The Racial Impact of Breed Discriminatory Laws

WRITTEN BY: KELSEY GILMORE-FUTERAL, Esq, Best Friends Animal Society

What is a Breed Discriminatory Law?

The media sensationalism of pit bull terrier-type dogs and laws that regulate them began in the 1980s after a Sports Illustrated issue featured a snarling pit bull terrier on its cover. Since then, cities across the country have passed, amended, and repealed regulations on certain dog breeds. Oftentimes, these laws are a misguided attempt to make a community safer or to reduce dog bite liability. A law that regulates a certain breed or breeds of dog or dogs who look like those breeds is called Breed Discriminatory Legislation (BDL) or sometimes Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). These laws can target one breed, or they can cast a wider net to a variety of breeds (like German Shepherd Dogs, Rottweilers, or Doberman Pinschers), mixes of those breeds, or dogs with appearances similar to those breeds. For example, South Carolina House Bill 4094 aims to define a “pit bull dog” as: an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, a dog displaying the physical traits of one or more of the above breeds, or a dog exhibiting the distinguishing characteristics that conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for any of the above breeds. Distinguishing characteristics include a broad or flat head with high set attentive ears and wide jaw, whip-like tail that is thick at the base and tapered at the tip, strong and muscular shoulders with blades wide and sloping, well-muscled hindquarters, and almond-shaped eyes. BDL ranges from outright bans (Overland Park, KS) to mandatory sterilization (Beaufort County, SC) to public housing restrictions. The negative stigma surrounding certain breeds of dogs is also to blame for most major insurance companies discriminating against various breeds of dogs in homeowners’ and renters’ insurance policies. While these laws apply to a small segment of pets and pet owners, they have devastating consequences for dogs and their owners, particularly minority populations.

How Does BDL Impact Minorities?

BDL is more likely to negatively impact minorities and people of lesser financial means than white wealthy people. In November 2020, seven national organizations collaborated to publish a white paper discussing the insurance industry’s breed restrictions’ discriminatory impact on people. The paper determined that discriminatory insurance practices most negatively impact three groups of people, including people of color. The studies cited in the paper acknowledge that BDL is influenced by and fuels implicit racial bias. Several studies have demonstrated an associative link among Americans between race and breed type. A study by Harvard Law Research Fellow Ann Linder showed that study participants most often associated pit bull terrier-type dogs with people of color, specifically, young black men. Another author notes “the war on pit bulls … is characterized by elements of moral panic against the persons who have so long been associated with these dogs – ‘gang members,’ ‘drug dealers,’ and ‘urban youth,’ groups that all point back to fear of racial and ethnic minorities.” Setting aside implicit bias associated with BDL, these laws and policies still disproportionately negatively affect people of color and people of lesser financial means.

In South Carolina in 2019, 23.2% of black and 21.3% of Hispanic people lived at or below the poverty line, compared to 9.2% of white people. When looking at money alone, it is apparent that those with more money have more options. Having more money means being able to choose a more expensive insurance policy to keep your pet with your family. More money means being able to move when your community passes breed discriminatory laws. More money means being able to comply with laws that discriminate against your dog by paying for elective surgeries, purchasing additional liability insurance, or building bigger fences. More money means you can hire a lawyer of your choosing to defend you in court or to file suit against unconstitutional laws. Not having money means these choices are not available to you unless they are provided to you for free or at a reduced cost by the government or an organization.

In addition to limiting choices, less money means laws which levy criminal penalties for owning a dog that looks a certain way affects people of lesser financial means more acutely. Eighty to ninety percent of people charged with a crime nationwide are indigent. A study by the ACLU in North Carolina found that “court fines and fees disproportionately harm communities of color and low-wealth North Carolinians.” There is little reason to believe additional court fines and fees for dog ownership in South Carolina would impact these communities any differently.

Alternatives to BDL

As previously stated, most breed specific laws and policies are aimed at solving a problem. However, even if dog breeds could be accurately identified visually (which they cannot), policies and laws that target specific breeds miss the mark on reducing liability or making communities safer. Specifically, “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior,” not breed or appearance. More effective options are available to communities such as laws that target reckless owners who routinely fail to restrain their dog on a leash, regularly let their dog roam at large, or know of a dog’s propensity to be reactive or aggressive and fail to take appropriate measures to protect the community. Laws focused on these owners and their behaviors will address the problem without painting broad-headed dogs with broad legal brushes and without disparately impacting minorities or those with lower socioeconomic means. Communities can also work to provide low-cost accessible spay/neuter and vaccination services as well as education for professionals on dog bite prevention programs, including specific programs for children.

