BSL TALKING POINTS
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
ANIMAL FARM FOUNDATION
B
e
a
v
o
i
c
e
f
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
O U T R E A C H
Experts have proven that Breed Specific Legislation does
not make communities safer for people or pets. It is
costly, ineffective, and it undermines the human-canine
bond. Effective, breed-neutral alternatives for creating
safe communities are available.
Communicate about these issues accurately and effectively
with the help of the following well-researched talking
points, sample letter, and suggested sources for further
information.
Get to know your state and local laws, your local politicians,
and be a part of the process. You can make a difference!
More information on BSL and breed neutral practices
that create and support safe, humane communities, can
be found in our booklets: Building Safe Communities
and Breed Specific Legislation.
For more information, please visit our website:
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
or contact us at: [email protected]
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
Humane communities are safer communities
for people and pets.
CONTENTS
How BSL Affects Various Community
Members
How BSL Fails
The High Cost of BSL
The Dog Bite Epidemic
The CDC Study
Defining “Pit Bull” Dogs
The Problem with Breed Identification
“Pit Bull” Dog Behavior
“Pit Bull” Dog Owners
Creating Safe Communities
Sample BSL Letter
Resources
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
HOW BSL AFFECTS VARIOUS
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS:
• BSL has been proven to be ineffective. It is a waste of
hard-earned taxpayer dollars. The cost of enforcing BSL
takes away precious resources from other matters of
concern to the community.
• Every citizen deserves to be protected from ALL
reckless dog owners, not just reckless owners with the
targeted breeds of dogs. Everyone needs to be held
equally accountable.
FAMILIES
• BSL discriminates against certain members of the
community based on the pet they own.
• BSL forces families to relocate to other areas in order
to keep their pets, making it difficult for families to stay
connected. BSL discriminates against families on fixed-
incomes, families with children or senior citizens, and
people with disabilities: relocation may not be an
option for these families.
• BSL breaks up families by forcing law abiding citizens
to give up their family pets. They are forced to bring
well behaved family dogs to the shelter where they may
be destroyed.
ANIMAL SHELTERS
• BSL leads to increases in owner surrenders, creating
more work for animal shelters, more euthanasia, and
more financial resources required to care for/euthanize
surrendered dogs.
• BSL hinders adoptions and increases length of stay by
restricting which dogs can be placed, limiting the
potential pool of adopters, and generating fear of all
shelter dogs.
DOG OWNERS
• BSL has targeted 36 different breeds of dogs – from
Chihuahuas to Neapolitan Mastiffs – and countless
mixed-breed dogs based on their appearance. Even if
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
(continued on next page)
O U T R E A C H
your dog is not currently being targeted, BSL is a
slippery slope. Your dog could be the next target.
• BSL lowers the value of dogs and dog ownership by
generating hysteria based on false and unfounded
claims about dog behavior.
• BSL alienates dog owners from each other and the
community. Neighbors turn on each other.
DOG BITE VICTIMS
• BSL singles out certain bite victims for special
treatment and protection. BSL minimizes dog bite
victims who are injured by dogs that are not included
in the targeted breeds. All victims of dog bites
deserve equal protection under the law.
• All reckless dog owners should be held accountable
for their actions. Reckless owners of dogs that are
not included in the targeted breeds should be held
equally accountable for their actions.
POLITICIANS
• BSL has never been effective in reducing dog bites
and enhancing public safety. BSL will not have the
results that were promised to constituents. BSL
wastes constituents’ taxpayer dollars.
• BSL can lead to to politicians losing future elections
because it alienates all dog owners – especially dog
owners of the targeted breeds – and angers
constituents who expected BSL to reduce dog bites
and enhance public safety.
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS
• BSL is expensive, time-consuming, and nearly
impossible to enforce. It takes resources away from
protecting the community from truly dangerous
animals, including dangerous dogs not belonging to
the targeted breeds.
• BSL makes animal control officers the enemies of the
community by forcing them to seize and destroy
well-behaved family pets.
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
HOW BSL FAILS
• Breed specific laws, whether they ban dogs outright or
mandate separate control and containment restrictions,
have never reduced incidents of dog bites, wherever in
Europe or North America they have been tried. In
addition, there is no scientific study or data that proves
BSL reduces dog bites.
Example: In June 2008, the Netherlands repealed its 15-
year-old ban on "pit bull" dogs because it had not
resulted in a decrease in dog bites.
