Posted on March 24, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

Ohio's Weak Dangerous Dog Laws: 4-Part Investigation by Collaboration of News Organizations

New Legislation is Already Being Crafted

A stunning and powerful 4-part investigation into Ohio's weak dangerous dog laws.

Part 1: Dog Laws Fail Victims
Columbus, OH - In early March, a 4-part investigation was published by a collaboration of news agencies after a 9-month investigation of Ohio's dangerous dog attacks and weak state laws. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Columbus Dispatch, Akron Beacon Journal and Canton Repository all participated: "We interviewed nearly 60 victims, family members, lawyers, pediatricians, dog wardens, lawmakers and others and submitted more than 50 public records requests to agencies across the state."

Governor DeWine said in response, he has "every confidence this legislature" will take this up "because the story was very compelling."

The interviews and records revealed that state law does not mandate euthanasia of a vicious dog until it kills a second human, and even after severe maulings, dog owners typically pay a fine that is akin to a traffic ticket. Their legal team also sued the Village of Ashville in the Ohio Court of Claims to apply pressure to the police department to release bodycam footage of officers responding to the fatal attack of Jo Ann Echelbarger, 73, last October. This is why the public has access to the video.

Part 1 summarizes the multitude of failures leading up to the fatal mauling of Echelbarger. The two pit bulls involved, Apollo and Echo, had a history of attacks, Apollo had been declared "dangerous" a year earlier, and the condo association had obtained a court order forcing the removal of both dogs six weeks before the attack, but never enforced it. For three months beforehand, the Withers' front door deadlock was stuffed with a white rag, rendering the door useless in keeping the dogs confined.

As Echelbarger bent down to work in her flower bed, the two dogs exited the Withers' home and viciously attacked her. The dogs tore off her scalp and broke her neck as her husband, who has Parkinson's disease, watched behind a screen door, unable to help. In February, the dogs' owners, Adam and his mother Susan Withers, were convicted of felony involuntary manslaughter. Both had been locked up in the Pickaway County Jail since October 31, each held on a $500,000 bond.

Part 1 introduces other parts of the series. It examines the attacks of Michael Palmer, Eva Simons, Amriel Wilkinson and Avery Russell; each are part of the video segment. Part 1 also addresses the 2014 fatal mauling of Klonda Richey -- another case with a multitude of failures. Klonda had filed 13 complaints with animal control and made 46 calls to a dispatch center about her neighbor's dogs before they killed her. Legislative reforms have been introduced since, but none have succeeded.

Amputation, Measly Pay Out

In 2022, Eva Simons, 66, was attacked by three pit bulls when she stopped her bike after getting a flat tire in Vinton County. She tried to fend them off to no avail. "I made a decision while it was happening. In order to save the rest of me, I just had to let them have the leg," Simons said. The day after the attack, the dog owners went trick-or-treating while surgeons cut off her leg. "That was painful to know,” she said. “While I was still fighting for my life in the hospital, they just went on with their life."

She estimates her medical bills, most of which were covered by insurance, came close to $1 million. The owner of the dogs paid $682 in fines and court costs. Simons sued the landlord who rented the home to the dog owners. She was successful in her pursuit, but the insurance policy capped liability coverage at $100,000. After attorney’s fees and paying back some medical bills, she was left with $46,000. "This is the only compensation I have received for the loss of my left leg," Simons said.

Other than a small fine, there was no accountability, she said. "There was nothing stopping them from getting another pack of dogs and doing the same thing." What Simons is referring to is the "vicious dog owner loop." After a grisly attack, the dog owner puts the dog down, acquires a new dog and the process starts all over again. The only way to break the loop after a damaging attack is to increase penalties for repeat offenders and ban them from owning or harboring dogs after multiple violations.

Some of the Ohio victims and their family members plan on talking to state lawmakers about reforming dangerous dog laws. They seek a felony dog attack law and euthanasia for dogs after their first serious attack. Avery's mother, Drew Russell, hired Columbus attorney Bill Patmon III for this pursuit, whose father years ago sponsored the bill to make animal cruelty a felony. Russell said that if we don't try to affect some kind of change, the suffering will continue. "It’s just going to keep happening."

Part 2 - The Story of Avery Russell

The video segment in part 2 depicts the story of Avery Russell from the moment the Reynoldsburg police arrive at the scene on June 11, 2024, through her heartbreaking process of recovery. When her mother Drew Russell arrived at the trauma unit after the attack, she said, "Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw." Avery's face was described as looking like "ground hamburger" after two pit bulls destroyed it. The doctors sewed her face back together. Avery still needs new ears and a new nose.

On the day of the attack, Drew dropped Avery off in the morning at Kiera's house, a classmate, then headed to work. Kiera's mother, Jessica Henry, called Drew that afternoon to tell her she was taking the girls to her cousin’s house in Reynoldsburg. Drew did not know there were four pit bulls at the home, nor did she know that two of Henry's children had been bitten by these dogs, including a bite to the face, less than a year earlier. One of the two pit bulls that attacked Avery is still alive.

Currently, under Ohio's dangerous dog laws, euthanizing a dog is not mandated until its killed a second persion. "That's crazy," Drew said.

Drew had to close her nail salon so she could devote all of her time to care for Avery. There is an endless stream of medical appointments, including physical, occupational, speech, and trauma. Avery is working towards regaining her basketball skills too. She still faces years of surgical procedures, medical treatments and rehabilitation. Avery is currently 11 years old. Her mother hopes she'll look "somewhat normal" by the time high school starts, "because that's when kids get the meanest."

