Breed-specific legislation, often referred to as BSL, has influenced dog ownership laws in the United States for decades. While there is no nationwide ban on any dog breed, individual states and local governments have taken very different approaches. Some allow certain breeds to be banned or restricted, others prohibit breed-based laws entirely, and many fall somewhere in between.
This article breaks down banned and restricted dog breeds state by state, highlighting where specific breeds face limits and where none exist at all. Each entry reflects how laws are applied in practice, highlighting the inconsistency and controversy that breed-specific rules continue to evoke across the country.
Wyoming: None
Wyoming has no breed-specific legislation at the state level, and most local governments also avoid banning specific breeds. The state favors behavior-based enforcement, focusing on dangerous actions rather than a dog’s appearance. Wyoming’s rural lifestyle and strong property rights culture have played a role in limiting pressure for breed bans, even after national debates around aggressive dog incidents.
Ohio: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Ohio historically classified Pit Bulls as inherently dangerous, making it one of the most cited examples of breed-based law. While reforms softened the language, some municipalities still enforce restrictions. These can include mandatory insurance, special confinement rules, or registration requirements, meaning legality often depends on the exact city or county.
Maine: None
Maine prohibits breed-specific bans and strongly supports breed-neutral dog laws. The state shifted its focus to owner accountability after pressure from veterinarians and animal welfare groups. Maine’s approach is often praised for reducing shelter overcrowding and avoiding misidentification issues that commonly arise with appearance-based enforcement.
Missouri: 2 Breeds
Pit Bull
Rottweiler
Missouri allows local governments to regulate specific breeds, leading to restrictions in several cities. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are the most commonly affected. Rules usually include special permits, higher licensing fees, and confinement standards rather than full bans, but enforcement varies significantly across municipalities.
Hawaii: None
Hawaii bans breed-specific legislation statewide, opting instead for strict leash laws and severe penalties for dangerous behavior. The state has faced criticism over quarantine policies in the past, but when it comes to dog breeds, lawmakers have consistently rejected bans, citing a lack of scientific evidence supporting breed-based safety laws.
Kansas: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Kansas permits breed-specific laws at the local level, and Pit Bulls are the primary target. Some cities impose outright bans, while others require insurance, sterilization, or muzzling. The lack of statewide consistency often confuses residents moving between counties or municipalities.
New Hampshire: None
New Hampshire prohibits breed-specific legislation and emphasizes individual behavior assessments. The state’s laws are frequently referenced in legal discussions about fair animal control practices. Officials argue that temperament testing and owner responsibility provide better public safety outcomes than breed bans.
Michigan: 2 Breeds
Pit Bull
Wolf-Dog Hybrid
Michigan allows local breed regulations, and several municipalities restrict Pit Bulls and wolf-dog hybrids. These laws often include containment standards and ownership permits. Wolf-dog hybrids face scrutiny due to concerns over unpredictability, despite ongoing debate about their actual risk.
California: None
California prohibits breed-specific bans but allows limited local exceptions under strict conditions. The state has repeatedly rejected proposals to single out breeds, instead promoting dangerous-dog laws tied to documented behavior. California’s stance has influenced other states considering repeals of older breed-based ordinances.
Kentucky: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Kentucky allows cities and counties to enact breed restrictions, and Pit Bulls are the most affected. Some jurisdictions enforce bans, while others impose ownership conditions. The issue remains controversial, with several local repeal efforts sparked by overcrowded shelters and enforcement costs.
Vermont: None
Vermont bans breed-specific legislation and is known for progressive animal welfare policies. The state emphasizes education, licensing, and leash enforcement instead of breed bans. Vermont lawmakers have cited studies showing no clear link between breed and aggression when defending their position.
Tennessee: 2 Breeds
Pit Bull
Rottweiler
Tennessee allows local breed laws, and both Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are commonly restricted. Some cities require liability insurance or impose ownership limits. These laws remain highly localized, creating a patchwork system that varies widely across the state.
Alaska: None
Alaska prohibits breed-specific bans statewide. Despite concerns in some communities about sled-dog aggression incidents, lawmakers have maintained breed-neutral laws. The state relies on strict dangerous-dog provisions rather than breed labels to address public safety issues.
