Dog Breed Regulations in Missouri

An Update on Dog Breed Regulations in Missouri

On November 2, 2024, all of Kansas City and the State of Missouri heard the news report and saw the dramatic video of 46-year-old Chris Culbertson being attacked by a vicious pack of dogs while he was riding his bicycle, just less than six miles from the law office of the experienced Kansas City dog bite lawyers at Foster Wallace, LLC. Sadly, Mr. Culberson passed away from his injuries on November 8, 2024.

The attack on Chris Culbertson occurred less than two months after another man, 72-year-old Jimmy Miller, was attacked and killed by his own dog in Cardwell, Missouri. In addition to dog-related fatalities in Raytown, Excelsior Springs, Kansas City, and Independence, Missouri, these and tragic dog bite fatalities in other states continue to raise questions about the effectiveness of dog breed regulations in Missouri and elsewhere throughout the country.

This article discusses the current state of dog breed regulations, also known as “Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)” in Missouri. Many states, including Missouri, first enacted BSL to protect citizens from breeds of dogs considered to be vicious. But when tragic dog attacks like the one Chris Culbertson experienced continue to occur, state legislators and citizens begin to question, “How effective are Missouri’s dog breed regulations?”

What Is Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)?

Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) is the body of proposed or enacted laws in each state in which ownership of certain breeds of dogs is banned or regulated as a means of decreasing the number and severity of dog attacks on human beings and other animals. According to the BSL adopted in each state, municipalities within their respective states can adopt regulations, ordinances, and policies applicable to their local communities. 

What Does Breed-Specific Legislation Cover?

There are several different categories of BSL. Here are the some of the more common forms of BSL:

• Breed Ban.  A typical “breed ban” prohibits the future ownership or breeding of a specific breed of dog, most commonly pit bulls. Under most breed bans, existing pit bull owners must have their dogs spayed or neutered once a ban ordinance is enacted.

• Automatic Labeling.  Some BSL define certain breeds of dog, like pit bulls, as automatically or inherently “vicious,” “dangerous,” or “potentially dangerous.” An owner of a dog of a qualified breed is responsible for preventing a first attack by their dog. Automatic labeling laws can require:

• Liability insurance;

• Higher registration fees;

• Secured confinement of the dog;

• Microchipping or tattooing;

• Mandatory sterilization (“spaying” and “neutering”);

• Fencing requirements;  

• Muzzle requirements; 

• Special licensing requirements;

• Age requirements for owners or walkers;

• Access restrictions (public parks, school grounds);

• Training requirements; or

• Warning postings (“Beware of Dangerous Dog”).

• Mandatory Sterilization.  Mandatory sterilization, or spaying and neutering, is required in many dog breed regulations.    

• Anti-Tethering.  Anti-tethering regulations prohibit an owner from chaining an animal outside.

In addition to these forms of BSL and public policies on dog breed regulations, many private home-owner associations (HOAs), rental properties, and insurance carriers refuse coverage for homes, condominiums, and apartment complexes that do not have breed-specific leases. 

Which Breeds of Dogs Are Covered by Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)?

There are approximately 1200 cities in 40 different states in the United States that have adopted some form of BSL. Most BSL (1,120 ordinances or 97%) target pit bulls. The pit pull class comprises several different breeds, including the:

• American pit bull terrier;

• American Staffordshire terrier;

• Staffordshire bull terrier; and

• Any other combination of these dog breeds.

Some BSL also include the American bulldog as a breed of pit bull. Some broader but rarer BSL may target certain lethal or fighting breeds, such as:

• Rottweilers (123 ordinances or 12%);

• Wolf-Dog Hybrids (canid hybrid) (122 ordinances or 11%);

• Doberman Pinschers (54 ordinances or 5%);

• Presa Canario (Canary Mastiff) (47 ordinances or 4%);

• Chow chows (37 ordinances or 3%);

• Mastiffs (35 or 3%);

• Cane Corsos (23 or 2%);

• Dogo Argentinos (less than 2% of ordinances); and 

• Japanese Tosa (Tosa Inu) (less than 2% of ordinances).

Does Missouri Adopt Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)?

Although Missouri does not have a statewide ban on any specific dog breed, there are more than 70 municipalities in Missouri that have enacted and continue to enforce traditional breed-specific bans and regulations. 

For example, BSL in Camdenton and Florissant place specific restrictions on pit bulls, while cities like Carl Junction, Carthage, and Springfield impose pit bull bans.

Of all the municipal BSL regulations in Missouri, as of 2023, Independence, Leawood, and Kearney were the three remaining cities in the Kansas City metropolitan area that still banned pit bulls. When Independence repealed its ban in May 2023 and the Kearney Board of Aldermen repealed its pit bull ordinance in March 2024, Leawood became the last city in Johnson County to enforce a pit bull ban when its City Council amended its BSL to include more objective factors for labeling pit bulls to qualify as prohibited. 