Back in 2014, the same year Klonda Richey was killed by her neighbor's dogs, 6-year old Zainabou Drame suffered "unimaginable" injuries after being attacked by two pit bulls. The dogs ripped off her jaw, most of her teeth and tongue. Her attack brought the Cincinnati area to their knees and came two years after Ohio lawmakers repealed the state law that declared pit bulls "vicious," and replaced it with a convoluted, weak law, with the intent to de-regulate pit bulls, which remains law today.

Part 3 - The Story of Michael Palmer

Michael Palmer was attacked by his neighbor's pit bull when he visited her home in December 2022. He said that after she invited him in, he opened the screen door and the dog flew at him. The dog tore off his ears, thumbs, and index finger and part of this nose. In the video, a deputy is seen in the snow-covered yard trying to reach him. The pit bull is actively attacking Palmer when the deputy open fires on the dog, sending it scurrying away. The dog, "Piper," had previously attacked two other people.

Palmer spent nearly three months in hospitals undergoing multiple surgeries. He faces more in the future. He only has limited use of his hands now. He can't work as a machinist, play guitar or grasp small items. Currently, Palmer is suing the landlord, Kenneth Grable, alleging he had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities but failed to take any action. Grable is the landlord of both Palmer and the dog's owner, Wendy Trippet. A jury trial is forthcoming in Summit County Common Pleas Court.1

The video segment shows Palmer holding up his hands. Large knobs are seen in place of his thumbs, and his right hand only has three fingers.

Palmer had initially sued Trippet too, but she was dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice. Neither she nor Grable have liability insurance. Thus far, Grable is representing himself. He said he doesn't understand how he can be culpable. "How can somebody be guilty of something I had nothing to do with?" he asked. But dogbitelaw.com notes that in Ohio, “[A] harborer is one who has possession and control of the premises where the dog lives and silently acquiesces to the dog’s presence.”

Palmer said he doesn't like going out in public. "I go to stores and people stare," he said. He prefers to go out at night, when his injuries are less visible. He also suffers panic attacks when he hears keys and coins rattling, sounds that mimic a dog chain (Piper was also kept on a chain in Trippet's yard). "I see shadows of dogs all the time," he added. Palmer has been living with his mother in Lakemore since the attack, but she has a 180-pound rottweiler. Palmer said he often sleeps on friends' couches.

Part 4 - Dog Wardens Want Harsher Penalties

The last part hears the perspective of dog wardens. Reporters interview Licking County Chief Dog Warden Larry Williams and Assistant Dog Warden Jeremy Grant. In the video, Williams states, "We are a creature of statute." Dog wardens have police authority within the 955 statute pertaining to Ohio's dog laws, such as dogs at large, licensing and designations. Wardens can also be armed. Grant carries a firearm, taser and handcuffs and wears a vest. In his 11-year career, he's been shot at twice.

One of the duties of a warden is to follow up on owners of dogs declared "dangerous." The owner must muzzle the dog when off-property, post a visible warning sign, and buy an annual dangerous dog tag. The dangerous designation can be assigned after an unprovoked attack on a person or killing a pet dog. But not all dog wardens are the same. As seen in the Echelbarger case, Pickaway County Dog Warden Preston Schumacher has been sued by her estate for misconduct and failure of duty.

The Warden's Office and the Dog Warden "knew that the Withers' front door deadlock was stuffed with a white rag since at least July 2024, rendering the door useless in keeping Apollo and Echo confined," and "knew the Withers repeatedly, serially" and publicly flouted the dangerous dog requirements, states the lawsuit.

"Indeed, the Warden's Office and Dog Wardens were so utterly incompetent that when they attempted to bring charges against the Withers, they did so under the wrong revised code sections and failed to submit evidence, resulting in the dismissal and release of the dogs into The Reserve months prior to Jo Ann's death." 2

The Ohio County Dog Wardens Association (OCDWA) has a "wish list" for state law changes, including: establish statewide training standards for wardens; clarify the police powers of wardens; increase penalties for attacks causing serious injuries; require euthanasia of dogs deemed vicious; create a statewide database of dangerous dog designations and persons convicted of animal abuse; provide state funding for dog shelters; and require shelters to spay and neuter dogs before adoption.

Ohio Legislative Session

Legislators in Ohio begin their session in early January and it runs through December 31. Only a handful states have a 12-month legislative cycle each year. Sessions in most states end in May. This means that bills move more slowly in Ohio. There are no filing deadlines or chamber cross over deadlines either -- both help funnel promising bills towards the finish line. However, there's no better funnel than a mandate by the governor to prioritize certain legislation, as DeWine recently did.

Governor DeWine, who took office in 2019, is term-limiting out in 2026. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is running for governor in 2026. "Your pet choice is not as important as the lives of the people that have been attacked. I’m for treating this as a serious criminal offense," Yost told the Columbus Dispatch. Yost believes criminal penalties could be crafted that are similar to motor vehicle laws, such as serious injury and involuntary manslaughter statutes that apply to reckless vehicle operators.3

Legislation Background

The dangerous dog law that exists in Ohio today was drafted by an out-of-state animal rights PAC, whose mission was 2-fold: repeal the state law declaring pit bulls "vicious" and make it nearly impossible for prosecutors to pursue felony charges after a vicious attack. HB 14 was promoted as a bill that would “finally give dog wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs.” It went into effect May 2012. By May 2014, three months after Klonda was killed, it became clear the bill was a sham.

"For instance, in Ohio, documents obtained through a public records request show that Best Friends drafted the legislation that altered Ohio’s Dangerous Dog statue in 2012. The bill written by Best Friends was sold to members of the Ohio Legislature as 'finally giving dog wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs.' In reality the law de-regulated pit bulls (the intent of the writers) and set up unworkable procedures that protected dangerous dogs and their irresponsible owners."4

But it gets worse. At the time of Klonda's death, Mark Kumpf was the Montgomery County Dog Warden. Klonda's estate sued Kumpf and Montgomery County afterward for his "willful disregard for his statutory duties." Not only was there a laundry list of complaints by Klonda about her neighbor’s dogs leading up to her death, of which Kumpf took no action upon, we learned during the litigation that Kumpf and his department destroyed key evidence. The case was settled for $3.5 million dollars.

