters locally.
If you are interested in any of the dogs at Doddridge County, feel free to contact me personally. I spend time with all of them.
Ending on a positive note, Delilah and all her puppies have since been adopted.
Before we wrap up, please sign this petition to bring our stranded military service dogs home from Afghanistan.
Wrapping Up
Thank you for reading the Pit Bull Partners newsletter! The dangers breed-specific legislation poses on a wide variety of dogs across the U.S. are serious. They are not just insensitive, but they’re malicious (and ultimately ineffective at achieving their stated goals). Many people don’t even realize what BSL is, why it exists, or the harm it causes. It’s our mission to continue to preach the truth and refute these senseless policies.
James McManus and Nick Fonseca are Pit Bull owners and advocates. We decided to start writing about the hardships pits have to face in hopes of educating people on these injustices, shining a light on these beautiful animals, and highlighting others doing the same.
Please share this article to help spread the good work being done by the animal welfare advocates highlighted and don’t forget to subscribe so you don’t miss out on future articles. You can also follow James and Nick on Twitter to stay in the loop regarding future Pit Bull Partners content.
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/07/pit-bull-ban-colorado-lone-tree-louisville/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24299544/
https://www.center4research.org/benefits-pets-human-health/