A new development came Friday in humanity’s long, drowsy saga of artificial selection. The American XL Bully will be the first dog since 1991 to join the UK’s list of banned dogs under the Dangerous Dog Act, alongside the American Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brasilerio. The announcement came from Prime Minister Rishi Sunak after a fatal attack on Friday opened the floodgates to countless armchair Darwinians with a perceived dog in the fight.

​

As an animal welfare worker, specifically in a nonprofit, no-kill shelter, this news troubles me. Not because I intend to travel from my home in Savannah, Georgia to the UK anytime soon, nor is it the camaraderie I feel with those made to choose between uprooting their life or saying goodbye to their dog — a decision I once had to make under Georgia law — but what troubles me is the bystander, or the blogger, or the officer charged with identifying a dog’s breed in a gene pool considered closed by merit of government oversight.

​

Since the passing of the Dangerous Dog Act in 1991, the number of dog bite incidents have skyrocketed in the UK. Groups like the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE), of which the UK remains a member, continue to voice opposition to the fairness and effectiveness of breed specific legislation (BSL). And while I can understand the symbolic role thrust upon the dog with “XL” and “Bully” in the name (and I suppose “American” may add an extra stink in Parliament), Friday’s decision confirms that such legislation is not driven by data, science, or expert opinion. With decades of evidence and over 552,000 signatures (as of 9/19/2023, 526,000 more than opposition) to guide alternate solutions, I don’t think it’s too bold to say that this decision isn’t driven by public interest, either. 

​

Why, then? Why continue to point our muskets at (forgive me, Fido) a product of human carelessness in the creation of new life? While BSL cites breed history and pseudoscientific studies to gain public support, they fail to recognize pedigree when enforcing a ban. This means when your neighbor’s uncle decides to try his hand at canine husbandry, half of the litter may possess genetic traits that lead to euthanasia.

​

The simple solution will always be to villainize and punish the dog without recourse or evolutionary autonomy. Spay/neuter programs, muzzle enforcement, and prosecuting irresponsible dog owners and breeders takes time, effort, and money, but have one crucial component that BSL lacks: evidence to support their efficacy.

​

Still, this conclusion does little to mend the effect of breed stigmatization, which impacts adoption rates, housing opportunity, and insurance rates (disproportionately for people of color). While many point to the biology of certain breeds for their potential to cause harm, few recognize the genetic process taking place over centuries of selection and culling. Looking specifically to the origin of the Pit Bull Terrier (a precursor to the XL Bully), which traces back to “bull baiting” in the UK in the early 19th century, the desire for certain traits can explain their high drive, high pain threshold, and larger muscle mass, making for the ideal fight, guard, or attack dog. All this, likely without a single bachelor’s degree in evolutionary genetics mixed in. Not even one.

​

So, I ask proponents of the American XL Bully ban this: what happens when breeders are forced to operate deeper in the shadows?  What evolutionary mistakes could have been avoided by pointing our petitions at proven solutions? To the latter, I hope to find out.