Thus, in just a two-year time span, the defective bill, HB 14, falsely promoted as a way to "finally give dog wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs," and strongly supported by Dog Warden Mark Kumpf, the true colors of the sham bill and Kumpf's negligence became known. By May of 2014, a revised dangerous dog bill was introduced to overcome the deficiencies of HB 14 because it lacked legal tools for prosecutors to bring felony charges against the owners of the dogs that killed Klonda.

In the investigation by news agencies about Ohio's weak dog laws, Matt Granito, the Geauga County Dog Warden, states, "We’re tired of seeing these kids get torn up, and then just saying, well, we gotta wait. We gotta wait and when it gets loose again, we can do something ... We got to get them in court on the first bite and say 'what are you going to do to fix this problem?'" That is a far cry from what Granito testified to in 2011, standing beside Kumpf, that HB 14 would ensure "community safety."

Summary

The 4-part investigation by a collaboration of Ohio news agencies is illustrative, informative and urgent. Legislation attempts to fix the defective 2012 law began in earnest in 2014 and lasted through 2019. Key items in these bills are similar to what victims seek today, including: felony charges for owners of dogs after certain attacks, euthanasia for dogs after a first violent attack, establishing a registry for dangerous dogs and establishing requirements for the training of dog wardens.

The violence of the attacks profiled in this investigation are reinforced by the police bodycam videos -- an attack cannot be depicted with more urgency. The permanence of their injuries was also profiled up close. Each victim sustained lifelong injuries and civil recourse was absent, poor or undisclosed. Both Palmer and Amriel's huge medical bills were paid by Ohio Medicaid -- taxpayers. Amriel is the only victim thus far who likely secured a meaningful settlement from the dog owner's insurance company.

Governor DeWine is correct to say, "We clearly have to do something. We have to hold people more accountable." The remarks from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who is running for governor in 2026, are also promising. “I’m for treating this as a serious criminal offense," Yost said, just like we hold "people accountable for what happens to their cars." Ohio should join the 16 other states that have a felony dog attack law that does not require the dog to be legally "classified" beforehand.

In front of this officer are four things: a bloody canine homicide scene; a horrifically mauled woman, including the back of her scalp being ripped off from ear to ear; the active pit bull culprit; and a husband screaming behind a screen door, "That's my wife!" When the officer finally did fire on the attacking dog, it took 5 bullets to kill it. Watch the bodycam video.

1As of March 19, 2025, Grable had engaged in defense counsel, and Wendy Trippett was back in the lawsuit -- Michael Palmer v. Wendy Trippett, et al, Case No. CV-2023-05-1404, Summit County Court of Common Pleas (clerkweb.summitoh.net)
2Estate of Jo Ann Echelbarger v. Withers, The Reserve at Ashton Village, et al., Case No. 2025CI0064, Common Pleas Court Pickaway County, March 12, 2025 (eservices.pickawaycountycourts.com)
3The last legislation introduced came from Rep. Niraj Antani (R-Miamisburg). In 2019, while talking about his legislation, Antani said, "I believe that if a person attacks you and injures you or kills you it is a felony, it should be no different for a dog. It should be no different than vehicular manslaughter."
4What To Expect If Your Community Is Discussing Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL), Edition 1, May 15, 2016 (daxtonsfriends.com)

Posted on March 24, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

The "Vicious Dog Owner Loop" – Explained Simply

Dogbitelaw.com - Most laws do not count multiple dog bites from different dogs in the same home as a serious problem. This creates a loophole that lets irresponsible owners keep getting new dogs after each attack. Here’s how it works:

Vicious Dog Owner Loop

If one owner has three dogs, and each dog bites a different person, the law sees this as:
- ✅ One bite per dog (Not a repeat offense).
- ❌ Not one owner responsible for three bites.
- ❌ Not one dangerous dog with multiple attacks.
Each dog is judged separately. Even if all three dogs are declared dangerous, the owner can:
- ✅ Put them down and get three new dogs.
- ✅ Start fresh with "clean slate" dogs.
No serious penalties means no reason for the owner to change. The cycle repeats over and over.

This "vicious dog owner loop" allows reckless dog owners to avoid responsibility while their dogs keep biting people. This is intolerable!

How to Break the Loop

To stop this cycle, we need stronger laws:

Create a national registry of irresponsible dog owners—people convicted of animal control violations or who have paid settlements or court judgments for dog attacks.
Require higher liability insurance for dog owners with a history of attacks.
Increase penalties for repeat offenders to compensate victims more fairly.
Ban repeat offenders from owning or harboring dogs after multiple violations.

Stronger laws will hold irresponsible owners accountable and protect the public from preventable attacks.

The "Vicious Dog Owner Loop" terminology and definition was written by dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com. This longstanding loophole is part of his model Irresponsible Dog Owner law. As a wonderful courtesy, we have permission from Phillips to publish this portion on our website.

Many dog attack victims experience this loophole firsthand. Most of them are shaken by it. The definition provided by Phillips helps victims understand how the law sees one or more biting dogs in the same household. Phillips also provides legal solutions about how to break this cycle. Remember, if there are no serious penalties, there is no reason for the dog owner to change. Fines equivalent to a "parking ticket" are unacceptable. As Phillips outlines in his model law, $500 is the first tier fine.

