This article, published in The New Yorker (2/6/2006 issue), explores the logic behind “breed-specific legislation,” especially as it applies to pit bulls.

Using anti-terrorism and law-enforcement “profiling” techniques as an example, the author points out the problems with profiling. Relying on generalizations and categorizations very often misses the mark. In many cases, profiling targets generalizations that are actually unstable (based on a trait that actually varies among the population the profiling is meant to target). Racial targeting of Islamic terrorists is a good example, as Islam is a worldwide religion with adherents from many races. Not every Islamic person is of Middle Eastern descent (and vice versa).

There are many problems with targeting specific breeds as “dangerous” rather than, for example, targetting dogs left on chains in backyards as being more likely to be aggressive than well-loved household pets. And there are problems with equating pitbulls in particular with “dangerous dogs,” as well-bred pitbulls have stellar temperaments. As the author put sit: “A pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it.”

Read the entire New Yorker article: “TROUBLEMAKERS: What pit bulls can teach us about profiling”

For more information on pit bulls, see The Real Pit Bull — Your Online Source for American Pit Bull Terrier info!