In today’s episode, we’re discussing dog breed discrimination in housing. Many families face the heartbreaking decision of choosing between their homes and their beloved pets due to breed-specific housing regulations. We’ll explore how these restrictions emerged from biased media portrayals and their questionable effectiveness in promoting safety. Additionally, we’ll discuss the broader impacts of these policies on low-income families, potential solutions through legislation, and how communities can work towards fairer housing practices for all pet owners. Join us as we unpack these critical topics and offer actionable strategies for you to support equitable housing for pet owners in your own community.
Episode Highlights:
- 00:00 Announcement about evolving the podcast format to include interviews with key players in animal advocacy.
- 01:37 Discussion on the episode’s focus: pet restrictions and housing.
- 02:33 Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) – Explanation of BSL and its impact on certain dog breeds. Historical context of breed bans and media bias against pit bulls.
- 06:21 Lack of Effectiveness of BSL Impact of these laws on insurance policies and rental housing. The Impact on Families. How breed restrictions disproportionately affect families with lower income. Challenges faced by renters and those in public housing regarding pet ownership.
- 09:32 Case Study: Maryland Court Decision. Overview of the Tracy vs. Soleski case and its impact on pit bull owners. Implications of the ruling on housing.
- 11:34 Potential Solutions. Discussion on federal and state-level legislative efforts to address breed discrimination. Mention of Colorado and Florida’s legislative actions against breed discrimination.
- 14:09 Importance of changing societal views on restricted breeds.The need for education and awareness to combat misinformation.
- 15:07 Listener Question: Community-Level Change. Strategies for shifting landlord perspectives on breed restrictions in a small town.
- 17:23 “Be the Change” Action steps for listeners to engage with local public housing authorities and lawmakers. Encouragement for volunteers and professionals to influence policy and perceptions.
- 18:38 Final Thoughts. Call for education and advocacy against breed stereotypes. Encouragement to support shelter and rescue organizations.
- 20:23]Conclusion
If you have any other questions or need further details, feel free to ask!
Links
New York Law Banning Dog Breed Discrimination in Housing
Transcript
Welcome back to the Animal Advocate, your guide for moving from compassion into action. Thanks so much for joining us. I know we’ve been away for a few weeks, and I want to thank you for your patience. The good news is we haven’t been idle. We’ve been busy behind the scenes putting together some really valuable new content for you. I’m excited to share that we’re evolving the podcast format. Moving forward, we’ll be interspersing our regular episodes with interviews – conversations with the people who are doing the actual advocacy work we talk about when it’s just you and me. These are the folks working on the front lines of animal protection, shelter directors, rescue founders, legislative advocates, grassroots organizers, and attorneys who specialize in animal law. They’re taking the concepts we discuss and putting them into action every day.
Why are we doing this? Because understanding the law and issues affecting animals is just the first step. The real impact happens when you apply that knowledge. That’s where the rubber meets the road, right? Despite what they say, knowledge isn’t power. It’s POTENTIAL power. You have to apply it and take action, and THAT’s power. These conversations will give you practical insights into how experienced advocates navigate challenges, build coalitions, and create meaningful change. You’ll hear about their successes and their setbacks and the lessons they’ve learned along the way. So while I’ve missed connecting with you these last few weeks, I think you’re going to find that the wait was worth it.
Now let’s dive into today’s episode. Today, I wanted to follow-up on our last episode about pit bull type dogs. We’re talking about a topic today that affects thousands of families across America and keeps lots of great dogs in shelters, and that’s pet restrictions in housing. We won’t have the answer by any means, but we’ll talk about how we got here and start thinking about creative ways to get someplace else. Let’s get started.
Welcome to the Animal Advocate, where we arm animal lovers with the information and inspiration you need to become effective advocates. I’m your host, Penny Ellison, and I’ve taught animal law and advocacy at the University of Pennsylvania since 2006. If you’ve ever thought someone should do something about that, I’m here to guide you on your journey to being that someone. You can find us on the web at animaladvocacyacademy.com. And that’s where you’ll find show notes and resources, and you can send us your comments on episodes and ideas for topics you’d like to hear on future shows. So on to today’s topic.
If you’ve ever rented an apartment, you’ve probably encountered pet policies. Maybe you’ve seen ads that read no pets allowed or breed restrictions apply. But have you ever stopped to think about what happens when someone is told that they keep their home or their dog, but not both? By the end of this episode, you’ll understand a little more about the complex relationship between breed discrimination and housing insecurity. And, hopefully, you’ll leave with some ideas you can take to your own community to support fair housing practices for all pet owners.
