Final Research Paper

Discrimination Through Breed Specific Legislation

      Breed specific legislation is an active force throughout the United States. These laws focus on certain breeds of domestic animals, and create many rules regarding them. This type of legislation varies from fairly relaxed and minor rules, to much more extreme measures. Regulations such as forcing certain breeds to be on leashes at all times, wear muzzles, or be completely banned from a specified area are all examples of breed specific legislation. There are multiple types of dogs that are negatively affected by such legislation, however the one most typically discriminated against is the pit bull. Pit bulls are not actually a breed of dog, but the term refers to three different breeds: the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and the American Staffordshire Terrier. Breed specific legislation, specifically that against pit bulls, should be eliminated since pit bulls are not human aggressive, are behavior-checked by animal shelters before adoption, and this type of legislation can be considered unconstitutional.

      Pit bulls should not be targeted by breed specific legislation since they are not human-aggressive. Most dogs that are considered human-aggressive shown signs of shyness and act very timid around humans. Typical pit bulls show neither of these warning signs, and generally are very social with people. (ASPCA) Each year the American Temperament Test Society evaluates the temperament of different breeds of dogs and rates them based on the results. The dogs that obtain high percentages are those that act friendly and well behaved throughout the tests. Therefore, the dogs that score lower percentages show more signs of an angry temperament, suggesting aggression. After completing the tests the American Pit Bull Terrier has a passage rate of 85.3%, the Staffordshire Terrier passed with an 88%, and the American Staffordshire Terrier passed with 83%. These results may seem shocking, as more pit bulls passed the temperament test than other dogs commonly perceived as being more friendly, such as the Jack Russell Terrier, Cocker Spaniel, and even the Golden Retriever. (American Temperament Society) Negative media attention portrays pit bulls as being vicious dogs that would not hesitate to turn against their owners, or other people in the neighborhood. Most media attention, especially in areas where there has been a pit bull attack, focuses on the assumption that people would not feel safe having a pit bull in their neighborhood. The media usually only shows one side of the argument, and does not necessarily report only the facts, but assumptions as well. In a recent survey taken by a wide range of people, the majority of the survey takers stated that they would not feel threatened by a pit bull residing in their neighborhood. 61% of the people surveyed responded that they would feel safe having a pit bull in their neighborhood, while 35% felt moderately safe, and only 4% felt afraid. (Wydendorf) This seems to go against the very theme of breed specific legislation which is eliminating the “danger” in order to create a safer environment. It is true that pit bulls are known as fighting dogs, however even this does not show the animal as being human aggressive. Pit bulls may be act out in an unfriendly manner around other dogs, but this does not directly correspond to an aggression against humans, Most dogs are not just considered overall aggressive, there are different forms of aggression, none of which pit bulls have against humans.

      The temperament of dogs, specifically pit bulls, is tested by animal shelters before they are adopted. Prior to an animal adoption, the pet must be put through a series of tests before they are considered safe to be released from the shelter. Multiple tests are used in order to scan for each type of aggression: human, dog, fear, food, and territorial aggression. If an animal is found to be easily angered, the shelter assesses whether or not that dog can be trained to lose their viciousness. Most of the time a dog’s bad temperament can be halted if they are trained properly. Training is one of the most important steps in ensuring that your dog is safe around others. Most fatal pit bull attacks are the results of human neglect or abuse to the animal. Abuse of a dog causes the dog to be afraid of humans, increasing the chances of human aggression. Statistics show that 78% of the pit bulls that were involved in attacking humans were not kept as pets, but rather trained as guard dogs or bred for fighting. Also, 84% of the attacks were done by pit bulls that were not treated properly and were either abused or neglected. These statistics show that the breed of dog is not the reason for the number of attacks, but rather the training of the animal and the way it is treated.

