Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a form of legislation aimed at controlling the ownership and reproduction of certain breeds of dog. At the time of writing, there are 52 countries which exercise some form of BSL. BSL was originally developed in the early 1990s in response to various high-profile cases of dog-related deaths of children. The most common breed regulated was initially the American Pitbull Terrier, expanding to encompass in some countries ‘pitbull-type breeds’. In the UK, for example, this extends to include also the Japanese Tosa, Fila Braziliero and Dogo Argentina. In Denmark, this banned list extends to 25 breeds, as well as crossbreeds thereof. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals notes,
This leads us to think about ways in which biological essentialism – which considers deviant or criminal (and other) behaviours to be the product of physical characteristics – plays out in the regulation of BSL. Take a look at the below list of criteria (Box 1.1) used by police in the UK – devised originally by the American Dog Breeders Association to determine the physical attributes of the Pitbull.
Box 1.1Outline of characteristics expected of ‘pitbull type dogs’
•When first viewing the dog it should appear square from the side,and its height to the top of its shoulders should be the same distance as from the front of its shoulder to the real point of its hip.
•Its height to weight ratio should be in proportion.
•Its coat should be short and bristled,(Single Coated).
•Its head should appear to be wedge shaped when viewed from the side and top but rounded when viewed from the front. The head should be around 2/3 Width of shoulders and 25 percent Wider at cheeks than at the base of the skull (this is due to the cheek muscles)
•The distance from the back of the head to between the eyes should be equal to the distance from between the eyes to the tip of its nose.
•The dog should have a good depth from the top of head to bottom of jaw and a straight box-like muzzle.
•Its eyes should be small and deep-set. triangular Whan viewed from the side and elliptical from front.
•Its shoulders should be wider than the rib cage at the eighth rib.
•Its elbows should be flat with its front legs running parallel to the spine.
•Its forelegs should be heavy and solid and nearly twice the thickness of the hind legs just below the hock.
•The rib cage should be deep and spring straight out from the spine, it should be elliptical in cross section tapering tapering at the bottom and not ‘barrel’ chested.
•It should have a tail that hangs down like an old fashioned ‘pump handle’ to around the hock_it should have a broad hip that allows good attachment of muscles in the hindquarters and hind legs.
•Its knee joint should be in the upper third of the dog’s rear leg, and the bones below that should appear light, fine and springy.
•Overall the dog should have an athletic appearance, the standard makes no mention of ears, colour, height, or weight.
(DEFRA, 2009: 20)
What becomes obvious here is that determining most of these attributes is an exercise in subjectivity. Can you define a small and deep-set eye? What is a ‘good depth’ from the top of a head to the bottom of a jaw? What is an ‘athletic appearance’? When we see this in these terms, the parallels with Lombroso’s atavistic man – determined by cranial shape and lesions, forearms and so on – it becomes clear that depending on body shape and size is perhaps not the most effective way of linking physical attributes to behaviour, either in humans or animals.
At this point you might wonder what on earth dog behaviour has to do with a move towards researching from a zemiological perspective. However, it is here that the nuance of zemiology can be applied in the context of both investigating and thus addressing, harm.
First, BSL is based on the assumption that a problem in society, in this case injuries caused by dogs, can be regulated by illegalising specific breeds based on physical characteristics. A zemiologist would reject such essentialism and consider instead what harms are inflicted by such interventions, and indeed if such approaches actually mitigate the serious harm in question. To the former, all evidence suggests that no, we cannot determine behaviour based on physical attributes. Although we can predict the potential impact of a bite in terms of ratio to the dog and jaw, whether or not a dog bites is not connected to its ability to do so (which dogs do not know) but to the way in which is it socialised and treated. Indeed, in a survey of 215 leading behaviourists undertaken by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home in the UK, 74 per cent said that breed was either not at all or only slightly important as a reason for why dogs attack people, while 86 per cent said that how the dog was brought up by the keeper was very important (Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, 2016). To the latter point, BSL is ineffective at addressing the harm caused by dog-related injuries. It has not reduced dog bites, which are on the contrary increasing even after almost 30 years of BSL in the UK (RSPCA, 2016: 14). Despite this, state institutions continue to implement the same approach and in doing so expand the role of the process of policing and punishment.
Focusing again on deaths, as the RSPCA highlights, in the UK 30 people died in dog-related incidents between 1991 and 2016, a minority (9) of which involved dogs registered as one of the four dangerous ‘breeds’ (RSPCA, 2016: 3). As such, the characteristics determined in the above list become increasingly irrelevant. From a zemiological perspective, these 30 deaths are not insignificant: death causes harm to and beyond the individual, and preventable deaths (as most dog-related deaths are, through training and behavioural intervention) are cause for serious concern. However, when we compare this number of people to those who have died in the UK due to excess winter deaths discussed in Chapter 2 as an example, we can see that responses much more proactive regarding regulation and policing of breeds despite the much higher number of people dying from cold. Moreover, research by the organisation Born Innocent found that the majority of dogs destroyed in the UK after being seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 had not exhibited any dangerous behaviour or been involved in any incident with the public. The latest available figures show that in 2015/2016 a total of 307 dogs were destroyed in just one year after being seized, but that 175 of these (57...