• BSL fails to reduce dog bites. Evidence-based analysis
was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association (JAVMA) to explain why breed
bans are not effective.
• In “A Community Approach to Dog bite Prevention,”
the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
Task Force reported: “…singling out 1 or 2 breeds for
control can result in a false sense of accomplishment.
Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and
will not result in a responsible approach to protecting
a community’s citizens.”
• BSL creates a false sense of security, with no actual
increase in public safety. Citizens believe they are safer,
but they are not. In fact, some areas with BSL have seen
dog bites decrease at slower rates than communities
that have breed-neutral dangerous dog laws.
Example: Denver, CO enacted a breed ban in 1989.
Citizens of Denver continued to suffer a higher rate of
hospitalization from dog bite-related injuries after the
ban, than the citizens of breed-neutral Colorado counties.
• Laws that deem dogs dangerous based on breed or
appearances, rather than behavior, fail to protect
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
(continued on next page)
O U T R E A C H
citizens from truly dangerous dogs. Scarce resources
are diverted to target dogs based only on
appearances, not behavior.
• BSL is both over and under inclusive: it fails to
capture all dangerous dog owners, while unnecessarily
persecuting responsible family pet owners.
• BSL fails to reach reckless owners – of both the
targeted dogs and non-targeted dogs -- because
reckless owners disregard public safety laws in the
first place.
• All dog owners should be held to the same standards
of humane care, custody, and control of their dogs,
regardless of breed or appearance.
• Bill Bruce, Former Director of Animal and By-Law
Services, Calgary: “BSL is intended to be the silver
bullet that will end animal aggression, and it never has.
When we see it applied, it typically tends to see an
escalation in animal aggression because it’s attempting
to deal with the dog, not the problem. The problem
is the owner. The other problem with it is that when
it’s that broad-brushed, you catch the wrong fish in
the net. So when you propose BSL, what you do is
you polarize the entire community. Instead of drawing
a community of responsible pet owners together, you
polarize them by attacking people who are not part
of your problem...” 
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
THE HIGH COST OF BSL
• BSL wastes precious public resources and requires
extensive additional funding and resources to enforce.
Example: A Task Force for Prince George County,
Maryland examined the results of a 1996 pit bull ban
in that county. They determined the cost to the county
to confiscate and euthanize a single dog with the label
“pit bull” was approximately $68,000. Despite the
financial investment, the Task Force found no measurable
results in regards to increasing safety.
• Best Friends Animal Society developed a fiscal impact
calculator that allows communities to estimate the
cost of attempting to enforce BSL, which includes:
enforcement, kenneling, veterinary care, DNA testing,
litigation costs, euthanasia, and disposal of bodies.
Calculator: www.guerrillaeconomics.biz/bestfriends/
• The dollars and manpower required to implement BSL
take away resources from other important matters
facing the community.
• BSL can be a disincentive to dog license compliance, so
communities may lose licensing revenues that could
have been used to fund important animal services.
• BSL can drive business away. Dog shows, sporting
events, and other pet-related events are not likely to
be held in areas where certain dogs maybe confiscated
for attending. Tourists with targeted dogs will also
choose not to visit.
• BSL results in costly lawsuits. Citizens who feel their
constitutional rights are being violated, their dogs were
wrongly identified as a “dangerous breed”, or residents
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
(continued on next page)
O U T R E A C H
of towns with local BSL that contradicts state law,
can and have brought lawsuits against their
municipalities.
Example: The Department of Justice issued guidelines
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (effective
3/11) stating that it is not appropriate to prohibit
service animals based on local BSL. In places where a
disabled person was denied use of their service dog
because of its breed or appearance, the result has
been long, expensive, high-profile court battles to
overturn the discriminatory action and provide financial
compensation to the plaintiff. This occurred in 2012
in Aurelia, IA in the Officer Sak case.
• BSL is costly to individual dog owners, who must
relocate or surrender their family pet. The emotional
cost to pet owners cannot be measured. When dogs
are not banned, but are subject to restrictions, pet
owners must bear ordinance-imposed financial costs
as a result of requirements that they maintain higher
liability insurance limits or purchase expensive
containment systems. This financially penalizes
responsible families.
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
THE “DOG BITE EPIDEMIC” MYTH
• There is no dog bite epidemic. Reports to public health
agencies of dog bites have declined significantly since
the 1970’s, despite significant increases in both human
and canine populations. Across the board, communities
are safer than ever before.