Our first encounter with this issue was in 2008 when we read about the Cordova family in Buffalo, New York. The title of the article is: Four dogs from one family have bitten others in last three years. What the victims of the Cordova dogs experienced is a mixture of weak dangerous dog laws and this loophole. Back then, the legal officer of the city said she would like to see the existing law revised because she believes it fails to penalize dog owners for their "collective dog-biting offenses."

“The law only applies to owners and doesn’t look at it in terms of households,” said Lukasiewicz. “Under the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, a determination is made whether that particular dog involved is dangerous, and the law doesn’t look collectively at all the dogs involved. That’s how the law is written.” - City Corporation Counsel Alisa A. Lukasiewicz

But the law in Buffalo did not change, and the first tier fine for an off leash violation is still $15. In fact, the municipal code for Article IV Control of Dogs literally says, "Allegations of violation of this article shall be adjudicated in the Parking Violations Bureau of the City of Buffalo." The Cordova family had five biting incidents, one being trauma-unit severity, involving separate dogs from their home in a few year period. None of the dogs had more than one bite attributed to it when the article was published.

Posted on March 10, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

Report: Countries Worldwide that Restrict Dangerous Dog Breeds

Report Shows a "Universal Set of Dangerous Dog Breeds."

The most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by countries.

View Worldwide Report
DogsBite.org - Starting in 2011, we began maintaining an estimate of breed restriction laws in the United States, including dangerous dog policies governing military housing and policies on Indian reservations. Currently, we maintain model and noted breed restriction laws to provide guidance to jurisdictions who are researching legislative solutions to prevent severe and fatal mauling injuries inflicted by dog breeds with well-identified risks, chiefly pit bulls and their bull breed derivatives.

This year, we are focusing on a global stage by reviewing the number of countries worldwide that restrict dangerous dog breeds, the breeds and restrictions involved, and the density of populations affected by these laws. We estimate that nearly 5 billion people are familiar with or directly affected by these laws across the 6 regions of the world. Many foreign governments recognize that certain dog breeds present an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of citizens and domesticated animals.

Methodology

Over the last 14 months, we gathered news reports of breed restrictions by government bodies worldwide, as well as pet passport and travel applications. We examined importation guidance and requirements issued by government ministries of environment, agriculture, veterinary and health; entry requirements from embassy websites; and country-level laws, statues, and directives. We also examined peer-reviewed studies with references to country-level dangerous dog breed laws.

For our analysis, we divided the world into 6 regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America & Caribbean, North America, and Oceania. We specified countries with local or national-level breed restrictions, the breeds and controls involved, and if known, the year the national law was enacted. We also specified if a country was a dependency or territory of a sovereign state to identify mutual laws. Greenland, for instance, is an autonomous territory of Denmark that shares Denmark's breed restriction law.

We obtained population data for the world, each region, subregion, country and dependency from WorldOMeter.1 Because population data is continuously updating, we locked down on a data set from November 1, 2024. We calculated the population of 84 countries and dependencies with a local (10) or national-level (74) breed restriction. We also calculated the prevalence (per 1,000 population) of people governed by a national-level dangerous dog breed law within each of the 6 world regions.

To track breed types, we divided the restricted breeds into 7 broad categories: pit bull breeds, mastiff/fighting breeds, rottweiler breed, livestock guardian breeds, northern/spitz breeds, pinscher breeds, and other breeds. We standardized breed name spellings when possible due to language differences. We also retained multiple names for clarity when necessary. For instance, "Boerboel" is always listed as "Boerboel (South African Mastiff)." We identified over 125 different dog breeds.2

(A full list of the 7 restricted dog breed categories is located at the bottom of this analysis.)

All Country Analysis

Jurisdictions in at least 84 countries regulate dangerous dog breeds, of which 99% include pit bull breeds, 89% mastiff/fighting breeds, 45% rottweiler breed, 35% pinscher breeds, 32% northern/spitz breeds, and 26% livestock guardian breeds. The estimated combined population of these countries is 4.99 billion. Notably, at least 21% (18) of countries, mainly in Northern Europe and parts of Asia, have adopted a new national-level breed restriction or strengthened an existing one since the pandemic.3

Of the 84 countries, 21% (18) are dependencies to varying degrees, such as an autonomous country, dependent territory, or special administrative region of a sovereign state. Some share or adhere to the dangerous dog law of the sovereign state. The population of the 18 dependencies makes up 2% of the population of the 84 countries combined. The most populated dependencies are tied to the United Kingdom and China. All 18 dependencies have a national-level law that restricts pit bull breeds.

National-Level Law Analysis

Restricting our analysis to the 74 countries with a national-level breed restriction law allows for richer findings because data for the country population, the affected population, is known. Chart 1 examines the most frequent dog breeds restricted by countries with a national-level law. Chart 2 identifies the number of countries with a national-level law restricting dangerous dog breeds by world region. Chart 3 examines the prevalence (per population 1,000) affected by a national-level law by world region.

Chart 1: Most Frequent Dangerous Dog Breeds

At least 74 countries have a national-level law that regulates dangerous dog breeds, ranging from banning the importation of certain dog breeds to restricting or prohibiting their ownership. Of these national-level laws, 100% target pit bull breeds, 91% mastiff/fighting breeds, 41% rottweiler breed, 32% pinscher breeds, 31% northern/spitz breeds, and 26% livestock guardian breeds. The estimated number of people residing in countries governed by these national laws is approximately 2.7 billion.

Most countries with a national-level law, 91%, restrict both pit bull and mastiff/fighting breeds; 38% restrict the top three breed-types: pit bull, mastiff and rottweiler. Countries that restrict livestock guardian breeds mainly reside in Europe and Asia, specifically Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Southern Asia. These regions surround Central Asia (countries ending in "stan"), which is where a variety of fierce livestock guardian breeds, still used in the blood sport of dogfighting, originate.

