Grimes 1

Joshua Grimes

9th November 2015

ECO 334

Research Paper

The Issue of Breed-Specific Legislation

Of every domesticated animal species that exists, including humans, their

upbringing has the greatest impact on how they will pan out in the future. No animal is

born a “monster”, which is what people have labeled the breeds of dogs that will be

mentioned throughout this document. When someone, whether it is a person or a dog,

attacks another being, it is a reaction from a certain stimulus that has been learned in

the past for self-defense. All dogs bite and although that may seem obvious, it has

been proven by Stefanie A. Ott whose research will be mentioned as well. Specific

breeds of dogs should not be banned in certain regions due to statistics that have been

slanted because of a bias reputation.

Breed-specific legislation today is more common than in decades past, as

hundreds of geographic locations throughout the country have begun to adopted the

jurisdiction. States such as Oregon, Hawaii and Montana have introduced statewide

breed-specific legislation bills. Focusing on the state of Oregon, Ms. Dana M. Campbell

of Cornell Law School addresses some of the essentials of Oregon’s ruling in her

article, Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation, as she states, “One would

ban “pit bulls” from Oregon unless a person has obtained a permit within 90 days of the

Grimes 2

bill’s passage; the other would require minimum liability insurance coverage of $1

million for pit bull owners” (Campbell 38). Not all dog owners are able to pay $1 million

to be able to obtain the insurance, which creates and indirect restraint on the dogs.

Rather than banning the dog breeds up front, states like California have placed breed-

specific rulings that also indirectly restrict these feared breeds. The state has assigned

a mandatory neuter program requiring dogs of certain breeds to be “fixed” and in the

grand scheme of things, this will end the appearance some lineages over time.

Although there have been a handful of states to reject or limit the ownership of certain

dog breeds, there are 12 states that have prohibited the passage of breed-specific

legislation by their local governments.

As this legislation becomes more and more popular not only in the United States

but in Europe as well, the questions asked become, “Are episodes of attacks

decreasing because of breed-specific legislation?” Wide-ranging studies in places like

Spain and Great Britain conclude that the ban had no effect in stopping dog attacks.

However, these recorded attacks were not from the “dangerous animals” that are being

banned from the countries, but dogs like German Shepherds and mixed breeds. This

same trend was also seen in Prince George’s County, Maryland as it was concluded in

2003, “…that the public safety had not improved as a result of the ban” (Campbell 39).

The county raised more than $250,000 per year to gather and destroy banned dogs but

the ruling had no effect. Another report that recorded fatal human attacks by dogs in the

US since 1975 said dogs from 30 different breeds including Golden Retrievers,

Labrador Retrievers, Dachshunds and Yorkshire Terriers were responsible for nearly

150 attacks on humans. To completely understand why the world is terrified of these

Grimes 3

animals, lets play devil’s advocate briefly. Everyone sees the “pit bull” and these other

dogs banned through breed-specific legislation since they are said to be a clear threat

to everyone’s public safety. The physical traits that the dogs are known for and the

characteristics of being small, powerful and having one of the strongest bites of all dog

breeds targets these animals as a nuisance to society almost. “Pit bulls” possess

capabilities higher than other dogs with a force of 1800 to 2000 pounds per square in in

the average adult dog. This is said to be twice the force of an average full-grown

Doberman pinscher and German shepherd. People argue that there are stories where

the dogs turn on their own owners from time to time and suddenly act them, but as we

have researched, there is most likely a threatening environment that the dog is placed in

that makes that dog attack for some reason. Whenever people hear about dog fighting,

typically what name pops up, “Pit bull”. “It is unreasonable to ban or restrict an entire

group of dogs based on an unsupportable stereotype about their viciousness” (Burstein

326). With all of this being said, dogs do not end up in dogfights, people place them in

that hostile environment. This choice comes from and irresponsible owner who not only

is participating in illegal action but harming a living being in the process, and because

people don’t worry about what the dog is going through, the owners actions get ignored

and everything comes back around on the dogs.

