Pit Bull - Legislation

Legislation

Widely reported pit bull attacks have resulted in the enacting of breed-specific legislation in several jurisdictions, as well as increased premiums for liability insurance.

Many jurisdictions that restrict pit bulls, including Ontario, Canada, Miami, Florida, U.S., Denver, Colorado, U.S., and Malden, Massachusetts, U.S. apply the restriction to the modern American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any other dog that has the substantial physical characteristics and appearance of those breeds. However a few jurisdictions, such as Singapore and Franklin County, Ohio, U.S., also classify the modern American Bulldog as a "pit bull-type dog", while in the United Kingdom a pit bull is an American Pit Bull Terrier. All of the breeds share a similar history, with origins rooted from the Bulldog and a variety of Terriers, except for the Johnson line of American Bulldog (as opposed to the more pure Scott line), which come from the Bulldog and a variety of Mastiffs. The dogs called bull terriers before the development of the modern Bull Terrier in the early 20th century may also be called pit bulls.

A large number of jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL) in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving pit bull-type dogs, and some government organizations such as the United States Army and Marine Corps have taken administrative action as well. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of pit bull-type dogs to restrictions and conditions on pit bull ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that a pit bull-type dog is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog. In response, some state-level governments in the United States have prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact breed-specific legislation, though these prohibitions on breed-specific legislation do not affect military installations located within these states.

It is now generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation. Despite these findings by the courts, there remains some public skepticism over whether the laws are effective. One point of view is that pit bulls are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all pit bulls, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning pit bulls. Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution to the problem of dangerous dogs than breed-specific legislation.

A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, for example, forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas from which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places. Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to slowly eliminate the population through natural attrition.

The ASPCA states that along with putative over-reporting, false reporting is a major contributor to public perceptions about the breed.

In a 2012 ruling involving the mauling of a child, Maryland's highest court held that pit bulls are "inherently dangerous", making pit bull owners, and landlords renting to tenants who own a pit bull, strictly liable for any injuries caused during an attack by said pit bull.