Conclusion

There are sound reasons why the United States Postal Service, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the American Bar Association, the National Animal Care & Control Association, the Association of Professional Dog Trainers, and the National Canine Research Council oppose BDL. Laws and policies which target specific breeds of dogs may be well-intentioned. However, the unintended but predictable consequences of these laws and policies disparately and negatively impact people of color. Therefore, alternative laws and policies which focus on the behaviors of specific dogs and their owners rather than the appearance of the dog should be selected. ■

Kelsey Gilmore-Futeral, Esq. is a legislative attorney with Best Friends Animal Society. She chairs the SC Bar’s Animal Law Committee and serves on the board of directors for the Alliance of Therapy Dogs. Until February, she was the SC State Director for the Humane Society of the United States. Kelsey lives in Mount Pleasant with her husband and four rescue dogs and can be reached at kfuteral@bestfriends.org.

1. SC House Bill 4094 (2021) https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess124_20212022/prever/4094_20210317.htm 2. Overland Park, KS Municipal Code §§ 6.10.010 - 6.10.190 (2006). 3. Beaufort County, SC County Code § 14-26 et seq. (2019). 4. Dog Breeds Banned by Home Insurance Companies, Apr. 13, 2021 (last visited May 11, 2021) https://www.forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/banneddog-breed-lists/ 5. n.a. (2020). Breed Discrimination in the Homeowners Insurance Industry (p. 25). Produced and published by the following coalition: American Dog Breeders Association, American Kennel Club, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Association for Animal Welfare Advancement, Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Rescue Alliance, and Humane Society of the United States. https://support.bestfriends. org/site/DocServer/NAIC_Paper-Final01-12-20.pdf 6. Ann Linder, The Black Man’s Dog: The Social Context of Breed Specific Legislation, 25 Animal L. Rev. 51 (2018). 7. Ann L. Shiavone, Real Bite: Legal Realism and Meaningful Rational Basis in Dog Law and Beyond, 25 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rights J. 65, 111-12 (2016). 8. Kaiser Family Foundation, Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity, https://www.kff.org/ other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity (last visited May 11, 2021). 9. ACLU North Carolina, The Consequences of Rising Court Fines and Fees in North Carolina, p. 19. 10. Id. p. 8. 11. Nat’l. Canine Res. Coun., Visual Breed Identification, https:// nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/visual-breed-identification/ (Updated March 10, 2021) last visited May 11, 2021. 12. Patronek, G.J., VMD, PhD, Margareg Slater, DVN, PhD, Amy Marder, VMD, Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite-related injury. Journal of the Am. Veterinary Med. Ass’n, Vol. 237, No. 7, pp 788-792. Finding breed specific laws could not be expected to work even if particular breeds could be identified as high risk because large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds would have to be completely removed from a community to prevent even one serious dog biterelated injury. For example, to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to remove more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted group. 13. Nat’l Canine Res. Coun. Action Fund, Letter in response to American Property Casualty Insurance Association’s letter in opposition to NV SB 103, p. 2 (March 5, 2021) https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/ExhibitDocument/ 14. Madison Fantozzi, Postal Service Sinks its Teeth into Dog=-Breed Legislation, Scripps Howard Foundation Wire (May 15, 2014) http://www.shfwire.com/postalservice-sinks-teeth-into-dog-breed-legislation/ 15. Am. Veterinary Med. Ass’n, A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention, 218 J. Am. Veterinary Med. Ass’n 1732 (June 1, 2001) https://www.avma.org/sites/ default/files/2020-03/dogbite.pdf 16. Am. Veterinary Soc’y of Animal Behavior, Position statement on Breed Specific Legislation, https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Breed-Specific_ Legislation-download-_8-18-14.pdf (last visited May 11, 2021). 17. Am. Bar Ass’n, Resolution 100 (Aug. 2012), http://abanow. org/2012/06/2012am100/ 18. Nat’l Animal Care & Control Ass’n, NACA is Opposed to Breed Specific Legislation, https://www.nacanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/BSLGuideline-1.pdf (last visited May 11, 2021).