Protecting Man’s Best Friend: Why Pit Bull Terrier Breed Bans Are Outdated, Detrimental Laws

By Haley Pannell Stahl, Lead Notes Editor

Animal shelters and humane societies are often sad places where stray pets find shelter for a variety of reasons.  Some pets are lost, some are surrendered by their previous owner, but some are there simply because local and state government structures deem them too dangerous to be a part of the general public.  In the state of Kentucky, 36 of the total 120 counties have an ordinance either completely banning “pit bull terrier” dog breeds or labeling them as vicious.[1]  Governmental agencies, both at local and state levels, have enacted regulatory legislation using their “police power” and base their reasoning for such bans to “prevent injury or death to the public.”[2]  Kentucky is a state that has enacted such breed ban legislation aligning their reasoning on similar grounds.  Breed bans can be extremely detrimental to dog owners and innocent dogs that have never shown violent tendencies.  These outdated laws continue to fill underfunded animal shelters with dogs that have been ripped from the community for the sole reason that they have some type of physical feature that resembles the pit bull breed.

The “definitions” section found in city ordinances across the state of Kentucky are used to define pit bull terriers. These definitions reach broadly and erroneously expose one of America’s most popular dog breeds to detrimental consequences.[3]  These city ordinances provide that the “pit bull” breed includes any dog that is registered with the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club as an American Staffordshire Terrier or American Pit Bull Terrier.[4]  The ordinance reaches more broadly by further including that a dog can be labeled a “pit bull” if it  has any predominant physical features that a American Pit Bull Terrier or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier may obtain, including mixed breed dogs that may have a trace of pit bull genes.[5] 

In addition, the language that is typically found in a breed ban ordinance provides a complete prohibition on pit bull ownership within the city where enacted.  For example, the City of Fort Thomas, Kentucky includes in their city ordinance codes that “the ownership, location, maintenance, keeping, harboring, or use of pit bull terriers in the city is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.”[6]  The result of violating the ordinance and creating such a nuisance grants both animal control and law enforcement the authority to impound the dog.[7] Impoundment is allowed even without any instances of violent tendencies or harm.[8]

Although breed-based policies are grounded in misinformation and uninformed misunderstandings of pit bull behavior rather than any form of science or credible data, they are still in place.[9]  This lack of basis coupled with an owner’s legal rights to own a pit bull are central to the efforts of changing and prohibiting such regulation.  Pit bull owners are challenging the constitutionality of breed bans as an improper use of police power, as a deprivation of due process of law, or as a failure to provide equal protection of the laws.[10]  Specifically, owners have brought forth a number of challenges such as, the constitutionality of such regulations as defective because the regulation is not related to legitimate legislative aims, and for being too vague and not providing dog owners with proper understanding of whether their dog falls within the scope of the enactments.[11] In addition, owners have questioned regulations as unconstitutionally oppressive due to the requirements of insurance or bonding, licensing fees, or required payments by owners for enforcement of the criminal provisions of the enactments.[12]  Furthermore, owners have argued that the regulations constitute a governmental taking without compensation and leads to a failure to provide adequate procedural safeguards of notice and hearing.[13] Overall, a number of legal challenges have been brought by pit bull owners and legal minds continue to shape potential avenues to achieve remedies for dog owners.

Pit bulls and mixed breed dogs containing pit bull genetics are unnecessarily labeled as a more dangerous breed than any other type of dog breed.  To add to this sad truth, they are one of the most popular breeds within the United States.[14]  There simply is no scientific justification for such labeling and all research points to the unanimous data-based opinion that pit bulls obtain the same temperament as any other dog.[15]  In light of awareness efforts and challenges by owners, local and state governments are starting to reconsider whether reform in their area is needed.[16]  There are numerous governmental entities that have decided that it is time for a change.[17]  Although there has been minor movement in Kentucky, thirty percent of the counties within the state still have harmful policies.[18]  We must continue to seek fair treatment for all breeds and dog owners in the United States and in the Bluegrass State.

[1] Kentucky Breed Specific Laws, DogsBite, (March 5, 2020), https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-kentucky.php.

[2] Russel G. Donaldson, Validity and construction of statute, ordinance, or regulation applying to specific dog breeds, such as "pit bulls" or "bull terriers", 80 A.L.R.4th 70 (1990).

[3] Meredith Lee, All Dogs Are Equal, The Humane Society of the United States, (March 6, 2020),  https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/all-dogs-are-equal.

[4] Fort Thomas, Ky., Code § 91.35 (2019). 

[5] Id.

[6] Fort Thomas, Ky., Code § 91.37 (2019).

[7] Fort Thomas, Ky., Code § 91.42 (2019).

[8] Id.

[9]  Lee, supra note 3.

[10]  Donaldson, supra note 2.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Lee, supra note 3.

[15] Donaldson, supra note 2.

[16] Aamer Madhani, U.S. Communities Increasingly Ditching Pit Bull Bans, USA Today, (Nov. 17, 2014), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/17/pit-bulls-breed-specific-legislation-bans/19048719.

[17] Id.

[18] Lee, supra note 3.