LOS ALAMITOS, Calif. – For many years, housing communities and Homeowners Associations have limited dog ownership through breed and size restrictions. As these rules continue to be implemented, more communities follow suit. These rules target stereotyped dog breeds, such as pitbulls or German Shepherds, as well as dogs beyond a certain weight.

Communities that implement policies such as these cause more harm than good; the practice of restricting dogs due to genetically uncontrollable factors is both unnecessary and discriminatory, and adds to the already increasing homeless animal population. 

Looking beyond appearances

A dog’s worth should not be based on weight or breed, but instead on behavior; breed and weight restrictions that are proposed or are set in place are both unfair and arbitrary, as weight or breed alone does not reflect the traits that deem a dog “safe.”

Weight does not determine a dog’s temperament, and it is a poor proxy for behavior. The vast majority of a dog’s behaviors are shaped by outside factors, such as its environment and experiences; larger dogs are not inherently violent or problematic. Research shows that many undesirable behaviors, such as aggression, biting or excessive barking, are rarely related to the size of the dog but are more closely related to their treatment and upbringing. Furthermore, dog-dependent factors (size, age, health) associated with aggression have a minimal effect, whereas the owner’s actions have more influence.

Breed-specific policies do not address the underlying causes of true problematic behaviors, unfairly restricting many dogs. Instead of simply prohibiting large dogs with no further assessment, communities should evaluate a dog based on its conduct and training. This approach better aligns policy with true factors that affect safety in neighborhoods and communities.

“It can be frustrating, my dogs are just as well-behaved and loving as smaller breeds, but size alone keeps them from being welcomed,” Los Alamitos High School junior and owner of two huskies, Jayden Villa, said.

Similarly, breed is not a reliable determinant of a dog’s behavior. It is a common misconception that certain dogs are inherently more aggressive due to their breed. However, only 9% of differences in behavior are explicable by breed. Personality and environment have more of an influence over a dog’s behavior than its genetic background. Even within these stereotyped breeds, huge variation exists. One puppy might act completely different from its littermate, because similar genetics do not guarantee a similar temperament. Misconceptions such as these foster these harmful stereotypes that are behind breed bans.

“Not all dogs that look a certain way are going to behave a certain way,” Ana Bustilloz, Director of Communications and Marketing at SPCALA, said.

The homeless animal crisis

Animal homelessness is an ongoing issue in the United States and across the world. PETA estimates that there are more than 70 million homeless dogs in the US, due to issues such as owner surrender and overpopulation, both of which have been increasing in recent years. Breeds that are often subject to numerous stereotypes comprise a significant portion of the homeless animal population. 

Often, when certain breeds are restricted, many owners are forced to surrender their dogs to a shelter, seeing as they are no longer legally allowed to keep them in their community, increasing shelter overcrowding. These dogs often face lower adoption chances because potential adopters may experience housing rules that prevent them from adopting that breed. This means these dogs often stay in shelters for longer periods of time and run the risk of being euthanized.

“Considering shelter overcrowding, discrimination of housing regarding pets certainly adds to that stress,” Bustilloz said.

Someone choosing to adopt a large dog or a dog of a misunderstood breed should be praised, not met with suspicion or prohibited from doing so. If there were fewer bans and stereotypes around these breeds, it would be much easier for people to adopt and care for these animals subjected to discrimination in their homes.

Laws and loopholes

California law, through Food and Agricultural Code section 31683, prohibits cities and counties from passing breed-specific dangerous dog regulations. It contains a narrow exception in the Health and Safety Code section 122331 that allows spay, neuter or breeding ordinances specific to a breed. So, since California law states that discriminating and restricting dogs based on their breed is prohibited, why is it happening?

When analyzing the code simply, it means that a community is prohibited from banning breeds that they label as “dangerous” or “violent.” However, many communities can get away with implementing these restrictions. This is because the law applies to government regulation, and not to private rules. Because of this, landlords, HOAS and insurance companies are free to implement their own restrictions as conditions of coverage or contract.

These restrictions persist because they are rarely challenged in court. Even if a rule potentially conflicts with a state’s law, most people do not take legal action against it. Taking an issue to court is both expensive and time-consuming, causing people to comply with the unfairness rather than fight back. This creates an enforcement gap, where rules remain in place, not because they are fair, but because no one is taking action against them. This allows landlords, HOAS and local governments to continue implementing these breed and size restrictions.

Despite California law offering protection against this discriminatory type of regulation, it remains common in many communities.

“Breed bans should really be looked at critically, and not implemented with the hopes they will solve problems,” Bustilloz said.

When we ban breeds, we don’t fix problems; we abandon solutions.