What is BSL and Why It Does Not Work

I remember the call that changed how I think about dog legislation forever. A woman in tears, telling me animal control had just seized her dog from her backyard. The dog had never bitten anyone. Never threatened anyone. Her crime was looking like a pit bull in a city that had banned them. The dog was a Labrador mix. By the time the DNA test came back proving it, the city had already euthanized her.

That was 2016 in a small Ohio town. The family never recovered. And the worst part? That town's bite statistics did not change one bit after their breed ban. Not one bit. Because breed-specific legislation has never worked anywhere it has been tried.

What Exactly is Breed-Specific Legislation?

Breed-specific legislation, commonly called BSL, refers to any law that regulates or bans dogs based on their breed or appearance rather than their individual behavior. These laws typically target breeds perceived as dangerous, most commonly pit bull type dogs, but increasingly extending to Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, and other large breeds.

BSL comes in various forms. Complete bans prohibit ownership entirely, requiring owners to surrender or relocate their dogs. Restrictions mandate specific requirements like muzzling in public, carrying expensive liability insurance, or housing dogs in enclosures meeting strict specifications. Some jurisdictions combine both approaches with grandfather clauses that allow existing dogs to remain while banning new ones.

The first major BSL in the United States emerged in the 1980s following a handful of high-profile dog bite fatalities that received extensive media coverage. Politicians facing pressure to act responded with what seemed like a straightforward solution: ban the dogs doing the biting. It seemed logical at the time.

Why BSL Fails: The Evidence

After more than thirty years of BSL implementation across hundreds of jurisdictions worldwide, we have extensive data on its effectiveness. The results are unambiguous: breed bans do not reduce dog bites.

Calgary, Alberta provides perhaps the most compelling case study. In the 1990s, Calgary faced pressure to implement BSL after several incidents. Instead, the city chose a different path focused on owner responsibility, licensing enforcement, and public education. The results speak for themselves. Calgary saw a 56% reduction in dog bites over the following two decades without banning a single breed. Meanwhile, cities with BSL showed no comparable improvement.

The Netherlands conducted one of the largest BSL experiments in history. In 1993, they banned pit bull type dogs nationally. Fifteen years later, in 2008, they repealed the ban after government studies showed it had produced no reduction in dog bite incidents. The country now uses behavior-based approaches instead.

The United Kingdom implemented the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991, one of the strictest breed-specific laws in the world. Thirty years later, dog bite hospitalizations have actually increased. A 2018 study found hospital admissions for dog bites had risen by 76% since the law took effect.

The Fundamental Flaws in BSL Logic

Understanding why BSL fails requires examining its foundational assumptions, each of which crumbles under scientific scrutiny.

The identification problem represents BSL's most glaring flaw. Studies consistently show that visual breed identification is unreliable even among professionals. Research published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science found that even shelter workers and veterinary staff correctly identified pit bull type dogs only 36% of the time when compared to DNA testing. Animal control officers, who enforce BSL, performed no better.

This means families lose dogs based on guesswork. Dogs that look like targeted breeds get seized while actual mixed breeds escape scrutiny. The system punishes appearance, not genetics, and certainly not behavior.

The genetics myth assumes that specific breeds are inherently more dangerous. Yet the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the American Bar Association, and the Centers for Disease Control have all issued statements opposing BSL. The CDC specifically stopped tracking bite statistics by breed in the 1990s because the data was unreliable and misleading. This flawed logic has led to expanding restrictions on herding breeds like German Shepherds and Belgian Malinois.

Aggression in dogs results from a complex interaction of genetics, socialization, training, and circumstances. No peer-reviewed study has ever established that breed alone predicts aggressive behavior in individual dogs.

The displacement effect shows that when cities ban specific breeds, irresponsible owners simply switch to other breeds. Calgary's approach works precisely because it targets owner behavior rather than playing whack-a-mole with breed popularity. After Denver banned pit bulls, Rottweiler ownership increased. After certain breeds get banned, incidents involving other breeds typically rise.

The Human Cost of BSL

Statistics cannot capture the devastation BSL causes to families. I have worked with hundreds of people facing breed bans over my decade in rescue, and the stories never get easier to hear.

There was the military veteran in Maryland whose service dog, trained to help with PTSD, was seized because someone reported it as a pit bull. The dog was an American Bulldog, not covered by the ban, but by the time that was established, the veteran had suffered a breakdown and the dog had been in a shelter for three weeks.

There was the single mother in Denver who faced losing her home when her landlord discovered her mixed-breed dog might fall under the pit bull ban. She had rescue paperwork listing the dog as a boxer mix, but under Denver's law, that did not matter. If animal control thought it looked like a pit bull, that was enough.

These are not abstract policy discussions. These are real families torn apart by laws that accomplish nothing except causing suffering.

What Actually Works

The alternative to BSL is not doing nothing. Effective dangerous dog laws exist and have proven track records. These breed-neutral approaches focus on individual dog behavior and owner accountability.

Behavior-based regulations hold owners responsible for their dogs' actions regardless of breed. Dogs that bite or demonstrate dangerous behavior face restrictions. Dogs that behave appropriately do not. This approach targets the actual problem rather than physical characteristics.

Enhanced licensing and registration with meaningful enforcement ensures all dogs are vaccinated and accounted for. Calgary's success stemmed largely from achieving nearly universal licensing compliance, which gave the city tools to address problems proactively.

Public education programs teach children and adults how to safely interact with dogs, reducing bite incidents through prevention rather than punishment after the fact.

Stronger penalties for irresponsible owners create real consequences for allowing dogs to roam, failing to properly contain aggressive animals, or training dogs for aggression. Owner behavior drives dog behavior, and effective laws recognize this.

The Tide is Turning

The good news is that BSL is increasingly being recognized as the failure it is. Since 2012, over 150 jurisdictions have repealed breed-specific laws. Twenty-three U.S. states have passed legislation preventing localities from enacting BSL. Major organizations from the ASPCA to the National Canine Research Council actively oppose breed-based approaches.

The science is clear. The evidence is overwhelming. Breed-specific legislation does not work, never has worked, and cannot work because it is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions about dogs and danger.

If your community is considering BSL or already has breed restrictions, you have the facts on your side. The question is whether you are willing to speak up for the dogs and families who cannot speak for themselves. The guide to fighting BSL can help you get started.