• Dog bites are a societal problem that cannot be
characterized apart from people. They result from
problematic human behaviors that place people and
animals at risk. Responsible dog ownership is the key
to addressing public safety issues involving dogs.
• Intense focus on select and isolated incidents of serious
dog bite injuries incites fear and hysteria. It is not a
sound basis for making effective public policy. Such an
approach prevents a useful understanding of the
complexity of dog bite-related incidents, and ignores
the benefits to society of positive human-canine bonds
and responsible pet ownership.
• To reduce dog bites, expert recommendations have
remained consistent since the 1960’s: dog-safety
education, owner responsibility, detailed reporting, and
enforcement of dangerous dog laws. The American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force
details these proactive approaches in their report A
Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention.
• No dog bite study claiming to correlate dog bite-
related injuries by breed – whether published recently
or in earlier decades – can be considered valid or
reliable because the reporting is based primarily on
visual breed identification, a methodology which has
been discredited by modern science.
• We all deserve to be safe in our communities. We all
want fair, effective laws that are based on the best
scientific evidence available. Animal and legal experts
from the AVMA to the American Bar Association
advocate for safe communities via breed neutral,
responsible dog ownership.
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
O U T R E A C H
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
THE CDC STUDY
(2000)
• Almost every proponent of breed-discriminatory
legislation relies on a single study from 2000 to make
their case (J. Sacks, L. Sinclair, G. Golab, et al, “Breeds of
dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United
States between 1979 and 1998,” JAVMA, Vol 217, No.
6, Sept 15, 2000). In this study, the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) attempted to identify the breeds of
dogs involved in fatal human attacks between 1979 –1998.
• In reporting their findings, the researchers made clear
that the breeds of dogs said to be involved in human
fatalities had varied over time, pointing out that the
period 1975 –1980 showed a different distribution of
breeds than the later years.
• The CDC has since released a statement: “[The study]
does not identify specific breeds that are most likely
to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-
making decisions related to the topic.”
• One of the researchers involved in the CDC project,
Dr. Gail Golab of the AVMA, said: “The whole point of
our summary was to explain why you can’t do that. But
the media and the people who want to support their
case just don’t look at that.” (Golab was quoted in the
Sept/Oct. 2004 issue of Best Friends Magazine)
• The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA),
also released a statement: “In contrast to what has
been reported in the news media, the data [from the
study]…CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific
risk for dog bite fatalities…”
• Using the 2000 CDC study to promote BSL is not
accurate, reliable, or evidence based. It flagrantly
ignores the CDC’s own recommendations to explore
breed neutral policies, “Many practical alternatives to
breed-specific policies exist…For prevention ideas and
model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please
see the American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-
Canine Interactions: A community approach to dog
bite prevention.”
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
O U T R E A C H
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
DEFINING
“PIT BULL” DOGS
• There is no universally accepted legal definition for
“pit bull.”
• Definitions of “pit bull” vary significantly across North
America and Europe. What one city considers to be a
“pit bull”, another does not. The definition of “pit bull”
is subjective and changes frequently, from place to place.
• "Pit bull" is not a breed or breed mix, but an ever
expanding group that includes whatever an animal
control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician,
dog owner, police officer or newspaper says it is.
• There is no kennel club in the world that recognizes
“pit bull” as breed.
• The term “pit bull” is also usually paired with “pit bull
mix” or “pit bull cross,” rendering the group incoherent
in terms of genetics, physical appearance, behavior, or
personality.
• The dogs subjectively lumped under the “pit bull” label
are a genetically diverse and expanding group of pure-
bred and mixed-breed dogs with a variety of individual
personalities and behaviors. It is impossible to apply
breed traits to this genetically incoherent group of dogs.
• Dr. Kristopher Irizarry, geneticist, Western University:
“The term ‘pit bull characteristics’ and ‘all three bully
breeds’ are used as descriptions of the dogs that the
breed-specific laws would apply to. However, I’m not
sure what a “pit bull characteristic” is because the term
pit bull does not refer to any specific breed of dog. It
is ironic that legislation containing the words “breed”
and “specific “ define “the specific breed” as a nebulous
group of three or more distinct breeds along with any
other dog that might be mixed with those breeds. It is
my professional opinion that this group of dogs must
be the most genetically diverse dog breed on the
planet.”
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
O U T R E A C H
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
THE PROBLEM WITH
BREED IDENTIFICATION
• BSL requires that municipalities identify a dog’s breed,
in order to determine restrictions. This process has
proven to be highly problematic. Different observers,
irrespective of their professional experience with
dogs, very often do not agree with each other on
what breeds comprise an individual dog’s DNA.
