Stop BSL

BSL is a complicated issue that riles emotions pretty easily, and talking about it can be tricky. It’s important to stick with effective arguments, and to anticipate and be able to counter the opposition’s arguments. This is the art of rhetoric, or “saying the right thing at the right time in the right way to communicate the right message.”

Got suggestions? Have you found a tactic that works or fails? Send me an email at stopbsl.com@gmail.com

The Bad

Openness/”Total Honesty”

If you were writing an educational television series or a sizeable book about BSL, complete, in-detail coverage of every single little aspect of dog behavior would be acceptable. But most likely you’re writing a brief, one-page letter to a legislator, or making a five-minute speech at a podium. Your communication has to be focused and to the point. Now is not the time to bring up anything that could possibly be misunderstood or misinterpreted, no matter how openly honest you want to be—because you won’t have time to explain it in a way that makes it acceptable, and your listeners aren’t going to think “At least she’s honest”—they’re going to think “Oh my God.”

For example, you wouldn’t want to mention that animal control has never had a problem with your dog… except that one time when it got loose and you got a warning. The city councilmembers don’t hear the part where you blame the wind and incompetent fence installers, and they don’t hear that nothing happened and no one got hurt—they hear “My vicious dog was running rampant in a neighborhood full of innocent little children and it was complete luck that no one got mauled.”

Similarly, I have heard dog owners say, “Well, sure, my dog is strong, and I guess he could kill someone if he really wanted…” This is followed by all sorts of reasons why the dog would never do such a thing. Stop! Conjecture about what a person or animal could do only reminds your listeners of the scary possibilities. And worse, it reminds them of the possibilities as they pertain to your type of dog, not any other similar dog. Labrador Retrievers are strong dogs and can kill people, but how many Lab owners feel compelled to bring this up for the sake of honesty?

Most importantly, know your facts before you communicate. I cannot even begin to count the number of times I have heard people make statements that they feel are truthful, when in fact those statements are completely unproven. These include allegations that certain breeds bite more than others, certain breeds are stronger than others, certain breeds do more damage when they attack than others, and so forth. There are no statistics to support or discredit any of these statements. Please do not participate in the perpetuation of mythology. Citing junk statistics is neither honest nor factual.

Don’t misunderstand, honesty is important. Make sure your statements are truthful—but also make sure that what you say is going to send the right message to your audience. You don’t have to tell the whole story to be truthful. If you aren’t going to have the time to put something in proper context, don’t say it at all.

Targeted Breed is “Perfect In Every Way”

The “perfect angel” image is quickly discredited by media reports of targeted breeds’ attacks—and the interviews in which the oblivious dog owner exclaims, “But my dog’s never done this before!” (Never mind that this sort of statement is common with all dog owners whose dog has attacked, regardless of the dog’s breed.)

At the same time, do not make the mistake of trying to portray the targeted breed in a “balanced” way that includes mentioning negative aspects of the breed. All breeds have negative aspects, most of which are not actually particular to any one breed. But by being “honest” about those negative aspects without providing proper context, you will inevitably create an artificial distinction between the targeted breed and non-targeted breeds, further justifying BSL.

Non-targeted Dog Breeds Bite More

The common argument goes like this: “[Insert stereotypically 'family-friendly' dog breed here] bite more often than [insert 'dangerous' breed here]. Therefore, ‘friendly’ breed is really the dangerous one.”

The inevitable counterargument: “Well, when ‘dangerous’ breed attacks, it does more damage than ‘friendly’ breed. I’d rather have ten little bites from a ‘friendly’ breed than one crippling bite from a ‘dangerous’ breed.”

Here’s the thing: Neither one of these arguments has any statistical or scientific data to back it up.

To know whether a particular breed “bites more often” than another breed, you must know 1) the base population of a breed, and 2) the number of dogs in that population that are biting. Most people who have considered this subject agree that coming up with even an estimate of a base population of a breed is simply not possible. Further, identifying dogs’ breeds (both for base population and biting dog numbers) is virtually impossible to do. As such, there just aren’t any large-scale studies that can identify breeds that are more likely to bite.

And as to the counterargument, again, we do not have any solid scientific studies to prove or disprove the notion that some breeds do more damage than others. (See also the “Dangerous Breeds” Myth section.)

All this nonscientific nonsense begs for a counter-counterargument with something blantantly mythological, but frankly, the best thing to do is just avoid starting this garbage in the first place. Stay away from “statistics” and “facts” you cannot prove.

BSL = Holocaust

Although there are parallels between the legally sanctioned eradication of an entire type of dog based on physical appearance, and the genocide of an entire race of people, this comparison is, for the most part, considered insensitive to the human beings who died during the Holocaust. As soon as this argument comes into play, the speaker is usually bombarded by charges of callous disrespect for human life and an implication that they feel that animal life is more valuable than human life. In this way, the speaker is portrayed as inhuman, and the rest of his or her argument is discounted.

