Pitbull - Legislation

Legislation

Widely reported pit bull attacks have resulted in the enactment of breed-specific legislation in several jurisdictions. The attacks have also led to increased premiums for liability insurance.

Many of the jurisdictions that restrict pit bulls apply their restriction to: (a) the modern American Pit Bull Terrier, (b) American Staffordshire Terrier, (c) Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and (d) any other dog that has the substantial physical characteristics and appearance of those breeds. Such jurisdictions include: Ontario (Canada), Miami (Florida, U.S.), Denver (Colorado, U.S.), and Malden, (Massachusetts, U.S.). 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". 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 U.S. 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. They often establish a legal presumption that a pit bull-type dog is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog. In response, some states in the U.S. prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact BSL, though these restrictions do not affect military installations located within the states.

It is now generally settled in caselaw that jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation. Despite these holdings by the courts, there is 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 pit bulls than BSL.

A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely, but should instead 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 specific breeds of dogs 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 eliminate the breed's population slowly through natural attrition.

The ASPCA said that along with putative over-reporting, false reporting was 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". It made pit bull owners, and landlords renting to tenants who own a pit bull, strictly liable for any injuries caused during an attack by a pit bull.

In England and Wales the Dangerous Dogs Act prohibits the ownership of pit bull terrier along with 3 other breeds. The Act also bans the breeding, sale and exchange of these dogs.