Published on
Christy Hoffmann*
I. Introduction
Sergeant Stubby, once the “most famous animal in the United States,” was the first dog to receive an army rank and is the most decorated dog in U.S. military history.[1] Upon his death, Sgt. Stubby received an obituary from the New York Times describing his valor in World War I, as well as accolades from three U.S. presidents and several countries.[2] He is now on display at the Smithsonian’s American History Museum and has been the subject of several books and movies.[3] When thinking of this all-American, beloved dog, what breed comes to mind? Consistent American favorites like the Labrador or golden retriever?[4] Or the German shepherd, popularized as police dogs in the 1950s?[5] No, Sgt. Stubby was a pit bull mix, a breed now banned from private housing on “all major military bases” and in many U.S. communities.[6]
These bans, called “Breed-Specific Legislation” (“BSL”), most commonly target bull terriers (including American pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers, bull terriers, and mixes with bull terrier characteristics), but also target rottweilers, chow chows, German shepherds, and Doberman pinschers.[7] BSL is subject to immense criticism from legal and animal experts and is increasingly being repealed and preempted across the United States.[8] Missouri is no stranger to BSL, despite dogged efforts for at least a decade from legislators to preempt BSL statewide.[9] At least thirty-four municipalities in Missouri have breed-specific restrictions or bans.[10] The City of Independence repealed its pit bull ban in 2023.[11] Springfield did the same in 2018, but pit bulls are still the only dog breed required to be registered with the city.[12]
Part II gives a brief overview and history of breed-specific legislation. Part III discusses three main critiques of BSL and discusses their veracity. Part IV advocates for breed-neutral legislation in Missouri.
II. Breed-Specific Legislation
Breed-specific legislation includes both full bans on certain breeds of dogs, as well as restrictions for specified breeds.[13] Bans are more straightforward—they prohibit ownership or possession of particular breeds or dogs presumed to be part of those breeds.[14] Restrictions vary from special registration requirements and/or costs, training certification, liability insurance, and sterilization up to confinement or muzzling.[15] Violation of bans or restrictions often leads to euthanasia of the dog.[16] While dogs have been deeply entwined in American culture, BSL did not appear in the U.S. legal system until the 1980s.[17] By 2014, as many as 26 counties and 860 municipalities in the U.S. adopted some form of BSL, although the 2010s marked a shift towards breed-neutral legislation.[18] Breed-neutral legislation defines and regulates dangerous behavior applicable to all dog breeds.[19]
III. Pitfalls of BSL
Critiques of BSL fall into three categories: it fails to improve public safety, it results in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and it is an inefficient use of public resources.
A. Public Safety
While public safety is often touted as necessitating BSL, many studies show that BSL has no impact on public safety.[20] A 2014 literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association noted that the dogs “highly represented in biting incidents” were German shepherds, rottweilers, Jack Russell terriers, chow chows, spaniels, collies, Saint Bernards, Labrador retrievers, “pitt [sic] bull type,” and mixed breeds.[21] Several of these dogs (Jack Russell terriers, spaniels, Saint Bernards, and Labrador retrievers) are rarely regulated by BSL.[22] One study compared medical records for dog bite-related emergency visits in areas with and without BSL in Missouri, and it found “no statistically significant differences in injury rates.”[23] Studies performed in Europe also found no connection with public safety and BSL.[24]
BSL frequently is enacted following a specific attack or a “wave of irresponsible dog ownership in a community” that is often highly sensationalized in the media.[25] DogsBite.org, a major proponent of BSL, focuses extensively on fatal dog bites, but the statistics of fatal dog bites do not support this concern: “each of the following are more likely to kill an American than dog bites: lightning, forklifts, cows, front porch steps, kitchen utensils, bathtubs, strollers, stoves, coffee table corners, Christmas trees, slippers or balloons.”[26] The persistence of BSL reveals a regulatory framework rooted in sensationalism and assumptions rather than a legitimate public safety strategy.