Dog Ownership = Gun Rights

These are two subjects that should never come up at the same time. The reason is simple: guns are weapons designed for killing. Dogs are companions, not killers. Nothing positive occurs when one draws a parallel between the ownership of a targeted breed and the ownership of a killing implement. If you must get into a debate about what the Constitution of the United States does and does not permit in terms of dog ownership and due process rights, leave guns out of it at all costs!

My [Insert Stereotypically "Friendly" Breed] is Meaner Than My [Insert Stereotypically "Scary" Breed]

A very common series of arguments starts with “Dogs are not born mean. They are trained to be mean” and ends with “My Chihuahua/Rat Terrier/Lab is meaner than my pit bull.”

The speaker is trying to emphasize that owners are responsible for their dogs’ behavior. He/she is also trying to break down the dangerous/safe breed dichotomy by demonstrating personal experience with an aggressive “safe breed” and a calm “dangerous breed” dog.

But the listeners end up wondering “If dogs are trained to be mean, why is your Chihuahua/Rat Terrier/Lab aggressive? Did you train it to be that way?” Of course not! Most of the people speaking against BSL are not training any of their dogs, whether pit bulls or Labs, to be aggressive.

Consequently, one part of the speaker’s argument must be false. Either the person’s dogs are not mean, or it is possible for some dogs to be born aggressive. Since we usually assume that a person knows his/her dogs very well, it is most likely that the listener will conclude the latter: Some dogs are genetically inclined to be aggressive.

If you wish to make this argument, be very careful not to precede your personal anecdote about your dogs’ temperaments with the statement “Dogs are trained to be mean.” It does not require training for a dog to act aggressively. Dogs are naturally capable of aggression.

Rather, you should stress that an owner controls whether a dog is put in a situation where it might pose a threat to a human. Owners manage their dogs responsibly so they are not capable of hurting people. This goes for owners of both “mean” dogs and “nice” dogs.

The Good

Targeted Breed Owners are People Too

In ancient Greece, effective persuasive speeches hinged on three things: the emotional argument, the factual argument, and the reputation of the speaker. It’s not much different today. What you say makes a difference, but who you are matters just as much. Elected officials listen when their constituents speak—especially when those constituents are law-abiding, upstanding, educated, and active in the community. Make sure your elected official is aware that you are a “good” person; break any stereotypes associated with ownership of a targeted breed. When you speak or write, use proper English and good grammar, and be respectful and calm.

BSL = Canine Racism

This argument has been shown to be successful in several BSL fights. Although some would argue that legislators simply don’t want to be considered racist, I’m not convinced that is why the argument is effective. Instead, I think it is an easy analogy that draws quick parallels between humans and canines when it comes to senseless, harmful prejudice.

This is also an opportunity to bring up minority crime statistics in relation to their percentage of the population, and to make suggestions that, according to the rationale used by BSL supporters, minorities are “born criminals.” It’s such a ludicrous concept that lawmakers should have no problem understanding your point. Nevertheless, this should be done delicately and with an abundance of sarcasm, which, unlike in a verbal forum, may not translate well in writing—so undertake this sort of argument with care, and make sure you have someone else read your writing before you send it.

A predictable counterargument, which you must be prepared for, is that dogs have been bred to exhibit certain behaviors, whereas human races have not. It can be hard to debate this without some knowledge of canine genetics and how breeding affects behavior. Unfortunately, you probably won’t have time to provide a proper and thorough explanation. There are a variety of responses you may choose from, or try to come up with your own:

“If dogs don’t require any training, what do dog trainers do?”
“If all dogs of a breed acted identically, why bother with competitions?”
“My dog, like the majority of dogs in the U.S., is a mutt. What purpose do you think he was bred for?”
“Humans decide what traits to breed for. The dogs don’t have a say in the matter. Why not regulate human behavior?”

What About the Other Victims?

This argument needs to be made more often. How does BSL protect citizens from non-targeted breeds? The majority of dog bites and attacks are committed by non-targeted breeds—why are pro-BSL legislators only trying to protect a minority of their constituents? BSL treats victims and potential victims of dog bites unequally. Those who are threatened by a targeted breed get sympathy and reaction from legislators, while those who are threatened by a dangerous dog of a non-targeted breed get the political cold shoulder. How is that moral, just, or humane?

It’s not. Legislators need to know that it’s not acceptable for them to play favorites when it comes to public safety. All citizens deserve protection from dangerous dogs, regardless of what the threatening dog looks like. Victims of attacks by non-targeted breeds need to speak out and express their desire for dog laws that will protect them, too.

Next Page: Communication Tips

Previous Page: Write Letters