Chart - Most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by countries

Chart 1: Most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by countries with national-level law.

Chart 2: National-Level Laws by World Region

Breaking down national-level breed restriction laws by world region shows that most countries reside in Europe (27), followed by Asia (17), Latin America & Caribbean (13), Oceania (8), Africa (7) and North America (2) -- both countries in the North America region are dependencies.4 Of the 18 dependency countries, most are islands, 67% (12), and most reside in Europe (7), Latin America & Caribbean (3) and Oceania (3). The United Kingdom (UK) is the sovereign state of 56% (10) of these dependencies.

When the adoption year of the national-level breed restriction was known, 23% were enacted during the 1990s after the UK enacted the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which prohibited dogs bred for fighting, largely by countries residing in Northern and Eastern Europe.5 From 2000 to 2009, 48% were enacted, reaching countries in Southern and Western Europe, Western Asia and South America. From 2010 to 2025, 28% were enacted, reaching countries in Southern Asia and Northern and Eastern Africa.

Chart - National-Level Breed Restriction Laws by World Region

Chart 2: Countries with national-level law restricting dangerous dog breeds by world region.

Chart 3: Prevalence Affected by National-Level Laws

The prevalence of the population affected by a national breed restriction law (per 1,000 population) was calculated for the population of each of the 6 world regions during the period of early November 2024. For instance, of the total 1.5 billion population of the Africa region, the portion of the population governed by this law was 202.9 million. Thus, 134 people per 1,000 population in the region of Africa were governed by a national-level law that restricts dangerous dog breeds during this period.

The Oceania region had the highest prevalence with 947 people per 1,000 population governed by a national-level breed restriction law. Europe followed with 757 people per 1,000 population; Asia with 375 people per 1,000 population; Latin American & Caribbean with 158 per 1,000 population; and Africa with 134. North America was last with 0 people per 1,000 population because the United States and Canada legislate these laws on a local or state-level, such as the Province of Ontario pit bull ban.6

Chart - Prevalence affected by national-level breed restriction laws

Chart 3: Prevalence of population affected by national-level breed restriction by world region.

Discussion

The majority of people in the world -- nearly 5 billion out of 8.16 billion -- are familiar with or directly affected by a local or national-level breed restriction law throughout the 6 regions of the world. The combined population of people living in 74 countries with a national-level law is 2.7 billion, about one-third of the total world population. Government bodies in at least 84 countries agree the public requires protection from a type of dog breed that has the characteristics of being bred for fighting.

The data is clear that pit bull breeds, due to their selection for dogfighting, are the most restricted breeds worldwide. Of the 74 countries with a national-level breed restriction, 100% include pit bull breeds, primarily, the American pit bull terrier. The next tier of breeds most often restricted are fighting/mastiff breeds, of which 3 were designated in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino and Japanese Tosa. 91% of the 74 countries, restrict both fighting breed groups.

At least 24% (18 of 74) of these countries, primarily in Northern Europe and parts of Asia, adopted a new national-level breed restriction or strengthened an existing one since Covid. The UK, which includes England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, added the XL bully to their prohibition of dogs bred for fighting. Ireland, which already restricted 11 dangerous dog breeds, requiring a muzzle and leash while in public, also adopted the XL bully ban. Ireland had never banned a dog breed before.

Other countries that tightened existing restrictions post-Covid, increased penalties for owners of dangerous dog breeds and prohibited their breeding, such as South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey. Countries enacting a law for the first time, such as Mozambique and Bahrain, acted to reduce the "significant increase" in severe attacks and dogfighting. Since 2018, prior to Covid, the proliferation of dangerous dogs in the US and UK contributed to the rate of fatal dog attacks abruptly rising.

Central Asia Dogfighting

Of the regions we researched for this report, it was the areas of Anatolia and Central and South Asia, as well as the Punjab regions in Pakistan and India, that captured our attention the most. These regions are the origins of multiple fierce livestock guardian breeds. Many Americans are unaware of these lion-sized ancient breeds like the Kangal Shepherd Dog, which is part of Turkey's national heritage, and the Central Asian Shepherd Dog (Ovcharka). Both dog breeds have long been used in dogfighting.7

Dog fight matches in these regions are described as "wrestling" matches to establish dominance,8 unlike the Cajun Rules of "fight to the death."9 The victor is declared when the losing dog exhibits submission, such as yelping. Historically, the fights were used to test which dog had the strength and tenacity to confront and kill a wolf. Dogfighting in Central Asia has grown to be such a popular blood sport that some livestock guardian lines are now only selected for fighting ability and success.10

This region is also the origin of mastiff-bull breed crosses, like the Bully Kutta11 and Gull Dong, used in dogfighting events. Fights among these breeds, and smuggled in pit bulls, in parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and northwest India are "fights to the death." It's not by chance that in 2024, India attempted to ban the breeding and selling of the primary breeds used in dogfighting. Breed restriction laws in many countries are designed to stop severe attacks on humans and reduce illegal dogfighting.

A recent report from an India animal group, shows that districts in New Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Western Uttar Pradesh, India are primarily fighting pit bulls, and in hidden places, like basements and farmhouses, just like is done in the US to dodge authorities. As far back as 2015, India media has documented pit bull fight matches and "tournaments" (highly organized matches) carried out by the urban rich. One animal advocate has amassed over 1400 images of fighting evidence.

Summary

Jurisdictions in all 6 regions of the world, 17 of the 22 subregions and 84 countries have a local or national-level breed restriction law. The estimated combined population of these countries is 4.99 billion. The laws range from banning the importation of dangerous dog breeds to restricting or prohibiting their breeding and ownership. At least 74 of these countries have a national-level breed restriction law, of which 100% include pit bull breeds and 91% include mastiff/fighting breeds.

