Pit Bull Bans

Con 1: BSL does not make communities safer.

As pointed out by the Humane Rescue Alliance,

Experts like the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Animal Control Association agree that no breed of dog is inherently dangerous, and they unanimously reject policies based solely on breed.[24]

Moreover, BSL is ineffective because it treats the result (a dog bite) instead of the cause (bad animal owners). Aragon, Spain, for example, saw no changes in dog bite numbers five years before and five years after BSL was enacted. Miami-Dade county, Florida, had a pit bull ban since 1989, but the county still euthanized about 800 illegally owned pit bulls per year until the ban was ended by the state of Florida in 2023. [13][6]

As Florida pit bull owner Dahlia Canes explained,

What happens to those dogs? The shelter is full to capacity. They end up on the street. They get used for dogfighting. They get hit by cars. They die. They starve to death. It’s horrid.[6]

People who are breeding or training dogs for illegal fighting or to protect illegal activities will simply turn to another dog breed if pit bulls are banned. For example, following a pit bull ban in Council Bluff, Iowa, Boxer and Labrador Retriever bites increased, as did overall dog bites. When pit bulls were banned in Winnipeg, Canada, Rottweiler bites immediately increased. When the city subsequently changed the law to be breed-neutral, all dog bites decreased. [14]

Con 2: BSL is a distraction from legislation and policies that could actually accomplish safety goals.

According to a long-term study of fatal dog bites,

Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.[18]

Best Friends Animal Society explained three mitigating factors in dog attacks: 97 percent of the owners had not sterilized the dogs; 84 percent of the owners had abused or neglected their dogs; and 78 percent were using the dogs as guard dogs or breeding dogs instead of keeping the dogs as pets.[13]

“Behavioral traits definitely vary from breed to breed, but not nearly as strongly as the morphological traits do,” canine expert Adam Boyko said. “You’re never going to get a collie that looks like a Great Dane.… But I see lots of dogs exhibit pointing behavior that aren’t pointers.” Rather than breed traits, the ASPCA explained that chaining and tethering dogs outside, lack of obedience training, and selective breeding for protection or fighting are risk factors for dog attacks. [14][25]

Legislating to combat poor animal ownership would be more effective than bans. For example, St. Paul, Minnesota, forbids people who have been cited for animal abuse or neglect two or more times from owning pets. And Calgary, Alberta, Canada, enacted a community policing policy that focuses on aggression rather than breed. The city saw a 56 percent decrease in aggressive incidents and 21 percent decline in bites in two years.[13][13]

For these reasons, among others, BSL is opposed by the following organizations: American Bar Association, American Kennel Club, ASPCA, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the CDC, Humane Society, National Animal Control Association, National Canine Research Council, and others. [19]

Con 3: BSL is expensive to enact.

According to a 2012 study, “enacting breed-specific legislation at the national level would cost $476,973,320 annually in enforcement, kenneling and veterinary care, euthanizing and disposal, litigation costs, and DNA testing.” A 2020 study of BSL in Denver, Colorado, found the law “cost taxpayers over $100,000,000 over the last 30 years, but has not resulted in a measurable impact on public safety.”[15][33]

That’s a steep cost for a relatively small, albeit important, issue. There are some 4.5 million dog bites each year, from about 78 million dogs in the United States, resulting in the death (between 2011-21) of about 43 people annually (with a low of 31 deaths in 2016 to a high of 81 deaths in 2021). And, of course, breeds not covered by BSL also bite. One study of 35 common breeds found Chihuahuas, not pit bulls, to be the most aggressive dogs. [15][16][17][29]