What is BSL?

By Editor
In Animal Rights-Sponsored Legislation
Oct 31st, 2013
0 Comments
13841 Views

BSL, or breed-specific legislation, is legislation, or a law, on the federal, state, or municipal level that outright bans or restricts specific, named breeds of dog.

BSL is unconstitutional because it has not been scientifically proven that there is any such thing as a vicious breed or breeds, and therefore no rational basis, like safety, by which to deprive individuals of their property (their dogs).  As such, BSL unfairly deprives individuals of their property, their dogs, without due process of law.  

For so-called pit bulls in particular, BSL is especially unfair and unjust.  There is no breed pit bull.  The slang term pit bull does not define a breed, but a type, and can describe countless medium- and large-breed dogs, their mixes and lookalikes.

Does it not follow that if the slang term pit bull represents a conglomeration of breeds, mixes, and lookalikes rather than an actual breed, that statistics for dog bites related to so-called pit bulls would be incredibly skewed?  And because indeed dog-bite statistics for so-called pit bulls are skewed, they are false and therefore meaningless and worthless.  

Also, because pit bull or pit bull-terrier is not a breed, its usage in legislation has consistently been found to be unconstitutionally vague (in addition to breed-specific legislation itself having been found to be unconstitutional).

BSL has also historically been racist legislation used to target African-Americans and Latinos who are claimed to be the predominant owners of so-called pit bulls or breeds like Rottweilers.  It is often claimed that only thugs, drug dealers, and dog fighters own so-called “vicious” breeds which then often gives law enforcement a pretense by which to racially profile the African-American or Latino owners of banned or restricted breeds of dog.  

For example, in 2008 when Chicago was considering a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter law, Alderman Ed Burke told the Chicago Sun-Times that,

“When you drive down the street and see a gang banger with all kinds of gang regalia walking along with two or three pit bulls, it’s pretty simple for the policeman to raise the dog’s tail and see whether or not it’s spayed or neutered. If it’s not, the gang member is in violation,” Burke said, noting that street gangs operate dog-fighting rings.

Yes, Chicago certainly did and does need to crack down on gang violence.  But in this case, Chicago’s breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance would have operated as a pretense, a falsely claimed reason, to racially profile anyone with a so-called pit bull.  And since “authorities” have long maintained that so-called pit bulls were for the most-part owned by thugs, drug dealers, and gang bangers, and “those people” in “those neighborhoods,” it was perfectly clear just exactly who the targets of BSL would be.

While breed-specific legislation can be traced back to the 1970s when German Shepherds and Doberman Pinschers were the initial targets, BSL really took off in the mid-1980s when some strategically-placed articles about the use of so-called pit bulls in urban dog fighting were published in magazines like People, Time, Rolling Stone, and Sports Illustrated.  Articles entitled “Time Bombs on Legs: Violence-prone owners are turning pit bulls into killers,” “The Pit Bull Friend And Killer,” “An Instinct for the Kill,” and “A Boy and His Dog in Hell” claimed to be exposing the rise in urban dog fighting, but what these articles really did was offer the perfect primer for inner-city youth, particularly economically-disadvantaged minorities, to learn and undertake the bloodsport of urban dog fighting. In this way, those behind breed-specific legislation caused the problem, dog fighting, and offered the only seeming solution: breed-specific legislation.  

It’s not difficult to trace the source of breed-specific legislation.  It was, and always has been, the brain child of radical animal rights groups whose stated end-goal is to eliminate all domestic animal ownership.  They will stop at nothing to eliminate the domestication of animals, which they claim is exploitive.  They don’t just achieve this goal via breed-bans or breed restrictions, but via other onerous types of legislation as well, often leaving many innocent dead animals in their wake, and deceiving and even defrauding the public in the process.  

