How Fearful Breed Specific Legislation Fails People, Pups and the Public

Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) in the U.K. is unscientific, unsympathetic and counter-productive. There is a better way.

If you've paid attention in the U.K. for the past few decades, then you've seen how policy and public sentiment often clash, especially when it comes to matters close to our hearts. The recent legislative changes in the U.K. regarding breed-specific legislation have re-sparked the heated debate between those who actually live, work with, understand and love dogs and headline-chasing policymakers making decisions based on optics rather than evidence.

I recently lost my best friend, Barney. A gentle giant, he developed aggressive canine lymphoma. Despite our best efforts the chemotherapy just didn't work, and then suddenly it was time to say goodbye.

He was a handsome fellow and amongst the friendliest dogs I've ever known. He was gentle with children, exuberant with visitors and playful but respectful with other dogs. Certainly far more gregarious than I am.

But at over 40kg and being, to the best of our assessment, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier / Boxer Cross, he was a well-built and a powerful lad. He had the loud voice you want in a watch-dog, but in the six years he was by my side, I never even heard him growl at anyone, never mind snap. His bark was loud; his licks loving, his bite non-existent. 

Yet there's a good chance if he were still here and we were visiting family in England or Wales; he would be classed as a banned breed who is 'dangerous' purely based on his appearance, the Scottish Government would insist he be tattooed as dangerous, he would need to be muzzled and leashed in public, and could be taken away to spend years in a police kennel, then destroyed, on a whim or malicious complaint. To anyone who ever knew him, that alone tells you this legislation, this approach, is not fit for purpose, and it's a story right now breaking hearts in thousands of families. 

The XL Bully: A Case Study in BSL BS

The government's decision to potentially classify XL bullies as a "dangerously out of control" breed is the latest front in an attack of government policy on common sense. Here's what you need to understand:

• Official Definition: The U.K. government has provided an 'official definition' of an XL bully, focusing on physical traits such as height and weight rather than temperament or behaviour (Gov.uk, 2023). There is controversy as experts pulled out of the consultation, as the definition is too broad and unfit for purpose.

• Public Reaction: Organisations like Dogs Trust and Battersea have raised concerns about the ban's implications for owners and dogs alike, highlighting the potential for wrongful classification and the subsequent impact on welfare (Dogs Trust, n.d.; Battersea, 2023).

• Welfare Concerns: The Blue Cross and PDSA have explained the ban and its ramifications, emphasising the need for clear guidance for owners and the importance of focusing on responsible ownership (Blue Cross, n.d.; PDSA, n.d.).

This article aims to dissect the intricacies of these laws, the new potential impact on XL bullies, and evidence-backed alternatives that will actually address the perceived problem.

The History and Impact of Breed-Specific Legislation

Breed-specific legislation in the U.K. has a contentious history. The Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 marked a significant turning point in how certain dog breeds were perceived and treated. This act responded to a series of sensationalist media stories that raised public concern about dog attacks. However, with over thirty years of being applied, the effectiveness of this legislation has not been what was intended.

• The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Initially targeted specific breeds like the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brasileiro.

• Recent Amendments: Controversial changes have been made to extend these restrictions to include XL bullies, a type of American Bully, that the Kennel Club does not currently recognise.

• Criteria for Legislation: The law focuses on the physical characteristics of dogs, such as the size and shape of the head, to determine their potential danger rather than individual behaviour or genetic analysis.

The Case Against Breed-Specific Legislation

The argument against BSL is multifaceted, grounded in scientific inquiry, and supported by a wealth of evidence, with these four key criticisms. 

1. Unscientific Approach: Critics argue that BSL is a knee-jerk reaction to isolated incidents rather than a policy founded on scientific evidence.

2. Ineffectiveness: Studies have shown that BSL has not led to a significant decrease in dog attacks. For instance, a report by the RSPCA titled "Breed Specific Legislation - A Dog's Dinner" highlights the ineffectiveness of such laws.

3. Misidentification: The vague criteria for determining a dog's breed have been shown to lead to misidentification and wrongful persecution of non-targeted breeds.

4. Owner Responsibility: The legislation overlooks the crucial role of responsible ownership and education in preventing dog attacks.

5. Emotional Impact: Aside from families being torn apart, there is huge stress and emotional impact on the animal care sector. Shelters and vets face being forced to euthanize thousands of healthy dogs.

In combination - this approach penalises the innocent, sees healthy dogs that are no threat destroyed, and creates loopholes that allow bad actors to continue to cause cruelty.