Commonly, breed-specific legislation is enacted worldwide on the basis of the

reputation of these dogs and the beliefs of how dangerous they really are; rumors in a

sense. “Labeling a whole group of dogs as vicious without considering the individual

characteristics of the animals that make up that group is more than shortsighted—it is

ludicrous” (Burstein 326). Stephen Collier chose to go beyond the negative

Grimes 4

connotations of these animals and decided to run tests to produce actual data on the

attacks. He states, “At first glance, data from the United States indicate that the “pit

bull” is the country’s most dangerous dog breed, and Sacks presents data showing that

the “pit bull” and its crossbreeds accounted for approximately 32% of human dog attack

fatalities between 1979 and 1998, for which the breed of the dog was known (238

deaths)” (Collier 18). Harmful rumors of these dogs are being fabricated when the data

shows that in a span of 20 years, the banned dog breeds did not account for half to the

deaths they were said to have committed. Looking at this from a different perspective;

when someone is falsely accused for committing murder, everyone agrees that the

sentence to prison for that person is wrong. Why is there no sympathy for the dogs

when they are falsely accused? In both scenarios, we have living beings that do not

deserve the punishment they have been given; however people only sympathize with

one side.

Mr. Collier also observed data from another case of dog attacks in Australia from

2001 through 2003. There were 547 dog attacks reported during this time span and

American Pit Bull Terriers were only liable for 33 of the attacks which is a mere 4%.

Looking at the rest of the guilty breeds, 182 or 32.7% of the attacks came from

crossbreeds, German Shepherds accounted for 63 or 10.4% of the fatal attacks and

Cattle dogs were blameworthy of 59 attacks, which is 8.4%. With statistical evidence, it

may be hard to understand why some of these other dogs are not suffering the same

punishment as dogs like the “pit bull”. The flaw in the system is, not all dogs are

registered in the state they reside, which may skew the calculations from time to time.

Collier makes this clear as he states:

Grimes 5

“The report reveals that 32.7% of attacking dogs are registered, with another

27.6 having unknown registration status. If attacking dogs are representative of

dogs in general as to registration, at least 1/2 to 2/3 of the state’s dogs are

unregistered. Using the registered breed populations as the overall breed

populations for the denominator to calculate breeds’ attack rates lacks validity.

Such a calculation assumes that each breed has the same proportion of

registered and unregistered individuals, which almost certainly is not the case”

(Collier 20).

With data that already shows “pit bulls” and other breeds of dogs that have been

banned have been accused of a small amount recorded attacks for registered dogs;

imagine how much bigger the percentage of attacks would be for dogs that are not

effected by breed specific legislation with the added unregistered dogs.

The dog breeds that are constantly being banned frequently have their reputation

dragged through the mud because of the purposes their owners breed them for. Since

many of these dogs are subjected to dog fighting, it is easy to say they are dangerous.

“…It often has been claimed that the APBT and other “fighting” dog breeds are

especially dangerous because of human breeding selection for dog physical and

“temperamental” traits functional in pit fighting” (Collier 21). Some of these dogs are

trained to fight yes but they are also trained to for stability and controllability with people

as well. The dogs respond to their environment and the owner just like any other

Grimes 6

domestic being. There is no specific research that has proven and demonstrated that

breeds with a fighting past are more aggressive toward people than any other dogs.

Dr. Esther Schalke, who is involved in practical implementation of learning theory

principles in dog training in subordination, decided to runs some tests due to the death

of a young child by an attack of a pit bull type dog. After this attack, there was a breed-

specific legislation law enforced since they were thought to have represented a

particular danger to the population in the eyes of the authorities. These temperament

tests were designed to detect dogs with distorted and aggressive signaling behavior.

Schalke tested a total 415 dogs including: 93 American Staffordshire terriers, 38 bull

terriers, 63 dogs of a pit bull type, 56 Doberman pinschers, 97 Rottweilers and 88

Staffordshire bull terriers, all which are breeds subjected to breed-specific regulations.