Some non-traditional BSL ordinances in Missouri include:

• Restrictions on Breeding Cycles.  Prohibiting breeders of breeding a female dog more than a licensed veterinarian recommends for the dog’s age, health, and species. 

• Required Veterinary Care.  Requiring that dogs receive annual exams, prompt treatment for serious injuries or illnesses, and humane euthanasia when necessary.

• Animal Care Licensing Requirements.  Under Missouri’s Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA) Program, licensed animal care providers must maintain a Program of Veterinary Care (PoVC) that is reviewed and approved annually by a veterinarian.

There have been a dozen Missouri municipalities, such as Liberty, that have repealed their breed-specific regulations and ordinances since 2018. There are several states, known as “preemption states,” that expressly prohibit local governments from enacting BSL. Missouri has defeated attempts to preempt BSL in the state since 2014, but new proposals are considered every year.  

Are Missouri’s Dog Breed Regulations Effective?

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), more than 4.5 million people in the United States are bitten by dogs each year, more than 800,000 of which require medical attention. Half of those dog bite victims are children. Whether BSL is effective in reducing these numbers is hotly contested by BSL advocates and opponents alike. 

Proponents of BSL argue that pit bulls and Rottweilers, alone, account for 75% of all reported human fatalities caused by dogs and that there are human and humane benefits of regulating dog breeds. These benefits may include:

• A reduction in breed-specific dog bites;

• A reduction in dogs designated as “dangerous” and breed-specific complaints; 

• An increase in shelter space; and

• A reduction in breed-specific euthanasia.

For example, after Aurora, Colorado, adopted its BSL in 2005, by 2014, the number of pit pull bite incidents fell by 73%; shelter space previously occupied by unwanted or dangerous pit bulls increased by 55%, and pit bull euthanasia was reduced by an incredible 93%. In light of the success of the ban, Aurora voters chose to uphold the breed ban on the 2014 ballot.

However, despite these argued benefits, opponents of breed ban and restrictive BSL argue that BSL does not work because:

• The owners are the problem, not the dogs;

• BSL is discriminatory and unconstitutional;

• It is difficult to accurately identify a dog’s breed; 

• Reports and statistics are skewed; and

• There are more effective ways to prevent dog bites.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) take strong opposition to BSL. 

There are valid arguments for and against the adoption of BSL, leaving many jurisdictions torn as to the best approach. Despite the success of the BSL in Aurora, Colorado, for example, the Aurora City Council repealed its BSL in 2021. Then in March 2024, District Court Judge Elizabeth Beebe Volz reinstated the BSL on the basis that the Aurora City Council’s repeal was against the will of the people. Then on November 5, 2024, the voters chose to repeal the 20-year-old BSL that the court had just reinstated.

According to DogsBite.org, cities and counties in at least 14 states, including Missouri, have reported success after enacting a breed-specific ordinance. For example, Springfield, Missouri adopted its pit bull ordinance in 2006. 

• In 2005, the year before the ordinance was adopted, there were 102 reported dog bite attacks, 34 of which were by pit bulls. After the ordinance was in place:

• In 2007, only eight pit bull attacks took place;

• In 2008, there were zero pit bull attacks;

• In 2009 and 2010, there was one attack each year;

• In 2011, there were four attacks.

• In the year before the ordinance was adopted, there were 502 pit bulls impounded. By 2007, pit bull impoundments in Springfield were cut in half.

• Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, the City of Springfield euthanized hundreds of pit bulls every year. In 2016, only 26 pit bulls had to be put down.

Several studies conducted by researchers who have evaluated BSL in the United States and elsewhere reveal that pit bull bans have reduced the number of breed-specific bites and hospitalizations resulting from dog bites.

However, in a 2024 study on emergency room visits for dog bite injuries in Missouri in municipalities with and without BSL, researchers found no association between emergency department visits for dog bite injuries and the adoption of BSL by the municipality. Although the study revealed a 13.8% increase in the rate of emergency room visits for dog bite-related injuries for every 1% increase in the percentage of population of males aged 5 to 9, the study determined that BSL has not reduced the risk of emergency department visits for dog bite injuries in Missouri. The study concluded that there is no greater risk to public safety resulting from local municipalities repealing their existing BSL.

Do I Need a Kansas City Dog Bite Attorney?

Breed-specific legislation in Missouri varies significantly from city to city, ranging from complete bans on specific breeds of dogs, primarily pit bulls, to regulations on ownership, breeding, and safety responsibilities. If you are a dog owner in Missouri but are unsure of the status of any dog breed regulations in your county or city, you should consult with an experienced dog bite attorney to learn what your obligations and responsibilities as a dog owner are where you live.