Breed-Specific Legislation is highly controversial due the law having many misinterpretations and misconceptions. There are two parts in the legislation which could be interpreted which is either to call BSL a ban, or a restriction. BSL is effective if it’s referring only to the proper attention required by the owner who owns an aggressive breed. For instance, according to AVMA, in California and many other states, they do permit the possession of any of the dogs listed in the legislation. However, it is the dog owner’s legal duty of care the law includes that “the guardian responsible for these damages may be accountable of the victim's own medical bills, out-of-pocket expenses for medications, torn clothing, and other personal property damaged during a dog attack.” Additionally, in cases of a dog-on-dog aggression, damages can also include “reimbursement for veterinary bills, dog medications, and even kennel fees while the dog is recovering.” Passing this law is vital for all societies to promote the responsibilities of owning a dog especially if they are considered more aggressive. …show more content…
The other perspective of BSL that many have come to believe is that the law only bans dogs to solve the issue. For example, to look further in the history of breed-specific legislation, the most controversial pit bull ban was enacted by the City Council of Denver in 1989. The law states that, “Under Denver’s Ordinance Section 8-55, pit bull breeds (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, or Staffordshire bull terrier) are banned in the City and County of Denver” (Campbell). However, this is not what BSL is today in most states and should never be about banning