Although these tests are made to provoke the dogs in means to test aggressive

behavior, Schalke has to keep in mind that the test can only make a report on how

exceptional the aggressive signal is that the dogs display in particular scenarios,

situations and the point in time. Schalke was aware that the results may be open to

errors and to avoid this she states, “Judging the behavior of dogs by observing them is

always prone to the subjectivity of the observer…To minimize the influence of errors

cause by observers’ subjectivity, the temperament tests carried out at the Institute of

Animal Welfare and Behavior of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover were

always conducted by 2 experts together” (Schalke 100). As a result of the carefully

monitored tests, only 9% of the dogs reacted with biting after being confronted with

stimuli that constantly provoked aggressive behavior. That 9% is pulling for results as

some of the dogs differed in different situations from the varying amount of stress or

Grimes 7

how threatened the dog felt during the test. Once Dr. Schalke pushed more towards a

higher level of threat in her tests, results of aggressive behavior began to display.

Schalke declares, “A crucial factor regarding the assessment of the dangerousness of a

dog is whether the dog shows appropriate or rather exceptional aggressive signaling or

aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations” (Schalke 102). In this case, an

inappropriate situation is consider one where the dogs may be involved with children,

while the dog is playing with another dog, or while the owner is feeding the dog/ tries to

take the dog’s food away. The results show that 95% of the dogs tested shower

behaviors that were appropriate in that particular situation.

From a human standpoint, let’s look at situations where we are most aggressive.

Times when you are not comfortable around something or defending yourself from

something that is attacking you. What is the difference for the dogs? Ms. Stefanie Ott,

an expert in animal communications, found that aggressive behavior is most often

shown in situations that these dogs are unfamiliar with or situations that do not occur as

often during their daily lives. Also, when dogs attack humans it usually is a result of the

dog being unfamiliar with behavior that the human is portraying. Ott clearly states,

“Aggressive behavior was most often shown in situations that were threatening for the

dog, or in situations that were characterized by fast, abrupt, or strange movements of

the test assistants” (Ott 140). Just like humans, all dogs react to an abnormal stimulus

defensively. The only defense these animals have is their bite. They should not be

punished for reacting defensively in the only way they possibly can. What Ott

discovered is, the stimuli dogs take note of are the ones they experience as puppies.

The first weeks of their lives are considered the socialization period where they learn

Grimes 8

what normal behavior should be. Which results back to the responsibility of the owners.

If the person teaches the dog the habit of biting is normal or okay in this sense, that is

what the dog will revert back to. This problem also results from the physiologic and

psychological pressure that the owners put on their dogs involuntarily. Why is the

animal being condemned on something they think is approved behavior? Instead of

punishing the animals, what if the states that support breed-specific legislation police

the people who want to own these types of dogs. The people who want their dogs to

portray intimidating actions and behaviors are the real problem. They care about how

tough, aggressive and how well the dog can send out a dominant persona, rather than

how well the dog’s actual being is intact. “Breed-specific legislation ignore both the fact

that vigilant and caring dog owners can virtually eliminate the risk to the public

associated with even the most aggressive dogs, and that the danger posed by

irresponsible dog owners is not effectively addressed by banning dog breeds in a piece

meal fashion” (Burstein 324). Check to see if the person’s household and everyday

routine will be enough to raise the dog in a positive way. Through her series of behavior

tests, Ott realized, “A significant difference in the occurrence of aggressive behavior in

inappropriate situations between golden retrievers test in this study and dogs belonging

to 6 different breeds affected by the legislation and tested in a previous research project

could not be detected” (Ott 140). If the dogs are performing in the same manner, why

can’t they be treated equally from a legal standpoint?