• No dog bite study claiming to correlate dog bite-
related injuries by breed – whether published recently
or in earlier decades – can be considered valid or
reliable because the reporting is based primarily on
visual breed identification, a methodology which has
been discredited by modern science.
• Approximately 50% of the 78 million dogs living in the
U.S. today are mixed-breed dogs (2009-10 American
Pet Products Manufactures Association survey).
Veterinary behaviorists have proven that there is no
standard by which we can reliably identify the breed
composition of mixed-breed dogs, based on their
appearance or behaviors.
• Research shows that breed identification of dogs with
unknown parentage is unreliable.
Example: Dr. Victoria Voith, PhD, DVM, DACVB, Western
University: “A short report in the Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare Science indicates low agreement
between the identification of breeds of dogs by
adoption agencies and DNA identification. The dogs in
this study were of unknown parentage and had been
acquired from adoption agencies. In only a quarter of
these dogs was at least one of the breeds proposed by
the adoption agencies also detected as a predominant
breed by DNA analysis. In 87.5% of the adopted dogs,
breeds were identified by DNA analyses that were not
proposed by adoption agencies.”
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
O U T R E A C H
(continued on next page)
• Dr. Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB, The Center for Shelter
Dogs: “In most shelters across the United States the
majority of dogs are mixed breeds of unknown
parentage. Nevertheless it is common practice for
staff to guess a dog’s breed based on appearance. This
‘best guess’ is used to identify the dog, although the
actual pedigree is unknown.”
• Breed labeling dogs of unknown origin/pedigree
based on appearance inevitably leads to conflict and
litigation, because it frequently does not correlate
with DNA analysis of the same dog.
• No company offering DNA breed analysis claims that
their results predict the behavior of an individual dog.
• What you see on the outside – pure breed or mixed
breed – does not determine how a dog will behave.
Physical appearance alone cannot predict behavior or
personality. A dog’s entire physical appearance is
determined by a very small amount of genetic
material. For example, of the 19,000 genes in the
canine genome, as few as six can determine a dog’s
head shape; none of the genes associated with head
shape influence behavior or personality. (Report of
Dr. Kristopher Irizarry,” Nicholas Criscuolo et al. v.
Grant County et al., United States District Court
Eastern District of Washington 2011)
• Experts agree that breed identification should not be
used as a tool to determine if a dog is or is not
dangerous. Each dog is an individual and its physical
and behavioral traits will be the result of multiple
factors, including genetics, training, handling, and
environment. This applies to pure breed dogs as well.
Pure breed dogs are not genetic clones. There is
always variation among individual dogs, even within
dogs of the same litter. Rather than focus on breed,
evaluate dogs based on present behavior.
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
“PIT BULL” DOG
BEHAVIOR
• There is no behavior that is unique to only one breed
or type of dog. Dogs are more alike than they are
different.
• There is so much behavioral variability within each
breed, and even more so within breed mixes, that we
cannot reliably predict a dog’s behavior based on breed
alone. Every dog is an individual.
• There is no scientific evidence that one breed or type
of a dog is more likely to injure a human than any other
breed or type of dog.
• The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
exhaustive review of dog bite studies conducted in
North America and elsewhere has concluded that
separate regulation of “pit bull” dogs is not a basis for
dog bite prevention. "Serious bites occur due to a
range of factors," conclude these authors.
• There is no scientific evidence that “pit bull” dogs cause
more damage when they bite.
• Regarding dog bites, there is no anatomical structure
that could be a locking mechanism in any dog.
• The claim that “pit bulls,” unlike all other dogs, do not
give notice prior to attacking a person is an outdated
myth and urban legend that has been overwhelmingly
refuted by science. All dogs signal intent.
• Each dog is an individual, and its physical and behavioral
traits will be the result of multiple factors, including
genetics, training, handling and environment. Behavior
is not determined by appearance. It is not determined
solely by genetics. There is variation in dog behavior
even in pure breed dogs from the same litter. Dog
behavior can only be evaluated on an individual basis.
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
O U T R E A C H
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
“PIT BULL” DOG
OWNERS
• “Pit bull” dog owners are no different than other dog
owners; the overwhelming majority love and care for
their pets in a responsible manner, which includes
proper maintenance, control, and containment of their
dogs.