Indiana: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Indiana permits breed-specific rules at the local level, with Pit Bulls most often targeted. Restrictions may include special licensing, confinement requirements, or bans. Critics argue that enforcement disproportionately affects mixed-breed dogs due to visual identification methods.
Texas: None
Texas bans breed-specific legislation statewide, favoring owner accountability laws. The state’s dangerous-dog statutes are among the strictest, focusing on documented attacks rather than breed. Texas lawmakers have consistently resisted efforts to reintroduce breed bans, even after high-profile incidents.
Wisconsin: 2 Breeds
Pit Bull
Rottweiler
Wisconsin allows municipalities to regulate specific breeds. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are the most frequently restricted, often through insurance and registration requirements. Full bans are less common, but compliance rules can still make ownership difficult in certain cities.
Florida: None
Florida prohibits breed-specific legislation but includes a grandfather clause allowing some older local laws to remain. This has created confusion, as a few municipalities still enforce outdated restrictions. State officials continue to debate whether these legacy ordinances should be fully repealed.
South Carolina: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
South Carolina allows local breed bans, and Pit Bulls are the most affected. Several cities enforce strict ownership rules or bans, often tied to housing regulations. The issue remains divisive, with ongoing pressure from animal advocacy groups to adopt breed-neutral alternatives.
Utah: None
Utah bans breed-specific legislation and requires all dangerous-dog determinations to be behavior-based. The state passed this law after widespread criticism of breed discrimination. Utah’s policy is often cited by animal welfare organizations as a model for balanced public safety regulation.
West Virginia: 2 Breeds
Pit Bull
Wolf-Dog Hybrid
West Virginia allows breed-specific laws at the local level. Pit Bulls and wolf-dog hybrids are commonly regulated, particularly in smaller municipalities. Concerns often center on containment and liability rather than outright bans, though restrictions can still be strict.
New York: None
New York prohibits breed-specific bans statewide but allows limited local exceptions. The state has repeatedly reaffirmed that dogs cannot be declared dangerous based on breed alone. New York City, in particular, has been vocal in rejecting breed bans in favor of enforcement-focused laws.
Alabama: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Alabama allows municipalities to ban or restrict breeds, with Pit Bulls most commonly targeted. Some cities enforce strict bans, while others impose insurance or confinement rules. Enforcement differs widely, making compliance heavily dependent on local ordinances rather than state guidance.
Oregon: None
Oregon prohibits breed-specific legislation but allows narrow local exceptions. The state has consistently promoted breed-neutral enforcement, focusing on owner behavior and training standards. Oregon’s position has made it a frequent reference point in national discussions on repealing BSL.
Pennsylvania: None
Pennsylvania bans breed-specific legislation statewide. Courts in the state have repeatedly ruled against breed-based enforcement due to inaccuracies in identification. As a result, Pennsylvania relies on dangerous-dog hearings and documented incidents rather than appearance-based rules.
Arizona: None
Arizona prohibits breed-specific legislation at the state level, though limited local exceptions exist. The law was passed after legal challenges showed that visual breed identification was unreliable. Arizona’s policy emphasizes dangerous behavior and owner negligence rather than breed labels, making enforcement more consistent across cities.
Arkansas: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Arkansas allows local governments to impose breed restrictions, and Pit Bulls are the most commonly affected. Several cities maintain bans or strict ownership rules. These laws are often tied to housing regulations and public safety ordinances rather than statewide animal control standards.
Colorado: None
Colorado bans breed-specific legislation statewide, but Denver remains a notable exception due to an older ordinance. The Denver Pit Bull ban has sparked national debate and multiple legal challenges, making Colorado one of the most frequently cited states in BSL controversy discussions.
Connecticut: None
Connecticut prohibits breed-based bans and requires that dogs be judged on an individual basis. Courts have ruled that breed alone cannot determine danger. The state’s approach is often referenced in legal cases challenging discriminatory animal control practices.
Delaware: None
Delaware bans breed-specific legislation and focuses on behavior-based enforcement. The state revised its dog laws after studies showed no clear link between breed and aggression. Delaware’s system prioritizes documented incidents and owner accountability.
