Breed-specific legislation is wrong

Devontre+Oliver
Back to Article
Back to Article

Breed-specific legislation is wrong

Devontre Oliver

Devontre Oliver

Devontre Oliver

Devontre Oliver

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






The stigma surrounding pit bulls, rottweilers, and other “dangerous” dog breeds sickens me.

Breeds like German shepherds and others labeled as aggressive or prone to biting are incriminated by statistics that don’t take crucial factors into account.

These animals are neither born aggressors nor born fighters.

Dogs do not attack suddenly.

Pit bulls statistically hold a higher amount of reported but this can often be attributed to how they are raised.

Some pit bulls are raised in fighting pens and their owners use them to make money in illegal dog fighting.

Bites from smaller breeds like chihuahuas aren’t reported nearly as often due to the minuscule amount of damage they create.

Breed specific legislation mainly targets dogs perceived as dangerous such as pit bulls and rottweilers. Breed-specific legislation exists in more than 40 states. 

The American Veterinary Medical Association doesn’t believe that breed-specific legislation is an adequate solution, calling it a “simplistic answer to a far more complex social problem.”

BSL ignores the fact that breeds outside of the ones targeted can bite people as well.

The targeting can make a breed more attractive to irresponsible or criminal owners.

Bans or restrictions punish responsible dog owners and well-behaved dogs instead of only holding irresponsible owners accountable.

The enforcement of breed-specific legislation comes with high costs.

A preventative measure should at least be inexpensive.

Bans often impact dogs who look like a restricted breed rather than just the breed itself.

Breed-specific legislation is wrong and is not a justifiable solution to prevent dog bites.