On Monday I posted about Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) and where and how it is enacted in the United States. In order to get the full picture, though, we need to understand what the basic beliefs and issues that underpin the BSL movement really are.

What’s in a name?

Although it is commonly used as such, the name “pit bull” itself does not refer to a specific breed of dog. Accordingly, BSL generally uses the term “pit bull-type” dogs to refer to dogs with a majority of breed characteristics (a flawed and subjective evaluation criteria to meet, but more on that later). BSL varies in type and scope, ranging from certain restrictions (for example, requiring that all “pit bull-type” dogs be spayed or neutered) to an out-and-out ban (no “pit bull-type” dogs allowed to live in a given municipality).

A few ghastly and high-profile maulings, some of which involved children, have galvanized some citizens and lawmakers to try to control which dog breeds are allowed in their towns, cities, or states, leading to the introduction of actual legislation directed as specific breeds of animals. Fundamentally, BSL is an effort on the part of these folks to exert a sense of control over these tragedies and to make themselves feel safer.

Pit Bull Profiling

Opponents of BSL argue that classifying a dog as dangerous based solely on its breed is ineffective, unfairly punishing dogs (and owners) of particular breeds even if they have spotless records, and doing nothing to mitigate circumstances — such as neglect, inadequate medical treatment, or chaining at the hands of irresponsible owners — that are linked to dangerous canine behavior.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote an insightful article about the issue of profiling dangerous dogs and how it can be used to better understand the shortcomings of profiling in other areas as well. He makes several valuable points in the article, but there are two that I find particularly compelling. The first is that since the term “pit bull” it not itself a breed, calling any dog a “pit bull type” is already making a generalization. Most breed-specific legislation goes one step further, allowing animal control officers to make a determination on how “pit bull-like” a dog is, which is a generalization of a generalization.

Gladwell also points out the subjective nature of such a classification. Is a dog that is a cross between a Golden Retriever and a pit bull a “pit bull-type” dog, or a “golden retriever-type” dog? And further, since puppies in a given litter can all look quite different, how could one even presume to know the difference?

While breed-specific legislation is an attempt on the part of concerned citizens to  control dog and human interactions, there are frightening generalizations in the laws put in place that don’t tackle the real issue at hand: irresponsible dog owners, not the types of dogs they own. These generalizations lead to ineffective legislation that hurts dogs and the owners that love them.

• Breed Specific Legislation Part 1
• Breed Specific Legislation Part 3
• Breed Specific Legislation Part 4

Image: stratosphaerenlieder