The Science Against Breed-Specific Legislation

The argument against BSL isn't just emotional; a robust body of scientific research supports it. Studies have consistently shown that BSL is ineffective at reducing the incidence of dog bites and attacks. Here's what the science says:

• Lack of Correlation: Research indicates that there is no consistent correlation between dog breeds and the likelihood or severity of attacks. A study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association found that breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites (Voith, V.L., et al., 2013).

• Misdirected Focus: Focusing on breed does not address the root causes of aggression, such as poor socialisation, lack of training, and irresponsible ownership. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has stated that responsible ownership is vital to preventing dog bites (ASPCA, n.d.).

• Inaccurate Application: Sensationalist media reports often reported ‘suspected breed’ that does not bear out. In evidence supplied to the UK parliament;

  "Accurate identification of breed was able to be made in only 18% of 256 fatal bites. Of those 18%, 20 different breeds were represented. Therefore, it is not reliable to utilise the news media as a source of information regarding breed identification" - Parliamentary Evidence. 

The Ineffectiveness of Breed-Specific Legislation

Evidence suggests that BSL has not significantly reduced dog attacks. A study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior concluded that breed-specific laws do not address the fact that any dog can bite, regardless of its breed (Patronek, G.J., Slater, M., & Marder, A., 2010). The Guardian reported that despite the legislation, dog attacks have continued, indicating that BSL is not an effective approach (The Guardian, 2023).

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (R.S.P.C.A.) points out that the legislation has been ineffective in achieving it’s stated goals.

“Despite the prohibition of certain types of dogs, in the past 20 years (1999 to 2019), bites have increased by 154% from 3,454-8,775” - RSPCA Report

How can it be justified when it doesn't solve the issue? 

The Tragic Reality of Misidentified Mutts

Misidentification is not just a theoretical concern; it has tangible and devastating consequences. Essentially, racially profiling dogs and interning them for crimes they have not committed.

The Scottish SPCA has reported instances where dogs that simply bear a resemblance to certain banned breeds have been forcibly removed from their homes. These are often well-behaved, loving family pets that have never shown any sign of aggression. Yet, because of their physical characteristics, they fall victim to a law that judges them by their cover, not their character.

The emotional toll on the families involved is immense. Children lose their playmates, adults lose a family member, and the dogs? They lose everything they know and love. The process of seizure is traumatic for the animals, who do not understand why they are being taken away from their pack. 

The situation is exacerbated because once a dog is seized, the path to return can be long, expensive, and fraught with legal challenges. In some cases, the dogs may never return home and maybe killed. It can also be a self-fulfilling prophecy- dogs without behavioural problems who are removed from their loving home and institutionalised in overwhelmed police kennels for two years can develop problems they never had.

The Scottish SPCA's reports are a sobering reminder of the law's imperfections. They highlight the need for a system that prioritises the individual dog's behaviour over its breed. After all, responsible dog ownership and behaviour—not breed—are the most reliable indicators of a dog's risk to the public.

So, What Do We Do About Dog Attacks?

Dog attacks can have devastating consequences. Every story of a person or pet harmed or, tragically, killed by a dog is a sombre reminder of the potential dangers posed by canine aggression. It is out of a desire to prevent such incidents that breed-specific legislation (BSL) often finds its support. Proponents argue that it is a direct and proactive approach to enhancing public safety by targeting breeds perceived as inherently dangerous. Do these claims have merit?

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions

Even if the intention behind support for the legislation comes from a good place, that only justifies it if it works - and as we have shown, the approach is fundamentally flawed. The comparison to teenage pregnancy is apt; just as with dog attacks, the impulse to 'do something: anything' about a serious issue, whipped up by inaccurate and biased news reports, can lead to reactive policies that are not just ineffective but counter-productive.

I'm not saying attacks aren't a problem - I'm saying this legislation is the wrong solution. This knee-jerk breed-specific legislation is the canine equivalent of banning sex education, reducing access to contraception, and outlawing abortion in the hope of reducing teenage pregnancies.

Studies have shown that such measures do not lead to fewer adolescent pregnancies; instead, they often result in higher rates of unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions, increased health risks, and a lack of informed choices for young people. Similarly, BSL fails to address the root causes of dog aggression and can result in unintended negative consequences.

‘Aggressive Breeds’ Are a Misconception.

The arguments made for BSL hinge on several unfounded assumptions. First - certain breeds are genetically predisposed to violence, and second, that blunt, inexpert legislation can correctly classify these subtle breeds. 

This is a gross oversimplification of canine behaviour, which is influenced by a complex interplay of genetics, training, socialisation, environment, and the owner's behaviour.