Of the 84 countries, 21% (18) are dependencies that share the dangerous dog law of the sovereign state. The population of the 18 dependencies makes up 2% of the population of the 84 countries combined. The UK is the sovereign state of 56% (10) of these dependencies. Thus, the influence of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is significant and also provides a legislation blueprint for other countries. All 18 dependencies have a national-level breed restriction law that incorporates pit bull breeds.

Despite the wide variety of different cultures, beliefs, ethnicities and terrains represented in the 84 countries, the governments agree that dog breeds selected for the purpose of fighting pose a danger to the public.

The Oceania region had the highest prevalence of people governed by a national breed restriction law with 947 people per 1,000 population. Oceania is home to the countries of New Zealand and Australia and is the least populated world region. Europe followed with 757 people per 1,000 population and Asia with 375 people per 1,000 population. North America had 0 people per 1,000 population because the two largest countries, Canada and the United States, legislate these laws on a local or state-level.

Finally, by examining the frequency of dog breed names in our report, we can see there is a universal set of dangerous dog breeds, and nearly all have a heritage of fighting. The term, "pit bull" appears 161 times and "Staffordshire" 112 times, together, they capture nearly all pit bull breeds ("bully" appears 33 times, capturing the American bully variations). "Tosa" appears 92 times; "dangerous" 85 times, "fighting" 82 times, "Argentino" 65 times, "Brasileiro" 61 times and "rottweiler" 49 times.

Word cloud - frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted

Word cloud of the most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by governments worldwide.

Epilogue: Complexities and Subtleties

There are many complexities in this report, some of which, we did not anticipate. For instance, choosing the world region and subregion classification model (such as geographical, geopolitical or culture) and matching it to the correct population data set. Among the geographical schemes there are different regional and subregional classifications, such as the differing divisions of the European subregions. Some classify the British Isles in Western Europe and others in Northern Europe.

There are seismic differences in the levels of self-governance among the dependencies, including: a dependent territory, overseas collectivity, autonomous region, self-governing country in free association with a sovereign state, special administrative region and more. Placing them all under the umbrella of "dependencies to varying degrees," as we did, suited our purpose for identifying countries that inherited or share the breed restriction of the sovereign state, but this is rife with complexity.

Understanding the importation requirements, directives, circulars and statues of each government, a portion of them not in English, was at times challenging. Every country has a unique system of government. With over 240 footnotes, we likely have some invalid or outdated law interpretations. It was also difficult to determine the year the national legislation was enacted. News articles were critical in these areas because they often explain the nuances of the law and when it was enacted.

Photographs - frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted

Images of the most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by governments worldwide.

Dog Breed Categories:

We did not try to establish a new breed classification system for this report. We merely reviewed all dog breeds in the report and placed them into 7 logical categories for dangerous dog breed restrictions. Most of the classifications were uncomplicated but determining the names of the Central Asian shepherd dogs, which have multiple regional names per breed, was challenging. The Ca de Bou (Majorca Mastiff, Perro de Presa Mallorquin, Malorsky Bulldog, Malorska Doga) also has many names.

When questions did arise about classification within the 7 categories, we first reviewed the breed's classification and history by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale. If further inquiry was needed, we reviewed the AKC, UKC, and Wikipedia breed groups and histories and performed online searches, especially if fighting was in the dog breed's heritage. The most common breeds listed in the "other" category were dominated by police dog breeds -- German and Belgian shepherds, 14% of laws.

Pit Bull Breeds: American Bulldog, American Bully (Micro, Pocket, Standard), American Bully (XL, XXL), American Pit Bull (XL, XXL), American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Brazilian Bulldog (Campeiro Bulldog), British Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, English Staffordshire, Olde English Bull Dogge, Otto Bulldog (Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog), Pit Bull, Rednose Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, Swiss Blue Bully, Swiss Champagner Bully—Mastiff Fighting/Guarding Breeds: Alano Espanol (Spanish Bulldog, Spanish Alaunt), Australian Boar Dog (Bull Arab), Bandog, Belgian Mastiff (an extinct breed), Boerboel (South African Mastiff), Bullmastiff, Ca de Bou (Majorca Mastiff, Perro de Presa Mallorquin, Malorsky Bulldog, Malorska Doga), Cane Corso, Cão de Fila de São Miguel (Saint Miguel Cattle Dog), Danish Mastiff (Broholmer), Dogo Argentino, Dogue de Bordeaux (French Mastiff), Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian Mastiff), Gull Dong, Italian Mastiff , Japanese Tosa, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff (Mastino Napoletano), Old English Mastiff, Pakistani Mastiff (Bully Kutta), Presa Canario, Uruguayan Cimarron—Rottweiler Breed: Rottweiler—Livestock Guardian Breeds: Akbash, Anatolian Shepherd (Anatolian Karabash), Appenzeller Sennenhund (Appenzeller Mountain Dog), Aryan Molossus (Afghan Mastiff, Khorasani Dog, Khurasani Dog), Bernese Mountain Dog, Caucasian Dog, Caucasian Shepherd Dog (Caucasian Ovcharka, Caucasian Mountain Dog), Central Asian Shepherd Dog (Central Asian Ovcharka, Alabai), Croatian Shepherd Dog (Tornjak), Great Pyrenees, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog, Kangal Shepherd Dog (Karabash Shepherd Dog), Komondor, Kuvasz (Kuvas), Maremmano-Abruzzese Sheepdog, Mastin Espanol (Spanish Mastiff), Moscow Watchdog, Perro Majorero (Perro de Ganado Majorero), Pyrenean Mountain Dog (Pyrenean Mastiff), Rafeiro Do Alentejo (Portuguese Watchdog), Romanian Shepherd Dog, Sarplaninac (Yugoslavian Shepherd Dog), South Russian Shepherd (South Russian Ovcharka), Tibetan Mastiff (Tibetan Mountain Dog)—Northern/Spitz Breeds: Alaskan Malamute, Aniu Ken, Basenji, Chinese Chongqing (Chongqing Dog), Chinese Dog, Chinese Shar-Pei, Chow Chow, Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, Hokkaido, Husky, Japanese Akita, Japanese Spitz, Kai Ken (Korean Dog), Karelian Bear Dog (Karelian Shepherd Dog), Keeshond, Korean Jindo, Kunming Wolfdog, Swedish Valhunde, Wolfdog, Wolfdog Hybrid—Pinscher Breeds: Affenpinscher, Doberman Pinscher, Doberman Vladika Roshini, German Pinscher—Other Breeds: Afghan Hound, Australian Cattle Dog, Australian Dingo, Australian Shepherd, Bearded Collie, Beauceron Wolfdog, Bedlington Terrier, Belgian Shepherd (Belgian Sheepdog), Belgian Shepherd (Groenendael), Belgian Shepherd (Laekenois), Belgian Shepherd (Malinois), Belgian Shepherd (Tervuren), Black Russian Terrier, Bloodhound, Borzoi (Russian Wolfhound), Boston Terrier, Bouvier des Flandres, Boxer, Dalmatian, East European Shepherd, English Bulldog, Foxhound, German Shepherd (Alsatian), Giant Schnauzer, Great Dane, Greyhound, Hovawart, Irish Wolfhound, Kangaroo Dog, Kerry Blue Terrier, Languedoc Sheepdog, Leonberger, Leopard Hound, Mountain Hound, Newfoundland, Old English Sheepdog, Ridgeback (Rhodesian), Ridgeback (Thai), Saluki, Schnauzer, Scottish Shepherd Collie, St. Bernard, Weimaraner.