Many people fear the name “pit bull” or bull terrier once again based off of a

reputation that has been tarnished; however, surprisingly without an official record or

someone telling people what kind of dog it is, many can not identify these banned breed

Grimes 9

dogs from a purely visual identification test. This leads to false accusation in numerous

cases where a dog attacks someone and reporters or owners do not know exactly what

kind of dog actually bit the victim. Professor Victoria Voith, an experienced research

scientist in veterinary medicine, commenced tests to see if visual identification of dogs

by people who say they are educated and familiar with dogs, matched the DNA breed

identification. Voith goes on to establish that there are no pit bulls in the experiment

that she performed and was trying to see if people noticed this or not. The participants

of her trial ranged from Kennel Workers making up 35.2% of the test subjects,

Veterinarians 10.1%, Dog Show Judges 1.1% and every kind of dog involved

occupation in between. The results show that that just looking at a dog does not tell you

what kind of dog it is exactly. 51.6% of the over 900 participants identified one of the

dogs as a “pit bull” when again, there weren’t any “pit bulls” participating in the viewing.

The issue comes from the mixed breed dogs that have been identified already for being

some of the most dangerous dogs. This data was no surprise to Ms. Voith however, as

she recalls, “It actually shouldn’t be surprising that visual identification of mixed breeds

does not always agree with DNA based breed identification. A recent genetic study in

dogs determined that very few regions of the canine genome encode morphological

traits associated with breed-defining physical traits” (Voith 25). This leads to the

vagueness of the actual laws banning these animals. From the Banning the Pit Bull:

Why Breed-Specific Legislation is Constitutional journal article, it states,

“The mere fact that determining whether a dog is a pit bull requires factual

analysis does not mean that a law banning pit bulls is unconstitutionally vague.

Grimes 10

“The degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates—as well as the relative

importance of fair notice and fair enforcement—depends in part on the nature of

the enactment. Thus, it is imperative that a stature banning pit bulls sufficiently

describe the breed, so that citizens know what is being prohibited. Trained

investigators, who can determine by sight whether or not a given dog is a pit bull,

should be consulted in drafting definition sections and enforcing bans.”

How can this be possible when we have just proved that even the most experienced

people who are constantly acclimated with all types of dogs can not be 100% positive

when there is not pit bull in front of them? A Mr. Devin Burstein, an associate at

Proskauer Rose LLP and a graduate from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,

backs this notion of vagueness, in saying, “Breed-specific legislation must not only

notify the community that it is illegal to keep pit bulls within the jurisdiction, but also

define what exactly a pit bull is for the purpose of the statute. Due to the difficulty in

properly identifying which individual dogs are pit bulls, constitutional challenges based

on vagueness have had some success” (Burstein 320). People can not firmly decide on

what a “pit bull” is exactly, so generalizations of how they look are made which leads

banning several different groups of dogs because no one knows what breed the dog

actually is but they fear them. This common thread of vagueness violates the equal

protection of these animals, as there is no fundamental right in banning an animal on

the basis of how they look. The court states that these dogs are potentially dangerous

and the ruling is an attempt to cover all potential and possible evils. So now this is

turning into a deal of racism almost, but that word is not being used because the law is

Grimes 11

against dogs and not people. Believe it or not, the “pit bull” breed that people say they

fear so much was once an American icon on a television show called “Little Rascals” as

Pete the Pup. Why is this “pit bull” never brought up when people speak of the name?

“This dog worked long hours on a set with children without ever harming anyone”

(Burstein 324). This is living proof that everyone of the time was apart of, seeing that

not all “pit bulls” are vicious killers and that these dogs are intelligent animals.

Looking at the individual dogs for a moment, the banned breed of dogs are still

domesticated animals; however breed-specific regulations treats these animals as if

people are capturing them from the wild and turning them into house pets. They can be

taught just like any other domesticated dog that people have become so fond of.