Let’s start with the basics. When we talk about breed specific legislation or BSL, we’re referring to laws that restrict or ban certain dog breeds. Usually, those perceived as dangerous. The most common targets are pit bulls, which isn’t even a single recognized breed, but a sort of a category. But they also cover rottweilers, German shepherds, Dobermans, and sometimes other breeds like chows, Akitas, huskies, and mastiffs, and sometimes even boxers and giant schnauzers. These breed bans gained popularity in the 1980’s following media reports around dog attacks, but there was a documented anti pit bias to that reporting. A March 2010 analysis by Beyond the Myth found that when a pit bull is involved in a biting incident, the breed was mentioned in the headline 68% of the time. In contrast, when the biting dog is a non-pit bull breed, the breed appeared in the headline only 8% of the time. The overrepresentation of pit bulls in headlines contributes to a biased public perception as incidents involving other breeds are often reported generically just like dog bites owner rather than specifying the breed. So people get the false impression that the vast majority of dog bites are committed by pit bull type dogs. In addition, research indicates that sixty percent of dogs visually identified as pit bulls lack any DNA from pit bull type ancestry, and that leads to frequent mislabeling in media reports. This misidentification inflates even further the perceived prevalence of pit bull involvement in biting incidents.
But, based on what they heard about pit bull dogs in the media, cities and towns across America began implementing blanket bans on certain breeds regardless of an individual dog’s behavior or temperament. But here’s the thing. There’s no conclusive evidence that breed specific legislation serves its supposed purpose, which is, of course, reducing dog bites and increasing public safety. In fact, studies show that despite the growing number of these bans in the 80’s and 90’s, dog bites in America remained relatively stable. Some proponents of breed specific legislation point to statistics claiming that the most severe bites involve pit bulls. But, even if we accept that premise, the numbers don’t justify such sweeping restrictions. Over a sixteen year period in The United States, there were only 568 fatal dog bites across the entire country. 568 in sixteen years. That’s an incredibly small number when you consider that there are approximately 90 million dogs in American homes. That certainly doesn’t prove that a majority of pit mix dogs are dangerous. What these laws have created, however, is a domino effect of discrimination that extends far beyond municipal codes.
We now see breed discrimination in homeowners’ insurance policies and widespread breed restrictions in rental housing. And the sad reality is that these policies disproportionately affect people with lower incomes. Let me explain a little bit. If you’re a homeowner with some discretionary money, you might pay higher insurance premiums to keep your pit bull, or you’d simply choose to live in an area without breed restrictions. But what if you’re renting? What if you live in public housing? Suddenly, your options become severely limited. Consider this. In a 2021 study of pet friendly rental properties, researchers found that while 76% of buildings allowed pets, a staggering 92% of them had breed restrictions. Add this to the fact that many public housing authorities across the country, including those in major cities like New York and Boston, explicitly banned pit bulls.
This creates an impossible situation for many families. Do they give up their beloved pet? For most people, the equivalent of kicking out a family member, or do they face housing insecurity or even homelessness? We saw this play out on a massive scale during the great recession from 2007 to 2009 when animal shelters reported a surge in what they called “foreclosure pets.” As families lost their homes and were forced to move into rentals, many discovered that they couldn’t bring their dogs because of breed restrictions. In 2012, a controversial court decision in Maryland highlighted how breed prejudice can become embedded in our legal system. The case called Tracy versus Soleski, began with an alarming statement from the Maryland Court of Appeals. It went like this. “In Maryland, the vicious mauling of young children by pit bulls occurred as early as 1916.” That opening immediately signaled trouble for pit bull owners.
The court’s decision created a unique and harsh rule specifically targeting pit bulls, and here’s what happened. The court singled out pit bulls from all other breeds. It imposed strict liability on both the pit bull owner and their landlords. This meant that, if a pit bull bit someone, both the owner and the property owner could be held strictly liable. Most concerning, this applied even if the dog had never showed any aggressive behavior before. What made this ruling especially unfair was that it applied only to pit bulls. Owners of other breeds were judged under normal negligence standards. They required proof of prior dangerous behavior.
For three years, the discriminatory standard remained the law in Maryland, and that created a ripple effect. Landlords faced financial incentives to ban pit bulls, insurance companies could justify breed specific exclusions, and many pit bull owners faced housing discrimination. Although the Maryland legislature eventually overturned that decision in 2015, the effects lingered. Insurance companies and landlords continued discriminatory practices against certain breeds even after the legal basis was removed, and it extended far beyond Maryland. This case represents a stark example of how breed stereotypes can transform from public perception into legal precedent with real consequences for responsible dog owners.
So what’s the solution? Let’s talk about several approaches that show some promise. First, we could, and we’ve tried to, pass legislation at the federal level. There was a proposed law called the Pets Belong with Families Act, which would have prohibited breed restrictions in public housing. It had 41 cosponsors in 2022, but it never got enough bipartisan support to get it passed.
Similar bills have been introduced in various state legislatures, reflecting a broader push to address breed discrimination in housing. Colorado prohibits landlords from charging pet rent or denying tenants based on the breed of their pet. In Michigan, a bill package was introduced in 2023 aimed at prohibiting municipalities from banning specific dog breeds. And this followed similar legislation passed in Florida, which bars breed based bans at the municipal level.
Second, more states are following Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, and New York’s lead by prohibiting breed discrimination in insurance. This removes a significant barrier to homeownership for families with restricted breeds. And, of course, if your landlord can get an insurance policy that does not discriminate by breed, he’s much more likely to allow his tenants to have whatever kind of dog they choose.