B. Arbitrary and Discriminatory Enforcement
BSL, especially when directed at pit bulls, is rife with vague classifications that make consistent enforcement difficult, if not impossible. The majority of BSL includes dogs that might be a mix of pit bull breeds, or that have physical characteristics appearing similar to pit bull breeds.[27] This raises questions about the ability of the complaining public or local authorities to correctly identify the breed of the dog they are concerned about, as studies show that even animal shelter employees struggle to correctly identify breeds.[28] As one kennel manager described, “The way a lot of these laws are written, pit bulls are whatever they say they are . . . and for most people it just means big, nasty, scary dog that bites.”[29] Additionally, as Pitbull sentiment has shifted positively,[30] some municipalities, like Carthage, Missouri, have not repealed BSL but reportedly do not enforce it consistently.[31]
Scholar Ann Linder notes that BSL may have a more insidious motive as a new form of redlining.[32] Despite their all-American reputation in the early twentieth century, pitbulls were “swept up” into the anti-Black and anti-Latinx sentiment during and following the war on drugs.[33] This included negative media portrayals as well as a series of negative court decisions that relied on incorrect or misapplied evidence.[34] Professor Erin Tarver described this relationship as a “metonymic feedback loop . . . between pitbulls, Blackness, and the perception of criminality.”[35] This relationship in connection to housing was overt in the media coverage following the arrest of celebrity NFL quarterback Michael Vick for dogfighting.[36] A neighbor told a reporter, “They move out of the ghetto, but the ghetto is still in them,” in response to Vick’s arrest.[37] These racialized associations transform breed restrictions into a proxy for exclusion rather than animal regulation. Using a disparate impact theory under the Fair Housing Act, impacted owners could bring housing discrimination suits against counties or municipalities with BSL.[38]
C. Inefficient Use of Resources
BSL requires significant resources for enforcement, litigation, kenneling, and euthanasia. Prince George’s County, Maryland (“PGC”) ended their pit bull ban in 2025, with a county council member noting that enforcement cost PGC around $3 million per year and $100 million across the lifetime of the ban.[39] While not all jurisdictions’ cost will total that high (as PGC has a population higher than that of six U.S. states),[40] costs are still notable. For example, 1,667 pit bulls were euthanized following BSL violations in a two-year span in Denver. It typically costs around $100 to euthanize a dog, although some organizations have increased fees for “behavioral euthanasia” and for dogs over a certain weight threshold.[41] With no additional fees for behavior or weight, this would have cost the city around $16,670 during those two years. When considered alongside the ineffectiveness and arbitrary nature of breed-specific legislation, these examples illustrate the unnecessary waste BSL produces.
IV. Model Legislative Framework for Missouri
Missouri should adopt a statewide preemption of BSL and provide guidelines for local jurisdictions to adopt breed-neutral regulations. As recently as 2023, bills to this effect have been unsuccessfully proposed in the Missouri Legislature.[42] Local ordinances should take a two-pronged approach: responsible pet ownership and dangerous dog behavior regulation.
Responsible pet ownership should include: prohibitions on chaining and tethering for more than one hour, which “significantly reduced fighting and cruelty complaints” in Lawrence, Kansas; enacting and enforcing leash laws; as well as civil liability for dog owners in the case of “unjustified injuries or damage” caused by their dog.[43] When adopting breed-neutral codes or ordinances based on dangerous behavior, the focus should be on defining dangerous behavior, including procedure for determining a dog to be “dangerous.”[44] Some states’ dangerous behavior categorizations include: animal fighting, unprovoked bites resulting in injury, and causing severe injury or death to a domestic animal.[45] This procedure should be rooted in “stated, measurable actions.”[46] Georgia, for example, requires an investigation into an allegedly dangerous dog, notice of determination to the owner (including a summary of the investigation), the right of the owner to request a hearing to contest the determination, and notice of the judicial determination and any dates of further action such as euthanasia.[47] Adopting this two pronged-approach would ensure that Missouri is in line with evidence on both effective prevention and management of dog-based injuries.
V. Conclusion
If Sgt. Stubby were to have come home to the U.S. in 2026, there would be several areas in Missouri where he could not reside or where he would be subject to restrictions. Missouri should join the growing number of jurisdictions that have recognized the failures of BSL and move toward an evidence‑based, breed‑neutral framework. A statewide preemption of BSL, paired with clear standards for responsible ownership and behavior‑based regulation, would align Missouri’s laws with contemporary research, enhance public safety, reduce unnecessary expenditure, and ensure that dog regulation is consistent and fair. This is a framework that Sgt. Stubby would surely salute.