Georgia: None
Georgia prohibits breed-specific laws but allows limited local exceptions. The state’s dangerous-dog statutes are behavior-focused, though some counties have attempted to test the limits of local authority, leading to legal disputes.
Idaho: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Idaho allows municipalities to regulate specific breeds. Pit Bulls are the primary target in cities with breed-based rules. Restrictions typically include containment requirements and higher licensing fees rather than statewide bans.
Illinois: None
Illinois bans breed-specific legislation while allowing narrow exceptions. The state moved away from breed bans after pressure from veterinary associations and animal welfare groups. Illinois emphasizes leash enforcement and dangerous-dog hearings.
Iowa: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Iowa permits local breed restrictions, and Pit Bulls are the most frequently regulated. Some cities enforce bans, while others impose insurance or registration rules. Enforcement varies significantly between municipalities.
Louisiana: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Louisiana allows local governments to enact breed bans. Pit Bulls are commonly restricted, particularly in urban areas. These laws often include mandatory sterilization or insurance requirements rather than statewide prohibitions.
Maryland: None
Maryland bans breed-specific legislation with limited exceptions. The state reversed earlier breed-targeted rules after legal challenges highlighted unfair liability standards. Maryland now relies on behavior-based dangerous-dog determinations.
Massachusetts: None
Massachusetts prohibits breed-specific bans and has done so for decades. Courts in the state have consistently ruled against breed discrimination, making it one of the earliest adopters of breed-neutral dog laws.
Minnesota: None
Minnesota bans breed-specific legislation but allows limited local flexibility. The state focuses on dangerous behavior classifications, though some cities still impose stricter ownership requirements for large dogs.
Mississippi: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Mississippi allows local breed bans, and Pit Bulls are the most commonly affected. Restrictions are often linked to housing codes and public nuisance laws rather than standalone animal control statutes.
Montana: None
Montana bans breed-specific legislation with limited local exceptions. The state’s wide rural population and low-density cities have reduced pressure for breed bans, keeping enforcement focused on owner responsibility.
Nebraska: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Nebraska allows municipalities to regulate dog breeds. Pit Bulls face the most restrictions, particularly in smaller cities. Laws often include confinement standards and higher licensing costs.
New Mexico: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
New Mexico permits local breed bans. Pit Bulls are frequently restricted under city ordinances. These laws are often justified through public safety arguments despite ongoing debate over effectiveness.
North Carolina: None
North Carolina prohibits breed-specific legislation but allows limited exceptions. The state has emphasized that aggression must be proven through behavior, not appearance, in dangerous-dog cases.
North Dakota: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
North Dakota allows local breed restrictions. Pit Bulls are the most commonly regulated, usually through insurance or confinement requirements rather than outright bans.
Oklahoma: None
Oklahoma bans breed-specific legislation statewide. Lawmakers rejected breed bans after studies showed no reduction in dog bites. The state relies on behavior-based enforcement.
Rhode Island: None
Rhode Island prohibits breed-specific laws and requires individual dog assessments. The state’s courts have consistently supported breed-neutral animal control policies.
South Dakota: None
South Dakota bans breed-specific legislation. Despite occasional local pressure following dog attack cases, the state has maintained a strict stance against breed bans.
Virginia: None
Virginia prohibits breed-specific legislation with limited exceptions. The state reformed its dog laws after public backlash against earlier breed-targeted measures.
Washington: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Washington allows local breed bans, and Pit Bulls are the primary target. Restrictions vary by city and often include registration and confinement rules.
District of Columbia: 1 Breed
Pit Bull
Washington, D.C., previously enforced a strict Pit Bull ban, later replacing it with heavy restrictions. The policy change followed years of public protest and legal challenges, making it one of the most discussed BSL cases in the U.S.
New Jersey: None
New Jersey prohibits breed-specific legislation statewide and requires that all dogs be evaluated individually. The state explicitly bans labeling dogs as dangerous based solely on breed. New Jersey’s courts have reinforced this position multiple times, ruling that aggression must be proven through behavior. This approach emerged after legal challenges exposed how often breed identification errors led to wrongful enforcement.
