Bad Owners, Not Bad Dogs: Regulating Aggressive Dog Breeds

Introduction: Potential Versus Inherent Danger

It is not debatable that some dog breeds are inherently more potentially dangerous and lethal than others. A pit bull or Rottweiler, by its very genetic and physical makeup, is going to win far more confrontations than a Chihuahua or a Maltese. However, the key word in that first sentence is "potentially." There are no bad dogs — only bad owners. While this paper does not argue against ownership restrictions for certain breeds, an outright ban on owning particular breeds altogether is a bridge too far and is symptomatic of laziness on the part of government and other regulatory agencies. Breed-specific legislation, as this policy approach is commonly known, has been widely debated among animal welfare advocates and public safety officials alike.

A Common-Sense Regulatory Framework

Punishing owners to the extent of banning dog breeds outright is not the right solution, because the true problem lies with the owners and not the dogs themselves. German Shepherds, as an example, are a go-to breed for police and military agencies, as they are very easy to train and quite adept at following orders. However, a German Shepherd that is abused and not instilled with good values during its early life would become a very dangerous dog. The fact that most dog fighting rings focus on pit bulls should not obscure the reality that the same outcome could result with German Shepherds, Rottweilers, or other physically powerful breeds.

The solution is not to ignore that some breeds carry a high degree of lethality or capacity to injure, but rather to restrict the ability of people to easily own such dogs and to attach meaningful conditions to that ownership. All owners of potentially dangerous breeds such as pit bulls and Rottweilers should be required to enroll their dogs in obedience training. This requirement must have real enforcement behind it — including swift and irrevocable removal, and destruction if necessary, of dogs from owners who cannot or will not restrain their animals. Owners who are forbidden from owning aggressive breeds should be monitored for indications that they are not complying with the ban, as some individuals will no doubt attempt to circumvent the law.

Advantages of Responsible Ownership Regulation

The first advantage of this plan is that people who demonstrate responsibility and diligence will be permitted to own the dog breeds they prefer. Some people favor larger and historically more aggressive breeds, and that is perfectly acceptable as long as they put in the necessary work and provide the proper environment for their dogs. These responsible owners should not be penalized for the misdeeds of a few bad actors.

The second advantage is that this framework also establishes a mechanism to bar irresponsible owners from owning breeds that can be abused and misused. Those who violate ownership restrictions should be fined heavily each and every time they attempt to circumvent the law. They put people in danger and should be held accountable. Those who argue that such fines are excessive should be reminded that no one is compelled to violate the law, and consequences will follow when they do.

A third advantage is that breeds unfairly stigmatized — pit bulls in particular — will have the opportunity to be recognized as the good dogs they are. Bad owners produce dangerous dogs, just as bad parents can produce troubled children. The principle of "garbage in, garbage out" applies here, and people who are doing right by their animals should not face undue burdens. Some level of regulation should apply to all owners, just as all drivers must obtain a license to keep driving regardless of their record, but that regulation should be proportionate and fair.

Conclusion

It is a very slippery slope to say that government intervention is necessary to compel people to act responsibly, but it is an unfortunate reality in this case. The problem is that some people are so resistant to social shame that a formal and forceful reprimand becomes necessary. Not unlike negligent parents who must have their children removed due to physical abuse, sexual abuse, or even simple neglect, some individuals must be made to understand that they are not suited to certain lifestyle choices because of the significant potential for harm they pose to unsuspecting and innocent people — and to other animals.