1WorldOmeter classifies 195 countries and 38 dependencies. Our classification is 191 countries and 43 dependencies. We counted England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as autonomous and the United Kingdom the sovereign state. WorldOmeter also classifies the territories of Saint-Martin and Sint Maarten, which co-exist on the same island, as one entity. We count each separately because each are dependent on a different sovereign state. The Dutch territory (Sint Maarten), where the international airport and cruise port are located, has a national-level breed restriction law.
2In our count of over 125 different dog breeds, some are regional or colloquial names of the same or similar breed. We thought it was important to keep the country identifying names intact whenever possible, such as "Rednose Pit Bull" in the Netherlands and "Swiss Champagner Bully" in Switzerland, and/or by placing them in parenthesis after the breed name. We only altered breed names if it was a clear spelling or translation issue, such as Kuvasz spelled, "Kuvaz."
3Bahrain, Egypt, England, Iceland, India, Ireland, Isle of Man, Malta, Mozambique, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Turks and Caicos, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and Wales.
4Greenland and Bermuda.
5There are multiple ways to classify the European subregions. The WorldOMeter classification places the British Isles into Northern Europe, as does the United Nations. We also count the 4 individual countries that comprise the United Kingdom. Thus, the 11 Northern Europe countries designated on our chart are: Denmark, England, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland and Wales.
6National-level dog importation laws in the United States are heavily regulated by the federal government regarding disease control. For instance, back in 2023, Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) banned the importation of dogs from dozens of rabies prone countries, causing CDC to undergo a federal rulemaking process about this policy.
7Orhan Yilmaz, Fusun Coskun, Mehmet Ertugrul, Dogfighting in Turkey, Can J App Sci, Issue 2; Vol.05; 21-25; April, 2015.
8,10C. Urbigkit & J. Urbigkit, A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in Association with Large Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains, Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Vol 25, 2010.
9The Cajun Rules, by Casino and J.C. Shaw. Variations by G.A. Gaboon Trahan.
11Also known as the Indian Mastiff, Pakistan Mastiff, and the "Beast of the East."

Posted on February 24, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

United States Senate Bill to Provide Public Health Veterinary Services in Rural and Tribal Communities

Bill would authorize public health veterinary services for tribal communities.

Bill Reintroduced
Washington DC - Last week, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA), along with multiple other senators, reintroduced Senate Bill 620, the Veterinary Services to Improve Public Health in Rural Communities Act. The bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service (IHS) to provide Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations with veterinary services, including spaying and neutering of domestic animals.

Murkowski first introduced the bill in June 2024. The co-sponsors of the original bill -- Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA), Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), Vice Chairman of SCIA, and Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) -- continue this role. Murkowski represents Alaska, which has the highest Alaska Native population in the country. Heinrich represents New Mexico, which is home to multiple Indian reservations, including part of the Navajo Nation.

"Studies show that Native children have the highest rate of dog bite injuries in the nation, and the highest rate of dog bite hospitalizations occur in rural Alaska and the Navajo Nation..."

"The overpopulation of stray and abandoned dogs in Indian Country is a significant public health and safety issue," said Chairman Murkowski. "My colleagues have been shocked to learn more than 250,0000 reservation dogs, as they’re often called, roam the Navajo Nation alone. And, according to IHS data, an average of 4,800 tribal members are hospitalized or receive outpatient care from dog bites each year. Some studies indicate that tribal areas experience a death rate from dog attacks that is 35 times higher than the rest of the nation...

I reintroduced this bill because Native children experience the highest rates of hospitalization from dog attacks than any other group in the nation, and we have an opportunity to change that."

Veterinary services provided by IHS are also needed to the reduce the risk of dangerous diseases, including rabies. “Communities across Indian Country are at higher risk of exposure to dangerous diseases that spread between animals and people, including rabies,” said Vice Chairman Schatz. “Rabies outbreaks in animals are becoming more frequent across America, and Michigan’s rural and Tribal communities often lack readily available access to the veterinary care," said Senator Peters.

