Why Breed-Specific Bans Don’t Work
Walk through any park and you’ll see it. A Staffie rolling on its back for belly rubs. A Rottweiler trotting happily with a ball. An XL Bully leaning against their owner like a giant lapdog. And yet in the UK, looks alone can decide whether a dog lives or dies.
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) has been part of our law since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It bans certain breeds outright and puts restrictions on others. Supporters say it makes the public safer. The evidence tells a very different story.
Any dog can bite
The American Veterinary Medical Association is blunt: “Any dog can bite.” They, along with the British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, and the Pet Professional Guild, all oppose breed bans. Why? Because behaviour is shaped by many factors — training, socialisation, environment, genetics, health, and human responsibility. Pinning safety on looks is lazy policy.
The problem with appearances
You can’t reliably judge breed by sight. Even professionals get it wrong. One study compared shelter staff guesses with DNA tests. One in five dogs with pit bull heritage went completely unrecognised. A third of dogs with no pit bull DNA were still labelled as “pit bull type”. If experts can’t agree, how can a police officer at someone’s door?
That matters because the law in the UK doesn’t just ban named breeds. It bans “types”. That includes any dog that looks similar. Innocent family pets are seized, held in kennels for months, and sometimes destroyed - not because of anything they did, but because of how their body is built.
No evidence it works
Breed bans don’t reduce bites. In Ontario, Canada, the number of dog bites didn’t drop after a pit bull ban. In the Netherlands, years of restrictions failed to cut bite incidents, so the ban was scrapped. In Denver, Colorado, dog bite hospitalisations stayed high despite decades of banning. The UK is no different. Thirty years on, we still see serious incidents.
Meanwhile, millions of pounds are spent kennelling seized dogs. In the UK’s early years of BSL, the cost topped £3 million. That money could have gone into education, enforcement of owner responsibility, and community safety programmes.
Dogs aren’t villains
Experts in behaviour are clear: there is no such thing as an evil breed. Victoria Stilwell puts it simply: “The research has shown time and time again that BSL does not reduce dog bites … and has caused many innocent dogs to be taken from their families simply because of the way they look.”
All dogs are individuals. Some breeds may be strong, athletic, or more likely to guard. That doesn’t make them bad. It makes them dogs who need training, socialisation, and responsible handling - the same as every other dog.
What works instead
If we want safer communities, we need solutions that actually reduce risk. That means:
Owner responsibility: laws that apply to all breeds, holding people accountable if they allow their dog to become a danger.
Education: teaching children and adults how to read dog body language and interact safely.
Early support: making training and behaviour help accessible before problems escalate.
Enforcement: cracking down on back-yard breeding and irresponsible ownership, regardless of breed.
Countries that shifted focus from breed to behaviour have seen better outcomes.
Time to rethink
It’s easy to blame certain breeds when tragedies make headlines. But the truth is more complex. BSL hasn’t made us safer. It has punished responsible owners, cost millions, and condemned countless dogs who never harmed anyone.
If you own a dog, work with dogs, or simply care about fairness, take a step back the next time someone says “it’s the breed”. Look at the evidence. Listen to the experts. And remember that behind every headline is an individual dog and an individual owner.
No breed is evil. And no family should lose their pet because of how it looks.
