Breed specific legislation is a blanket term for legislation which bans or places restriction on specific breeds or types of dogs. There is no evidence that breed specific legislation makes communities safer for humans or other animals. Decades of data have clearly demonstrated that legislation targeting specific breeds of dogs does not reduce incidents of dog bites.

In addition to the lack of scientific evidence linking specific breeds to risk of aggression, research has demonstrated that determining dog breeds based on appearance is inaccurate and unreliable, even when performed by experts such as shelter workers, veterinarians and dog control officers.

New Zealand’s Dog Control Act 1996 contains an example of breed specific legislation. Under the Dog Control Act (1996), a dog may be classified as ‘menacing’ due to their breed or type, as assessed based on visual assessment of the dog’s physical characteristics. Canine DNA tests are currently unable to accurately distinguish between Dog Control Act 1996 Schedule 4 breeds and types and other dogs.

Breed specific legislation can have significant ongoing negative impacts on the lives of dogs and people and, in some cases, can lead to the unnecessary killing of dogs based solely on their appearance, not behaviour.

SPCA advocates that dogs are classified as menacing or dangerous based on their behaviour, not their appearance.

It is well established that any type of dog can pose a risk to human safety.

SPCA supports legislation which places the responsibility on the owner to properly train and manage their dog’s behaviour as a key component of responsible ownership.

We support evidence-based solutions which focus on prevention and early intervention to target the root cause of dog attacks to increase public safety, safeguard animal welfare and support the human-animal bond.