“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This quote from a famous novel seems especially relevant when considering laws around banning certain dog breeds. Recently, the American XL Bully was added to the list of banned breeds in the United Kingdom, sparking controversy and calling into question the ethics and effectiveness of prohibiting ownership of dogs based solely on their breed.

The Decision to Ban the XL Bully

According to news reports, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made the decision to ban the XL Bully breed following reports of attacks by these dogs. However, rather than attributing aggression to individual dogs with poor training, Sunak claims the attacks indicate an inherent “pattern of behavior” in the breed itself that makes XL Bullies inherently dangerous.

As reported in a major UK newspaper, Sunak has called for police and canine experts to meet and officially define the characteristics of XL Bullies as a first step toward legislation prohibiting ownership of the breed.

The Problem With Defining the XL Bully Breed

Neither the UK Kennel Club nor the American Kennel Club recognize the “XL Bully” as an established breed. Without official breed standards, accurately identifying XL Bullies for the purposes of a ban becomes challenging. The UK Kennel Club actually opposes breed-specific bans altogether, stating that no dogs are inherently dangerous and that bans unfairly target dogs rather than irresponsible owners.

Currently Banned Dog Breeds in the UK

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 made it illegal to own, breed, buy, sell, or gift four breeds of dogs in the UK:

1. Pit Bull Terrier
2. Japanese Tosa
3. Dogo Argentino
4. Fila Brasileiro

Now XL Bullies will join this list by the end of 2023.

What It Means To Ban a Dog Breed

Banned breeds can be confiscated from owners even if the specific dog has shown no aggression. The ban applies to all dogs of that breed regardless of temperament or training. Many animal advocates argue this is unethical and an ineffective strategy for promoting public safety.

The Case Against Breed-Specific Bans

Multiple studies have analyzed the impact of breed-specific legislation and found little evidence such bans have reduced serious dog bite injuries. Critics argue breed bans are not based on scientific data, but rather emotional reactions fueled by media depictions of certain breeds as inherently aggressive.

Lack of Evidence Supporting Bans

In 2008, the Netherlands repealed a 15-year ban on Pit Bull Terriers after commissioning a study which found no decline in dog bites despite prohibition of the breed. Spain and Italy have also ended breed-specific laws due to lack of evidence the bans accomplished their goals of increased public safety.

Difficulty in Accurate Breed Identification

Some critics claim breed bans are near impossible to properly enforce. Visual identification of mixed breed dogs is unreliable even among professionals. DNA testing provides accuracy but is too expensive and time-consuming for widespread official use. This results in vague, appearance-based determinations.

Penalization of Responsible Owners

Another common argument is it’s irresponsible owners, not inherently dangerous breeds, that are the true problem. When certain breeds are banned, responsible owners are forced to relinquish beloved pets that have never shown aggression simply because of their appearance. Meanwhile, irresponsible owners find ways around bans or simply own breeds that are still legal.

Potential Unintended Consequences

Some research indicates breed-specific legislation may actually have the unintended consequences of increased bites from other breeds and promoting misperceptions about breed safety.

Rise in Bites From Unbanned Breeds

One study analyzed dog bite hospitalizations before and after a breed ban in the UK. While initial analyses showed decreased hospital admissions, when accounting for the increasing owned dog population, there was actually a significant increase in bites from breeds not prohibited by the law.

Perpetuation of Breed Stereotypes

Critics claim breed bans reinforce false stereotypes certain breeds are inherently vicious. This gives the public a false sense that unbanned breeds are inherently safe, when in reality any breed is capable of aggression given poor breeding, lack of training, or neglect and abuse.

Potential Alternatives to Breed Bans

Rather than banning breeds, many advocate for laws holding all owners equally accountable for their dogs’ behavior through requirements like:

• Mandatory microchipping for identification
• Sterilization of dogs not intended for breeding
• Muzzle mandates in public for aggressive dogs regardless of breed
• Civil liability insurance for dog owners
• Obedience training and good citizen testing

The emphasis is placed on responsible ownership of any breed rather than targeting specific dogs based solely on their appearance.

Looking to the Future

Only time will tell if addition of XL Bullies to the UK Dangerous Dogs Act will effectively promote public safety or simply add another breed to the banned list with little impact. However, critics remain skeptical breed bans can ever adequately address the underlying causes of aggression in dogs regardless of breed.

Perhaps the conversation should shift from prohibiting breeds based on emotions and media accounts to implementing and enforcing legislation focused on irresponsible breeding, training, and ownership practices that ultimately put the public at risk. Only then can genuine progress be made toward reducing harm to both humans and dogs in our communities.