For instance, in 2008, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) misled the public to believe that the HSUS had all of Michael Vick’s former fighting dogs in their custody and, as such, were fund-raising for their care:

The day after NFL quarterback Michael Vick was indicted for operating a dog fighting operation on July 17, 2008, HSUS issued an online fundraising appeal asking people to ” . . . make a special gift to help The Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case . . . your gift will be put to use right away to care for these dogs” . . . Two weeks later, [HSUS President Wayne] Pacelle told The New York Times that HSUS didn’t even have custody of the Vick dogs or “know how well they are being kept.” Pacelle also recommended to federal government authorities that all of the dogs should be euthanized.

But as you can see, the HSUS did not have Vick’s former fighting dogs in their custody and were actually petitioning the judge in the Vick case to have all of Vick’s former fighting dogs killed. 

As Sports Illustrated noted, both the HSUS and PETA claimed former fighting dogs could not be rehabilitated:

The Humane Society of the U.S., agreeing with PETA, took the position that Michael Vick’s pit bulls, like all dogs saved from fight rings, were beyond rehabilitation and that trying to save them was a misappropriation of time and money.

Almost all of Vick’s former fighting dogs did indeed go on to be rehabilitated and re-homed, and the HSUS has since changed its tack.  Instead of outright pushing for BSL, which has merited them too much negative PR, it is believed that radical animal rights groups now push BSL via proxies like Dogsbite.org, et al, who continue to use these radical animal rights groups’ “model” dog legislation, which includes breed-specific laws, mandatory spay/neuter laws, and even some dangerous dog laws.

These groups are in fact radical, with some of them having been listed as potential domestic terrorist threats.  Those who tell the truth about radical animal rights groups and what they do have been subject to merciless slander if not outright violence and other forms of duress meant to deter truth-tellers from speaking the truth.

People in the dog lobby have been no exception.  For instance, if you are vocal about the fact that BSL has its source from animal rights groups and that it is racist and prejudicial with the ulterior motive of ending domestic animal ownership, they will simply say about you that you are a dog fighter, or a dog fighter defender.  It couldn’t just be that pit bull owners want to defend their dogs and the Constitution could it?  No, to them and the disciples they brainwash, all pit bull owners are dog fighters, puppy millers, and animal abusers.  Your “allies” may believe this about you as well, which these radicals hope will isolate you, demoralize you, and ultimately force you to stop telling the truth.

For example, while some in the dog lobby, myself included, initially received a lot of flak from our enemies and “allies” for claiming that Michael Vick would simply end up being a radical animal rightist shill, the truth is that’s exactly what happened and so the dog lobby was ultimately vindicated.  But still, simply because I called for reason and for Vick’s due process rights, I have been slandered and called a dog fighter defender.  No, I am a Constitution defender.  And on no level will I ever defend animal cruelty, the crime of dog fighting, or any other criminal bloodsport.  But unlike these radicals who set their victims up or buy people off with some kind of enticement, I will call for due process and wait for the system to do its job; I will do as the law does and consider someone innocent until proven guilty.

I’ve just demonstrated some of the ways these radicals operate with a system of lies, fraud, and manipulation.  Conversely, all that the dog lobby does is out in the open.  And because all we do is out in the open and precisely because we tell the truth about these radicals, they must necessarily tell lies, tell lies by omission, or manipulate the facts in order to besmirch the dog lobby’s good character.  They must necessarily tell so many lies about us because we tell so very many truths about them.  They can’t refute what we’re saying, so they do what their lesser characters dictate: They slander our good names hoping the truth we tell about them will go with it.  

But make no mistake about it.  Breed-specific legislation and other radical animal rights-sponsored legislation is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.  As even the White House has now acknowledged, breed-specific legislation is “largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”  Precisely because we’ve seen the ineffectiveness of BSL, the way it erodes or outright negates our Constitution, and the countless dead animals and devastation these radical animal rights groups and their proxies have left in their wake, we will continue to tell the truth about BSL and those behind it, even as they continue to tell lies about us.  

Related:

-A Little Vindication for the Dog Lobby

-AKC Sample Anti-BSL Letter

-The CDC is opposed to BSL

-Dispelling Pit Bull Urban Mythology

-How Dangerous Dog Laws Can Be Deadly

-What is pet guardianship and why should it be opposed?

-Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Microchipping

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>