• There are millions of “pit bull” dog owners across the
United States who live peacefully and unremarkably
with their family pets. They are neighbors, family,
friends, public servants, and valued members of the
community. They are not the exception; they are
the rule.
• A very small minority of people who own dogs –
including but not limited to “pit bull” dogs – are reckless
owners, yet those few individuals account for a
disproportionate amount of reckless behavior.
• Reckless owners cannot be correlated with any
particular breed or type of dog; the only factor reckless
dog owners have in common is their problematic
behavior resulting from a disregard from public safety
and animal welfare.
• All dog owners, including “pit bull” dog owners, want
to be protected from the reckless few who disregard
the laws that govern responsible pet ownership.
Discriminating against dog owners because of what
their dog looks like will never make for a safer
community. Holding reckless owners accountable will.
• “Pit bull” dogs are increasingly popular family pets:
Banfield Pet Hospitals, the largest general veterinary
practice in the world, reports that the percentage of
“pit bull” dogs visiting their U.S. network of clinics has
increased by 47 percent over the past 10 years (2000
to 2010).
• A recent survey by Vetstreet concluded that dogs
identified as “pit bulls” are one of the most popular
family dogs in this country.
• “Pit bull” dogs live with and provide a service to many
of their owners and neighbors. Around the country “pit
bull” dogs are used as therapy dogs, service dogs, police
K9s, and military dogs.
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
O U T R E A C H
www.animalfarmfoundation.org
CREATING SAFE COMMUNITIES
• By treating all dogs as individuals and empowering pet
owners to be responsible, we can create communities
that are not only humane, but safe as well. Creating and
enforcing non-discriminatory Responsible Pet Owner-
ship laws is the most effective path to building safe,
humane communities.
• Effective policies put the focus on the dog owners, not
the dogs. Dogs do not exist out of the context of their
owners. We must hold ALL owners equally accountable
for their actions and reckless behavior – no matter
what their dogs look like.
• Breed neutral, Responsible Pet Ownership laws, such
as Calgary’s, are creating safe communities by putting
the emphasis on human behavior, “The whole model is
about responsible pet ownership . . . In North America,
we don’t really have an animal problem: we’ve got a
people problem. I think that’s the first realization you’ve
got to come to. It’s not about the animal, it’s about the
people.” Bill Bruce Former Director of Calgary Animal
Services and By-Law Services
• Key elements of Responsible Pet Ownership laws
include, but are not limited to the following: licensing
and identification, spaying and neutering, training,
socialization, and medical care, and not allowing pets
to become a nuisance or threat in the community.
Once responsible owner laws are adopted, residents
should be educated about their benefits, facilitated in
complying, and then enforcement should hold those
that do not comply accountable for their actions.
• Before jumping to the conclusion that BSL is the
answer, consider: Are your current animal control
ordinances effective and are they being enforced? Are
you protecting the public from dog bites through
restraint laws? Are dogs chained in your community?
S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
“
p
i
t
b
u
l
l
”
d
o
g
s
A N I M A L FA R M
FOUNDATION, INC.
SINCE 1985
O U T R E A C H
(continued on next page)
Set the tone for responsible dog ownership in your
community by updating current ordinances and
enforcing them with those who do not comply.
• Look to dog owners to fund the programs necessary
to create safe, humane communities. Programs can
be funded entirely by animal-related revenues, primarily
licensing. Many families are happy to pay increased
licensing fees when they are aware of how the
programs benefit their community through positive
pet programs and services.
• There is overwhelming support from animal and legal
experts for breed neutral laws that focus on
responsible ownership. The CDC recommends:
“For prevention ideas and model policies for control
of dangerous dogs, please see the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force
on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine
Interactions: A Community Approach to Dog Bite
Prevention.”
SAMPLE BSL LETTER
Dear (Insert Name),
I understand that there has been discussion of dog breed specific legislation (BSL) in Smithville. Just as you do, I wish
to ensure that Smithville is a safe community. However, BSL is not an effective method of creating a safe community;
in fact BSL has never been proven to reduce dog bites. This misguided approach places blame on the breed of dog,
rather than on the behavior of the owner.
I urge you to avoid this costly and ineffective approach of regulating dogs on the basis of breed. Breed regulation pro-
motes a false sense of security and animal cruelty, not community safety. It is good for neither people nor pets.
None of the experts advocate regulating dogs on the basis of breed. This includes the American Bar Association (ABA),
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Humane Society of
the United States (HSUS), and the National Animal Control Association (NACA, the national association of animal
control professionals nationwide).
