Moreover, it has become clear that the statistical evidence often marshalled to support BSL is essentially without value, a determination based upon the debilitating limitations of current methodologies of data collection and interpretation. I realize of course that Ms. Lakritz' piece is essentially anecdotal, and there is nothing wrong with anecdotes, but as I said earlier, I do believe that demands for political and legislative action ought to be founded on a higher standard of argument and information gathering. I offer some material from two sources available on the web. First, from the Humane Society of the United States, and second, and most significantly, from the recently convened American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interaction. According to experts, the answer is no.
Popular breeds come and go.
When ownership of one breed of dog is outlawed, those who want a dangerous dog simply turn to another breed. Boxers and bulldogs, for instance, may be mistaken for pit bulls. Any medium-large sized black and tan dog with a long tail may be mistakenly labeled as a German shepherd. Breed-specific legislation doesn't acknowledge the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous. The law should protect your community from any such dog.