Abstract

The UK has seen a significant increase in the number of fatal dog attacks on humans in the last few years. A breed of dog called the American Bully has been involved in more than half of them. This has led the UK government to ban the breed. Several cities and counties in North America have also enacted bans on pit bulls. These policies are instances of ‘Breed Specific Legislation” (BSL). In this paper I investigate the ethics of BSL. I argue that a ban on dangerous dog breeds can be justified if it is implemented without significantly harming any currently existing dogs. My aim is to show that even defenders of animals can endorse a well-implemented ban. First, a ban on dangerous breeds protects not only humans, but domesticated animals, who have a right to our protection. Second, I will argue that dog breeding ought to be constrained by a principle of procreative altruism, and breeding dangerous dogs violates this principle. Finally, though there is some value in preserving dog breeds, it is much less than the value of preserving species, and common objections to eliminating species don’t apply to dog breeds.