* B.A., International Cultural Studies, BYU-Hawai‘i, 2012; M.A., English, University of Oregon, 2016; J.D. Candidate, University of Missouri School of Law, 2026; Associate Editor, Missouri Law Review, 2025-26. Many thanks to the members of the Missouri Law Review for their suggestions and improvements.
[1] Gillian Kane, Sergeant Stubby, Slate (May 7, 2014, 11:53 PM), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/05/dogs-of-war-sergeant-stubby-the-u-s-armys-original-and-still-most-highly-decorated-canine-soldier.html.
[2] Stubby of A.E.F. Enters Valhalla, N.Y. Times, Apr. 4, 1926, reprinted in Conn. Mil. Dep’t, Stubby’s Obituary, https://portal.ct.gov/MIL/MAPO/History/People/Stubbys-Obituary (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[3] Kathleen Golden, Stubby: Dog, Hoya Mascot, and War Hero, Nat’l Museum of Am. History (May 23, 2011), https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/stories/stubby-dog-hoya-mascot-and-war-hero.
[4] Most Popular Dog Breeds, Am. Kennel Club, https://www.akc.org/most-popular-breeds/ (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[5] The History of K9s in Law Enforcement, Project Paws Alive, https://ppak9.org/blog/the-history-of-k9s-in-law-enforcement/ (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[6] Bronwen Dickey, Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon 19 (2016).
[7] Charlotte A. Walden, Overview of Breed Specific Legislation Ordinances, Animal Legal & Hist. Ctr. (2012), https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-breed-specific-legislation-bsl-ordinances.
[8] Am. Bar Ass’n, Tort Trial and Ins. Prac. Section, Resolution 100 (2012), https://www.animallawconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2012-ABA-Due-Process-Breed-100.pdf (“[T]he American Bar Association urges all state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, and to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions.”); Gov. Rel. Dept., American Kennel Club, Why Breed Specific Legislation Doesn’t Work: An Analysis of Dangerous Dog Policy 2 (2020) (“The American Kennel Club strongly opposed any legislation that determines a dog to be ‘dangerous’ based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.”); BSL Continues to Crumble, Pitbull Hero, https://www.pitbullhero.org/bsl-continues-to-crumble (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[9] Bill Draper, Attitudes and Laws Against Pit Bulls Soften, Associated Press (Mar. 11, 2014), https://apnews.com/general-news-pets-4e98e194b15040cfb9dc84a93596c14a; Missouri: Help Keep Pets and People Together, ASPCA (May 13, 2022), https://secure.aspca.org/action/mo-ban-bsl.
[10] Missouri, U.S. Breed-Specific Legislation Database, https://bsldb.app/ (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[11] Independence City Council Repeals Pit Bull Ban, City of Independence, Mo. (Jun. 5, 2023), https://www.independencemo.gov/news/city-independence-council-votes-repeal-pit-bull-ban-60-days-update-aggressivedangerous-dog-ordinances.
[12] Leigh Moody, Leigh’s Lost and Found: Clearing Up Confusion about Springfield’s Pit Bull Ordinance, KY3 News (Sep. 25, 2023), https://www.ky3.com/2023/09/25/leighs-lost-found-clearing-up-confusion-about-springfields-pit-bull-ordinance/ (detailing the annual registration with a $50 fee, alongside microchipping, neutering, and vaccination requirements for pit bulls and mixes “with a predominance of [pitbull] characteristics.”).
[13] Grant M. Barnhard, Note, Breed-Specific Legislation: The Pitfalls of Pit Bull Prohibitions, 4 Mid-Atl. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 59, 65 (2019).
[14] Id.
[15] Id.; Breed-Specific Legislation FAQs, Nat’l Canine Rsch. Council, https://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/breedspecificlegislation/ (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[16] See Barnhard, supra note 13, at 93; Breed-Specific Legislation FAQs, supra note 15.
[17] Barnhard, supra note 13, at 67.
[18] Id.; AKC Staff, Issue Analysis: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Doesn’t Work, Am Kennel Club (Nov 15, 2017), https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/issue-analysis-breed-specific-legislation/.
[19] AKC Staff, supra note 18.