Researchers have carried out a comprehensive overview of the factors that contribute to dog aggression towards humans, and the evidence emphasises that the issue is multifaceted and not solely dependent on breed. The meta-review of scientific evidence points to nine key risk factors that influence a dog's propensity for aggression: none of which are ‘breed’ as targeted by the legislation.

• Source of the animal: Where the dog comes from, such as a breeder, shelter, or pet store, can have implications for its future behaviour.

• Age at rehoming: The stage in a dog's life when it is rehomed can affect its ability to bond and adapt to new environments.

• Reason for acquisition: The motivations behind why an owner acquires a dog can impact how the dog is treated and trained.

• Owner experience level: Novice dog owners might lack the knowledge or skills to properly socialise and manage a dog, which can lead to behavioural issues.

• Socialisation experiences: Early socialisation with humans and other dogs is crucial for developing a well-adjusted adult dog.

• Consistent husbandry and management practices: Routine and consistency in care and management help in establishing a stable environment for the dog.

• Training: The methods and consistency of training can greatly influence a dog's behaviour.

• Sex ratio of the litter: The dynamics within the litter, including the number of males and females, can affect social development.

• History of aggression in the pedigree: Genetic factors and learned behaviours from parents or siblings can predispose a dog to aggression. Note - pedigree is not the same as breed defined by appearance.

The review underscores the importance of early life experiences in shaping a dog's behaviour, particularly in developing coping strategies and routines that are crucial for a dog's interaction with humans. It suggests that limiting these experiences can be detrimental and increase the risk of aggression. This evidence highlights the complexity of canine aggression and the need for a multifaceted approach to preventing dog bites. It supports the argument that breed-specific legislation is an oversimplified response to a complex issue and that a dog's upbringing, training, and owner's experience play a far more significant role in its behaviour. The guidance for future reporting on dog aggression risk factors is a step towards a more informed and effective approach to managing and preventing aggression in dogs.

By focusing on breed, BSL overlooks these critical factors. It also ignores the fact that any dog, regardless of breed, can become aggressive under certain circumstances - though we can recognise that larger, more muscular dogs can do more damage. 

BSL can create a false sense of security, leading to complacency in dealing with non-targeted breeds that might pose a risk. It can also drive irresponsible breeders underground, exacerbating the problems it seeks to solve by encouraging the proliferation of dogs raised in poor conditions without proper oversight or accountability. 

The evidence suggests that a more effective approach to preventing dog attacks involves comprehensive strategies focusing on responsible ownership, education, and community engagement. This includes enforcing leash laws, promoting spaying and neutering, and providing resources for behavioural training and socialisation. It also means holding owners accountable for their dogs' actions, regardless of the breed.

A More Compassionate and Effective Alternative Approach

Rather than relying on breed bans, a more compassionate and effective approach would involve:

• Behavioural Assessments: Assessing dogs individually, considering their behaviour and history rather than their breed.

• Education and Training: Providing resources for dog owners to understand canine behaviour and how to train their pets responsibly.

• Community Engagement: Encouraging community involvement in reporting irresponsible ownership and breeding practices.

• Owner Focussed Legislation: Focus registration, legislation and analysis on the actual dangerous breed - the owners.

The Correct Legislative Approach: Bring Back Dog Licencing.

Dog licencing regulates the actual cause of most of the problems - owners and the dog’s environment.

(There's only one inherently dangerous breed in this picture.)

Licencing has a far better track record than breed-banning in driving successful results. Just three years after introducing licensing, the city of Calgary reported the lowest amount of dog bites in 25 years. The fees from the licence also fund animal welfare programs in the city.

Dog licensing in the U.K. has a long history, dating back to the 19th century. The Dog Licences Act of 1867 introduced the requirement for dog owners to purchase a licence for their pets. This was primarily a tax-collecting measure, with the fee initially set at seven shillings and sixpence (equivalent to around £30 today).

Over the years, the licence cost was reduced, and by the time it was repealed, it was just 37.5 pence. The system was abolished in 1987 because it was largely ineffective; it was estimated that only around half of dog owners actually complied with the requirement, and the administrative costs of the licensing system were also higher than the revenue it generated, rendering it economically inefficient. The licence was not linked to any measures that would improve animal welfare or responsible ownership, such as mandatory identification or vaccination, which further diminished its utility as a tool for managing the dog population or enhancing public safety.

This could all change now with modern technology such as microchipping and lower administrative costs with online processing, with home and lifestyle checks to ensure dogs are in appropriate conditions. There could be a ‘dog proficiency’ test just like there is a driving theory test. There would be happier owners, and happier dogs.

• Comprehensive Education: Offering community programs on dog behaviour and safe interaction can empower people to prevent bites.