Burstein states how there are analogies of a “pit bull” being viewed as a weapon such

as a loaded gun in a sense, since the dogs are view to have a sole purpose of inflicting

pain and causing death at times, but that is an attribute of all dogs, or even better all

animals that have a bite that is effective enough. Looking at these animals historically,

there was never a history in aggression towards humans from these dogs. Some dog

owners buy dogs as a means of protection in their household when they feel as though

they cannot protect themselves in situations where a dog can. People who support and

own the breed-specific legislation effect dogs are typically fond of having them for this

purpose as they, “…Take pride in the fact that pit bulls are the only breed (includes

most breed-specific effected dogs) controlled enough to avoid biting people even during

mortal combat…” (Burstein 325). All animals can be unpredictable at times as they are

able to take command but they cannot communicate back verbally. Having an animal

that you know will protect you without acting you in the crossfire guarantees the safety

Grimes 12

of the owner. People do not understand these convicted breeds as well as they think

they understand some of the more mild breeds of dogs. They rather not do the critical

thinking and research to understand the dogs nature, so they result in accepting the

stereotype.

Instead of looking at this case as a loss cause, lets find different ways to try and

help give these animals a better chance to clear their reputation. More accountability

needs to be put on the owners of these dogs. At the end of the day, these dogs are

considered privately owned property and if there is a problem being cause by the dog

the owner should suffer the consequences.

“Perhaps the easiest and most effective way to protect people from dog attacks

is to create and enforce laws requiring the appropriate containment of all dogs,

regardless of breed. These laws should prohibit unsupervised dogs from

roaming freely. Dogs would have to be enclosed or properly supervised on an

owner's property and leashed when off the property, unless in a designated dog

run or play area. This type of law would avoid breed discrimination, while putting

the onus for dog bite prevention on the animal's owner-where it belongs”

(Burstein 327).

If any issues come out of this kind of system, mainly speaking of attacks, then the

owner would be required to handle any hospital fees, as they are completely liable.

This works well for the communities that these dogs live in and helps avoid

discrimination of particular dog breeds. Equality for all dogs and all dog owners is the

goal in the long run. In place of states using breed-specific legislation regulations, a

Grimes 13

requirement for all dogs of the feared breeds could be (1) state registration to allow

everyone to be aware of the dogs and (2) dog training school as well. With all of these

dogs being officially trained by the state, they will be more obedient, lowering the

danger of them attacking people.

The debate between whether these restrictions should be lifted or not will always

keep coming up due to the rights of the dogs and the controversy of their negative

reputation. Breed-specific laws are singling out a minority in the dog community and it

has been proven that there has not been a promising decrease in places where these

rules are being put in play. Dogs will be dogs; they bite because that’s all they can do.

Rather than enforcing prejudice because of their status, actively work toward equal

rights for all dogs and apply the necessary action to make sure they do not attack

anyone. These animals are like children; they just need to be taught right from wrong.

Grimes 14

Works Cited

Burstein, Devin. “Breed Specific Legislation: Unfair Prejudice & Ineffective Policy.”

Web. 11 October 2015.

Campbell, Dana M. “Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation.” Web. 11

October 2015.

Collier, Stephen. “Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws

justified?” Journal of Veterinary Behavior 1, 17-22. Elsevier Inc., 2006. Web. 9

October 2015.

Grey, Karyn. “Breed-Specific Legislation Revisited: Canine Racism or the Answer to

Florida’s Dog Control Problems?” Web. 11 October 2015.

Ott, Stefanie A. “Is there a difference? Comparison of gold retrievers and dogs affected

by breed-specific legislation regarding aggressive behavior.” Journal of Veterinary

Behavior 3, 134-140. Elsevier Inc., 2008. Web. 9 October 2015.

Schalke, Esther. “Is breed-specific legislation justified? Study of the results of the

temperament test of Lower Saxony.” Journal of Veterinary Behavior 3, 97-103.

Elsevier Inc., 2008. Web. 9 October 2015.

Grimes 15

Voith, Victoria L. “Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and

Inter-Observer Reliability.” American Journal of Sociological Research 3(2): 17-29.

Scientific & Academic Publishing, 2013. Web. 11 October 2015.

“Banning The Pit Bull: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Is Constitutional.” Web. 11

October 2015.