Why BSL doesn’t work
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is legislation directed at certain breeds of dogs to reduce or eliminate their existence. It is unjustifiable and ineffective for a whole host of reasons.
It does not tackle the problem of poor ownership. Instead it attacks innocent victims, dogs of specific breeds. At first it seems to make no sense whatsoever, but it is important to understand the government’s reasoning.
Breed specific legislation is aimed predominantly at “Pit-Bull type” breeds. Now the shocking thing is that this term can refer to 42, or possibly more, breeds, and any variation or mix of those breeds.
The government works on statistics that show the majority of dog bites are caused by pit-bull type dogs. But how exactly can you record every single dog bite that happens? The information is gathered by the government and it is probable to claim that bites from pit-bull type dogs are recorded more often than from other dogs. Similarly it is probable to claim that people report bites from pit-bull types dogs a considerable amount more than from other breeds. Furthermore it is likely that the government feels more inclined to record reports of dog bites from pit-bull type dogs. This happens as a result of media hype and a poor control and understanding of the cause of dog bites by the government. A thousand Labradors may bite in one day, but if one pit-bull bites, it is likely it will be the only one that grabs the media’s attention. Let’s face it, it’s popular news, and grabs people’s attention.
An amusing example of the absurdity of BSL involves a US senator. This US senator was a strong hater of specific breeds and fought for many, mostly pit-bull type breeds, to be banned. Soon after his campaigning became more prominent, however, his very own dog, a Labrador retriever, bit someone. The dog was held by law forces and it was debated by courts whether to have the dog put to sleep. The senator begged and begged for his dog to be saved, very much like those on the brute end of BSL beg for their harmless dogs to be saved. The senator proved his own point wrong. The senator being a judgemental, aggressive and busy man, his dog would’ve received an amount of negative energy, a lack of socialisation and a lack of good exercise, hence good reasoning to feel the need to bite, not because of its breed.
BSL in the UK
BSL tightened up in the UK following the occurrence of a few dog bites by specific breeds that gained wide and exaggerated news coverage. All of which of course were prompted by a simple lack of training and exercise of the dogs in question. However, with the graphic images and horrific stories shocking people nationwide, the government had to act fast. The government used mainly the opinions of the police force, media spin and subsequently public response to make their decision to ban certain breeds. The first decision to consult the police was not the most wise as the only breeds associated with criminal activity in the UK are Pit-bull type dogs, mainly as status dogs for the “tough-look” and in some cases dog fighting, both of which are entirely human created and controlled activities. Had criminals chosen to use Labradors for these purposes, the Labrador breed would therefore suffer, given that police opinion and experience would state Labradors are seemingly the most “dangerous”. The truth is, of course, is that the handlers of the dogs are the only ones that can be put to blame and the brute end of legislation. The second decision to use the media spin and public response was also poor. Many bites occur in the UK, yet the only ones that get coverage are those committed by breeds on the Dangerous Dogs Act, and considering that the media is closely associated with the government, it is likely the government used the media as a supporter for their rushed legislation.
A wise and considerate government would target the owners associated with negative dog activities and try to save and protect the dogs and breeds from poor and abusive ownership. Furthermore an effective government would aim to educate the public on proper dog ownership and the truth that breed does not determine behaviour, handler does. However, the reality is the government did not do this and the problem is only partially suppressed, with dog fighting, dog abuse and status dogs still a problem. The legal Staffordshire bull terrier is now used widely across the UK for criminal activity as opposed to the now banned American Pit Bull terrier and other breeds. Abusive owners will only switch from breed to breed if breeds become banned or more likely just ignore the BSL in place. Clearly banning specific breeds is not an effective route of solving the problem of dog bites
I will conclude this article with an E-Petition that was created following the tightening of UK BSL a few years ago.
Petitioners fairly stated the following:
“…We petition the government to recognise that it is not the breed of a dog that causes it to attack but rather its upbringing and training…” “…and laws focussed instead on the responsible ownership of dogs regardless of breed…”
The government ignored the reasonable factual statements and ideas and responded with the following:
“We believe that it is important that the existing law is more rigorously enforced rather than introducing new legislation. The police are now taking forward initiatives to ensure that from now on the law is enforced more effectively.”
“Pitbulls are not suitable animals to be kept as pets.” – UK Govt. 20/03/2009
- George Manning