• Strict Enforcement of Existing Laws: Ensuring that laws against irresponsible ownership and dog neglect are strictly enforced can mitigate the risk of attacks.

• Support for Neutering Programs: Encouraging neutering can reduce dog aggression and prevent unwanted litters from irresponsible breeders.

The evidence suggests that breed-specific legislation is ineffective and unscientific in managing dog populations and ensuring public safety. The stories of dogs and their owners affected by BSL paint a vivid picture of the law's unintended consequences.

As dog lovers and responsible citizens, it's crucial to advocate for policies that are based on evidence and that protect the rights of all dogs, regardless of breed. Here's what you can do:

• Educate Yourself and Others: Learn about dog behaviour and share this knowledge with your community. 

• Support Responsible Ownership: Encourage dog owners to train and socialise their pets properly.

• Get Involved: Contact your local representatives to express your concerns about BSL and advocate for more effective alternatives.

• Support “Don't Ban Me – License Me”: largely comprised of XL bully owners, they are taking a Judicial Review and plan to ask the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to rethink its plans to ban the breed. https://www.licenceme.org.uk/about 

By taking these steps, we can help create a safer and more compassionate environment for dogs and humans. Remember, the problem is not the breed; it's the deed. Our legislation should reflect this reality.

"The way forward isn't to add XL bullies to the banned list, but for owners to have proper control over their animals, and for there to be severe penalties for dog owners who don't take their responsibilities seriously." - John Cooper KC, Barrister. 

This article is a call to action for all who care about the welfare of dogs and the safety of our communities. Let's push for change that makes sense for the love of dogs and those who love them.

In the face of dog attacks, compassion and empathy for victims are paramount. Their experiences should galvanise us to seek real solutions to make our communities safer. The goal is not to diminish the severity of the problem but to ensure that our response to it is informed, effective, and just. We must strive for measures that genuinely address the issue rather than broad, breed-based bans that fail to tackle the complexity of canine aggression and do little to prevent future tragedies.

There is talk of an amnesty, which would require registration, restrictions and even tattooing of certain dogs in Scotland. But even so, that does not mitigate the fundamental flaws in the approach, it doesn’t help dogs, responsible owners, animal welfare workers and it doesn’t make us safer.

We must prevent the senseless mass euthanasia of healthy, safe dogs. It was so hard to say goodbye to Barney even when we knew it was the best thing to do in his interests. I can't imagine how much worse it is for the thousands of families who are facing being given no choice.

Thank you for getting to the end! This has been my first blog post here. If you have enjoyed it and found it engaging, please consider following, sharing and subscribing.

Most posts will be available free, I may eventually put some longer posts behind an optional subscription just to reflect the time and research that goes into them.

Thanks,

Rod

References

• RSPCA. (n.d.). Breed Specific Legislation - A Dog's Dinner. Retrieved from https://www.rspca.org.uk

• Dogs Trust. (2022). American Bully XL. Retrieved from https://www.dogstrust.org.uk

• Gov.uk. (2023). Official definition of an XL bully dog. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk

• Battersea. (2023). American Bully XL ban: What does it mean for owners? Retrieved from https://www.battersea.org.uk

• Asekun-Olarinmoye, E. O., Dairo, M., & Adeomi, A. (2011). Parental Attitudes and Practice of Sex Education of Children in Nigeria. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22547497

• Sanger, A. (1998). Roe v. Wade. Into the next millennium. Retrieved from PubMed.

• Blue Cross. (2023). XL Bully ban explained. Retrieved from https://www.bluecross.org.uk

• PDSA. (Nov, 2023.). XL Bully ban: What does the announcement mean for me? Retrieved from https://www.pdsa.org.uk

• The Guardian. (31, Oct, 2023). American XL bully dogs to be banned in England and Wales. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com

• Voith, V.L., et al. (2013). Comparison of visual and DNA breed identification of dogs and inter-observer reliability. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 74(8), 1108-1118. doi:10.2460/ajvr.74.8.1108

• ASPCA. (n.d.). Position Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation. Retrieved from https://www.aspca.org

• Scottish SPCA. (2023). XL Bully updates. Retrieved from https://www.scottishspca.org

• Dogs Trust. (2023). American Bully XL. Retrieved from https://www.dogstrust.org.uk

• Baslington-Davies A, Howell H, Hogue TE, Mills DS. An Assessment of Scientific Evidence Relating to the Effect of Early Experience on the Risk of Human-Directed Aggression by Adult Dogs. Animals (Basel). 2023 Jul 17;13(14):2329. doi: 10.3390/ani13142329. PMID: 37508106; PMCID: PMC10376210.