[20] Breed-Specific Legislation, Am. Kennel Club, https://images.akc.org/pdf/canine_legislation/toolbox_bsl.pdf (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[21] Literature Review on the Welfare Implications of the Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention, Am. Veterinary Med. Ass’n (May 15, 2014) https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf.
[22] Walden, supra note 7.
[23] Brett Wyker & Maya Gupta, Emergency Department Visits for Dog Bite Injuries in Missouri Municipalities with and Without Breed-Specific Legislation: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis, 12 Frontiers Pub. Health (2024), https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1354698/full.
[24] See, e.g., Nanci Creedon&Páraic S Ó’Súilleabháin, Dog Bite Injuries to Humans and the Use of Breed-Specific Legislation: A Comparison of Bites from Legislated and Non-Legislated Dog Breeds,70 Irish Veterinary J.(2017), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1; L. Maragliano et al., Biting dogs in Rome (Italy),53 Int. J. Pest Mgmt.239 (2007).
[25] Breed-Specific Legislation, supra note 20; Michael Tesler & Mary McThomas, How Changing Portraits and Opinion of “Pit Bulls” Undermined Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States, 15 Animals 2083, 2084 (2025), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12291974/pdf/animals-15-02083.pdf; Barnhard, supra note 13, at 64.
[26] Barnhard, supra note 13, at 64.
[27] Tesler & McThomas, supra note 25, at 2085–86.
[28] Id. at 2086.
[29] Malcolm Gladwell, Troublemakers, New Yorker (Jan. 30, 2006), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/06/troublemakers-malcolm-gladwell.
[30] Tesler & McThomas, supra note 25, at 2086.
[31] Breana Parker, Facebook, When I called [Carthage City] two years back, they said yes there is still technically a [pitbull] ban but they will not bug you unless they get complaints about behavior (Feb. 15, 2025).
[32] Ann Linder, The Black Man’s Dog: The Social Context of Breed Specific Legislation, 25 Animal L. Rev. 51, 52 (2018).
[33] Id. at 56.
[34] Judy Cohen & John Richardson, Pit Bull Panic, 36 J. Popular Culture 285, 286–288 (2002); State v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St. 3d 168, 171–74 (Ohio 1991); Hearn v. Overland Park, 244 Kan. 638, 643 (Kan., 1989); State v. Peters, 534 So. 2 760 (Fla. App. 1988); Vanater v. South Point, 717 F.Supp. 1236 (D. Ohio 1989); Singer v. Cincinnati, 56 Ohio App 3d 1, 3 (Ohio App. 1 Dist., 1990); Bronwyn Dickey, supra note 6, at 189 (“the lack of a scientific foundation for the claims made about pit bulls . . . in courts of law is deeply disturbing.”).
[35] Erin Tarver, The Dangerous Individual(‘s) Dog: Race, Criminality and the ‘Pit Bull’, 55 Culture, Theory and Critique 273, 282 (2013).
[36] Id. at 274.
[37] Linder, supra note 32, at 57.
[38] Linder, supra note 32, at 66–70.
[39] John Domen, Prince George’s County Council Passes Bill Ending Pit Bull Ban, Wraps Up Session, WTOP News (Nov. 18, 2025), https://marylandmatters.org/2025/11/18/prince-georges-county-council-passes-bill-ending-pit-bull-ban-wraps-up-session/.
[40] Prince George’s Cnty., Md., Prince George’s County Profile XV (2014), https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/sites/default/files/media-document/County%20Profile.pdf (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[41] See, e.g., Euthanasia, Humane Soc’y of W. Mich., https://www.hswestmi.org/euthanasia.html (last visited Mar. 12, 2026). For predicted fiscal impact by city or county across the U.S., see Best Friends Breed-Discriminatory Legislation (BDL/BSL) Fiscal Impact, Best Friends Animal Soc’y, https://bestfriends.guerrillaeconomics.net/ (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[42] H.B. 296, 102nd Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2023).
[43] Position Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation, ASPCA, https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-breed-specific-legislation (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[44] ACK Staff, supra note 18.
[45] Charlotte Walden, Brief Overview of Dangerous Dog Laws, Animal Legal & Hist. Ctr. (2015) https://www.animallaw.info/article/brief-overview-dangerous-dog-laws (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
[46] ACK Staff, supra note 18.
[47] Ga. Code Ann. § 4-8-23 (2024).