       Breed specific legislation has been considered unconstitutional in many court cases on the grounds that it violates the rights of due process and equal protection. It is believed that laws concerning dogs should not pertain to certain breeds but should be generalized to include all breeds. This would mean that instead of banning certain dogs, such as pit bulls, from cities, local governments should instead enact laws that refer to all breeds, such as requiring leashes, spaying/neutering, behavior tests, etc. Laws that affect only one type of animal can be considered unconstitutional, as they were in many court cases. Breed specific legislation in Ohio was declared unconstitutional and overturned in a case City of Toledo v. Paul Tellings. The court case overturned laws against “vicious” dogs, and eliminated breed specific legislation. In Ohio, each household was limited to ownership of one pit bull. Tellings was found to have three pit bulls, who were never accused of vicious behavior, and two of them were confiscated. The identification of pit bulls is often mistaken, as many mixed breeds are mistaken as pit bulls. This is the reason that the courts ruled that the laws against these dogs are unconstitutionally vague, and should be eliminated. The constitutional right to due process was also violated in the sense that there was no rational basis with which to identify a pit bull correctly. Because the breed specific legislation was declared unconstitutional, it was eliminated from Ohio law. (“Court Decisions”) Other court cases that found breed specific legislation to be unconstitutional based on vagueness and violations of due process include American Dog Owners v. Yakima (1989) and Washington Animal Foundation (WAF) against the city of Huntsville (2002). An important distinction that should be made is that these laws are considered unconstitutional because they are violating the pet owners rights. Many people assume that breed specific legislation is argued against in order to help prevent discrimination against the dogs themselves, but the truth is that owner rights are affected as well. More and more court cases are finding breed specific legislation unconstitutional.

       Breed specific legislation that recently affects pit bulls tremendously should not be allowed to continue. The laws violate the rights of both the animals in question and their owners. Pit bulls have been tested and proven to be mellow and non-aggressive around humans. Media attention often skews this fact, making pit bulls seem terrifying. The reality is that most animals that are involved in attacks are either mistreated or bred to be aggressive in this manner. Therefore, eliminating all pit bulls from a city seems unreasonable and can be considered unconstitutional. All animals are tested before being adopted from animal shelters, eliminating aggressive dogs from being in people’s homes. There are many less outrageous solutions to the problems with dog attacks. Legislation that pertains to all animals would be more realistic than punishing one certain breed. As Marcy Setter, a pit bull activist, says, “Punish the deed, not the breed”. (Setter)

Works Cited

American Temperament Society, . "ATTS Breed Statistics." 1/12/2008. n.p., Web. 9 Dec 2009.

ASPCA, . "ASPCA We are Their Voice." Breed Specific Legislation. 2009. n.p., Web. 9 Dec 2009.

"In The Court of Appeals of Ohio Sixth Appellate District Lucas County." Court Decisions. 3 March 2006. n.p., Web. 9 Dec 2009.

Wydendorf, Kelsey. “Breed Specific Legislation (Pit Bulls).” Survey. 9 Dec 2009.

Setter, Marcy. Personal Interview. 9 Dec 2009.

Survey Reflection

This chart shows the answer to the question of whether or not you would feel safe if there was a pit bull in your nieghborhood. I chose to put this specific chart on my blog because it shows that the majority of people answered yes, they would feel safe. This goes against what many people would think, and shows that people are not all terrified of pit bulls. Most people do not feel threatened by pit bulls.

Overall I thought the survey process was an interesting one. The survey helped me figure out exactly what people think about pit bulls in general. I thought that this information was very important because often the media obscures what they say, making it seem that all people are threatened by pit bulls. My results were surprising in this way because they mostly showed that the majority of people would feel safe around pit bulls. I thought the questions that required the person taking the survey to write a short answer were especially helpful. Some of the most interesting things people showed in their responses were that most people do not think that pit bulls in general are more aggressive than other types of animals. Most of the survey takers thought that an animal's behavior rests in the hands of the owners as opposed to the actual animal's original demeanor.

The survey process helped me think about new ideas for my paper. I found it to be helpful, and also it helped me come up with statistics that I could add to my paper. The results were interesting and provided different outlooks I could include in my paper.