Third, from a purely economic perspective, property managers could actually benefit from removing breed restrictions. Data shows that owners and operators who embrace pet inclusive housing, address market shortages, and command a growing share of the housing market. We may not have a competitive rental market right now, but we will at some point, and being breed inclusive could be a significant advantage.
We can also try to pass local ordinances, either prohibiting breed discrimination in housing or incentivizing more inclusive pet housing. Now I’m more in favor of incentives, and this is important. We can’t require landlords to accept pets. So if we just ban breed discrimination or, as the District Of Columbia recently did, if we try to limit the pet deposits landlords can ask for or additional rent they can collect if people have pets, a landlord could just choose not to permit pets at all, and that’s not the result we’re looking for. So maybe there’s a way to incentivize through the tax law or otherwise having nondiscriminatory pet policies in rental housing.
Perhaps most importantly, we need a fundamental shift in how we view these breeds. The stigma against pit bulls and other restricted breeds isn’t based on sound science or statistics. It’s rooted in misinformation.
Now on to our listener question. Marissa asks, I live in a small town where almost every rental property has breed restrictions against pit bulls. I don’t currently have a dog, but I volunteer at our local shelter where dozens of wonderful pit bull type dogs wait months for homes because of housing barriers. What strategies could help shift the perspective of landlords across our community rather than just convincing one property owner at a time.
Well, thank you for your question.This question addresses the heart of the issue, creating systemic change versus individual exceptions. To shift attitudes across your community, here’s some thoughts. First, consider organizing an event specifically inviting landlords, property managers, and real estate professionals to come meet the dogs in your shelter. Partner with the shelter and local trainers and responsible pit bull owners to showcase well behaved dogs. These face-to-face interactions might break down stereotypes more effectively than just showing statistics.
Second, approach your local apartment association or landlord group, most cities have them, with a presentation about the lack of correlation between breed and behavior. Point out insurance alternatives that don’t discriminate by breed, and statistics on how breed neutral policies have worked in other communities. Frame it as a business opportunity. They’re missing out on responsible tenants with these blanket policies.
Third, identify and highlight pioneer landlords in your community who already accept all breeds. Create a recognition program or positive publicity for these housing providers that might incentivize others to follow suit.
Lastly, collect local data about housing instability created by breed restrictions. When landlords or legislators understand that these policies contribute not only to shelter overcrowding, but also family housing crises in their own community, they might become more receptive to changing policy. Change happens when property owners see these dogs as individuals rather than stereotypes. And when they realize their policies affect real families and animals in their own neighborhood.
Today’s be the change action is something everyone can do, whether you own a restricted breed or not.
Contact your local public housing authority and ask about their pet policies. Do they have breed restrictions? If so, maybe you could think about attending the next public meeting and speaking up. Share the research showing that breed is not a reliable predictor of aggression and emphasize that forcing families to choose between housing and pets creates unnecessary trauma and burden on the shelter system. If you’re a renter who successfully kept a restricted breed in rental housing, consider writing a testimonial that other pet owners could share with potential landlords. And for homeowners, check if your state prohibits breed discrimination in insurance. If it doesn’t, reach out to your state representative and tell them you’d like to see change.
For those of you with some time to volunteer, consider supporting organizations like Feeding Pets of the Homeless, which helps provide pet supplies and veterinary care to those experiencing housing insecurity with their pets. According to research, up to twenty five percent of individuals experiencing homelessness have pets, and they often face impossible choices between shelter and keeping their animal companions.
If you work in real estate, property management, or insurance, you are in a uniquely powerful position. Consider reviewing your company’s policies on breed restrictions and starting conversations about evidence-based approaches to assessing dangerous dogs. As some companies like State Farm have shown, focusing on individual dog behavior rather than breed stereotypes can be both compassionate and good business. State Farm doesn’t even ask homeowners or renters insurance policyholders to disclose their dog’s breed. Their motto is, “it’s not the breed, it’s the dog bite.” So, if your dog hasn’t bitten, there’s no reason to discriminate against them.
And let’s not forget a sobering statistic. Pit bulls are the most euthanized breed in shelters, with one rescue organization reporting that 2,800 pit bulls are euthanized every day in America.By supporting shelters and rescue organizations specifically working with these breeds, which are most of them in the Northeast, you’re helping address a tragic consequence of breed discrimination. Finally, whether you own a pit bull or not, take opportunities to educate others when you hear misinformation about these breeds. Be the myth buster in your community who challenges stereotypes with facts and compassion. Remember, as we always say, you don’t need to be a lawyer to be an effective advocate. You just need to be informed and willing to speak up.
That’s it for today. The Animal Advocate is brought to you by the Animal Advocacy Academy. You can find the episodes and show notes at animaladvocacyacademy.com. You can listen to episodes you missed, leave a comment, and start a discussion there. And if you’re really interested in learning more about protecting animals, subscribe to the show so you can get every episode right when it comes out. If you have any questions on this or any other topic related to animal law, go ahead and email them to me at podcast@animaladvocacyacademy.com. And remember, compassion is great, but compassionate action is infinitely better. Look forward to speaking with you next time. Take care.