The Navajo Nation, which is over 27,000 square miles and crosses into four states, strongly supports the bill. "This bill would assist the Nation in reducing rabies-related incidents stemming from dog bites and improving overall animal health, which directly impacts public safety and community well-being. We appreciate Senator Murkowski’s leadership in reintroducing this bill and recognizing the urgent need for veterinary services in rural and tribal areas,” said Dr. Buu Nygren, President of Navajo Nation.

IHS is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and is funded by taxpayers. IHS has lacked the authority to fund and provide public health veterinary services to Alaska Native and American Indian reservations. During the pandemic, many reservations closed shelters and halted spay and neutering services, causing the already uncontrolled dog populations on reservations to rise further. Between 2020 and 2024, at least 12 people were killed by dogs on Indian reservations.1

Most fatal dog attacks on reservations are scantly reported; dog breeds are rarely reported; identities may not be released; and some deaths are never reported at all. The 12 deaths over this 5-year period equates to 4% of our recorded dog bite fatalities (283). The number of people living on reservations is estimated to be 429,000, according to IHA. Based on this, we were able to determine rate. Death by vicious dog attack truly is about 35 times higher on reservations than the rest of the United States.2

The Death of Lyssa Rose

In May of 2021, 13-year old Lyssa Upshaw was killed by a pack of vicious dog in Fort Defiance. Afterward, the Navajo Nation Council issued a press release stating the Nation had about 500,000 feral dog and domestic dogs on the reservation, and that "just one mating pair of dogs can create 5,700 new dogs in five years." The pandemic only exacerbated this problem. Animal Control only captured "8,000 dogs in 2020 versus an upward of 30,000 in previous years," states the release.

Upshaw's death helped move the Navajo Nation Council to pass legislation that established penalties for owners of vicious dogs and other dangerous animals running at large that cause injury or death. Previously, there were no criminal penalties for either scenario. The legislation notes that along with the rising feral dog population, "dogs are becoming more vicious and aggressive." Upshaw's death also inspired state-level and federal legislation, including this bill by Senator Murkowski.

While animal control departments on reservations have long been absent, short staffed or poorly funded, it is the costly veterinary services of vaccination and spay and neutering that need federal assistance. Currently, veterinary services often rely upon partnerships with nonprofits for both. Murkowski's bill authorizes the funding of public health veterinary services for spay and neutering, diagnosis, epidemiology, elimination, vaccination and more by the Indian Health Service (IHS).

‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION FOR VETERINARY SERVICES.— The Secretary, acting through the Service, may expend funds, directly or pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), for public health veterinary services to prevent and control zoonotic disease infection and transmission in Service areas where the risk for disease occurrence in humans and wildlife is endemic." - Senate Bill 620

Bipartisan Bill & President

Senate Bill 620 is bipartisan, and reservations are located in at least 35 states. Senator Murkowski, the bill's sponsor, is Republican, where the senate holds a slight majority (53 to 47). However, the majority in this case is about the party's agenda and its control over the powerful committee chair positions. Murkowski chairs the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. These are all favorable conditions for this bill. However, moving any legislation through both chambers of Congress can be next to impossible.

There are conflicting reports about which presidential candidate the Native American block, which is traditionally Democratic, supported in the 2024 election. One poll result showed 65% voted for Trump and another showed 39%. Reports from counties in Montana, New Mexico and Minnesota with the largest populations of Native Americans moved sharply to the right, as did voters on the Navajo Nation. Wherever the percentage truth lies, it is just one more favorable condition for this legislation.

“As tribal leaders, we’re just trying to take care of our own people,” former Navajo Nation Vice President Myron Lizer said. “We’re tired of the same old, and there’s a lot of people in our movement.”

Lizer spoke at the 2020 virtual Republican National Convention and stumped for Trump at a rally in Albuquerque, N.M., in October. In his view, it’s time for Indian Country to make its presence known in American politics.

Providing funding for public health veterinary services to Tribal communities isn't a polarizing issue like Tribal sovereignty, land rights or water rights. There is no way to reduce the longstanding uncontrolled dog population on reservations without easily accessible low cost or free spaying and neutering services. Rescuing a handful of dogs at time, as many nonprofit rescues do on reservations, does not make a dent in the hundreds of thousands of free-roaming dogs on U.S. reservations.

You can make your voice known about Senate Bill 620 by contacting your U.S. Senators.

Pictured are five Native Americans mauled to death by one or more dogs on U.S. Indian reservations after the Covid-19 pandemic began, between May 16, 2021 to April 10, 2022.

12020 - Adult Jane Doe (unknown age), Navajo Nation Reservation, 2020 - Kay Torres, Taos Pueblo, 2021 - Lyssa Rose Upshaw, Navajo Nation Reservation, 2021 - Duke Little Whirlwind, Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, 2022 - Unknown, Hopi Reservation, 2022 - Chaille Morgan, Meskwaki Nation Settlement, 2022 - Francis Cavanaugh, Spirit Lake Reservation, 2022 - Shawna Jo Bell, Wind River Indian Reservation, 2023 - Kellan Boner, Fort Hall Reservation, 2024 - Lester Peneaux, Cheyenne River Reservation, 2024 - Carlon Galloway, Fort Hall Reservation, 2024 - Lexi Salas, Picayune Off-Reservation Trust Land.
2The statistic from the press release, "Some studies indicate that tribal areas experience a death rate from dog attacks that is 35 times higher than the rest of the nation" does not cite a source, but our data confirms it.

DogsBite blog ::

New Legislation is Already Being Crafted

Vicious Dog Owner Loop

How to Break the Loop

Report Shows a "Universal Set of Dangerous Dog Breeds."