I am pleased to send you just some of the overwhelming evidence that breed discriminatory bans do not work. The
enclosed papers and illustrated materials further elaborate on these key points:
• There is no scientific evidence that one kind of a dog is more likely to bite or injure a human being than another
kind of a dog. (Attachment 1)
• Regulating dogs on the basis of breed or physical description does not reduce dog bites. (Attachment 2a) A
recent evidence-based analysis published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association offers
one perspective on why this has been the case. (Attachment 2b)
• Visually identifying which dogs are subject to breed discriminatory legislation can be difficult. In fact, scientific
studies show that attempts to visually identify breed in dogs of unknown origin is usually inaccurate.
(Attachment 3) If this is the case, we can also expect no reliability on reports that attempt to correlate a dog
bite incident with a breed descriptor of the dog.
• Regulating dogs on the basis of breed results in fiscal waste. Please use the link to estimate the additional cost
to Smithville associated with attempting to enforce breed-specific legislation:
http://www.guerrillaeconomics.biz/bestfriends
Also, please read this article by the Platte Institute for Economic Research:
http://www.platteinstitute.org/research/comments/pit-bull-ban-a-waste-of-taxpayer-dollars
• The model that promotes the safety of both humans and animals is a responsible pet ownership model, as you
will see from the enclosed short summary concerning Calgary, Alberta. (Attachment 4)
BSL is a waste of precious public resources. An example of this can be seen in Topeka, KS, which in 2010 repealed
their BSL after Animal Control was running $27,000 over budget annually from housing dogs that had, as stated by
Assistant city attorney Kyle Smith, “not… exhibited vicious behavior” but instead were just “in violation of our breed-
specific ordinances.”
Breed specific legislation will result in fiscal waste, regulatory confusion, and political opposition, without increasing
the safety of residents in Smithville. Communities are best served by enacting breed-neutral dangerous dog laws that
will hold all dog owners equally accountable for their actions.
If I can be of further assistance, I hope you will feel free to contact me at (555) 555-5555 or [email protected].
Thank you for reading this letter.
Respectfully,
Jane Doe
Smithville, Iowa
O U T R E A C H
O U T R E A C H
RESOURCES FOR TALKING POINTS
HOW BSL FAILS:
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Breed-Specific-Legislation
Specifically: JAVMA’s Exploring the Bond, Case Studies of Denver and Miami
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/FAQs%20-%20BSL.pdf
http://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/the-failure-to-improve-safety/
HIGH COST OF BSL:
http://www.guerrillaeconomics.biz/bestfriends/
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Special-Projects-Officer-Sak
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus74fordhamlrev2847.htm
THE CDC STUDY:
http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/5C._AVMA-CDC_Statement.pdf
http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/Community_approach_to_dog_bite_prevention.pdf
CREATING SAFE COMMUNITIES:
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Building-Safe-Communities
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/1970766974_DogBitesProblemsandSolutions.pdf
http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf
“PIT BULL” DOG OWNERS:
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Special-Projects-Majority
http://www.banfield.com/Banfield/files/bd/bd826667-067d-41e4-994d-5ea0bd7db86d.pdf
http://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-experts/top-dogs-across-america-10-most-popular-breeds-by-state
“PIT BULL” DOG BEHAVIOR:
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Breed-Specific-Legislation
Specifically: Beyond Breed, AVMA’s Role of Breed in Dog Bites, and Aggression in Dogs
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/FAQs-Myth-Busting
DEFINING “PIT BULL” DOGS:
http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/5E._Irizarry_View_Point_NEW.pdf
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/files/MARS_FAQ.pdf
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/files/Maryland_Turbocharging.pdf
THE PROBLEM WITH BREED ID:
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/the-problems-with-dog-bite-studies/
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Labels-Language
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/files/MARS_FAQ.pdf
THE DOG BITE EPIDEMIC:
http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/Organizations_That_Do_Not_Endorse_BDL.pdf
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/files/Community_approach_to_dog_bite_prevention.pdf
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/whatisadogbite/
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bites-faq/
SAMPLE LETTER:
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/files/5H._AggressionNo_significant_differences_between_breeds_SCHALKE.pdf
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/files/Patronek_Slater_Marder_NNB_JAVMA__2010.pdf
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Documents/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/files/5B._Voith_AVMA_2009.pdf
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/files/Community-Model_Calgary-w-2011-Numbers_NEW.pdf