Position Statement on Dangerous Dogs and Public Safety

The BC SPCA recognizes that aggressive behaviour from dogs may pose a serious threat to public health and safety to people, other animals, and communities. Decision-making regarding dangerous dogs in communities lies with local and provincial governments. The BC SPCA supports strategies that aim to identify, address, and prevent root causes of aggression, which requires efforts from humane organizations, local (including First Nation, municipal, and regional district) and provincial governments, and animal professionals (e.g., veterinarians, dog trainers, behaviourists, breeders). The BC SPCA opposes ineffective strategies like breed-specific bans and instead advocates for evidence-based solutions. The BC SPCA also believes that working with dog guardians and communities is essential to promote responsible care and enable people and animals to thrive together.

Approved by the Board of Directors – September 2025
(replaces previous version, October 2004)

Background

Designations

Several terms are used to define dogs that are a potential threat to public safety. Under British Columbia’s Community Charter, a “dangerous dog” means a dog that: (a) has killed or seriously injured a person, (b) has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal, while in a public place or while on private property, other than property owned or occupied by the person responsible for the dog, or, (c) an animal control officer has reasonable grounds to believe is likely to kill or seriously injure a person¹. Some municipalities may further specify the term “dangerous dog” in their bylaws². However, the BC SPCA recommends that local governments not use the term “dangerous dog” in their bylaws, as it can create confusion during the enforcement of legislation.

Each local government can create designations for dogs through bylaws. For example, in Tumbler Ridge, “High risk” means any dog that has: (a) aggressively pursued or threatened a person or animal, while running at large inside the district’s boundaries; or (b) demonstrated a propensity, whether within the District’s boundaries or elsewhere, to attack or injure a person or animal without provocation³.

New Westminster uses the term “aggressive dog” to describe a dog that: (a) has, without provocation, displayed aggressive behaviour toward a person or domestic animal while in a public place; or (b) has, without provocation, caused a minor injury to a person or domestic animal⁴.

In Lake Cowichan, a “vicious dog” refers to: (a) a dog that has attacked, bitten or caused injury to a person or has demonstrated a propensity, tendency or disposition to do so; or (b) a dog that has bitten, killed or caused injury to a domestic animal; or (c) a dog that has aggressively pursued or harassed a person or domestic animal; or (d) a dog with a known propensity to attack or injure a person without provocation⁵.

The BC SPCA encourages local governments to create various designations based on the severity of aggressive behaviour to allow for flexibility in enforcement and restrictions on dogs and their guardians. For example, Coquitlam uses the tiered designation terms “aggressive” and “vicious” while also recognizing the Community Charter’s “dangerous” definition⁶.

Factors affecting dog aggression

Dog aggression can refer to a wide range of behaviours (e.g., growling, snapping); however, in severe cases, aggressive behaviour may result in a bite involving familiar or unfamiliar animals or humans. Most dogs do not show aggressive behaviours in all contexts, meaning that aggressive behaviour may be a learned response to specific situations rather than a general characteristic⁷.

The BC SPCA believes that approaches to the issue of dangerous dogs must consider the underlying factors that contribute to aggressive behaviour, including:

• Early life experiences: Puppies that grow up in environments that lack social or environmental stimuli (including puppies that are weaned from their litter too soon) are more likely to have behavioural or health concerns associated with fear and aggression⁸.
• Lack of socialization: Animal- and human-directed aggression are not necessarily co-occurring in dogs, so training and socialization that improve interactions with other animals and people are both important. Providing positive interactions during the puppy socialization window (approximately 3 – 12 weeks) can enable dogs to cope with stress and reduce the risk of aggressive behaviour in later life⁸.
• Use of aversive training methods: Dogs that are trained using solely reward-based methods have fewer behavioural problems compared to dogs that are trained using some form of aversive methods⁹. Positive reinforcement training and socialization can reduce the risk of aggressive incidents¹⁰.
• Understanding dog body language and behaviours: Misunderstanding of fearful body language and stress-related behaviours increases the risk of dog bites, particularly during human-dog play¹¹.
• Stressful circumstances: Risk of dog bites is heightened when dogs are stressed or fearful^12,13.
• Dog-children interactions: Children are the most common victims of reported dog bites to humans. Most of these incidents occur by a dog known to the family¹⁴. Young children have difficulty identifying fear in dogs, and even when they do, may still approach or interact with them, which can lead to escalation of dog behaviour¹⁵.
• Roaming pets: Dog bites often occur when family dogs escape from homes or yards¹⁶.
• Health issues: Medical issues that cause pain or distress for the animal increase risks of dog bites16. Veterinary professionals may recommend neutering dogs to reduce risks of certain aggressive behaviours^17,18. However, the effectiveness of neutering on reducing aggressive behaviours may vary based on multiple complex factors, such as breed, sex, health, and environment¹⁸.

Breed-Specific Legislation

The BC SPCA opposes Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) as a strategy for reducing dog aggression. BSLs are laws that restrict or prohibit certain dog breeds with the intent to reduce aggression and dog attacks in communities. Most commonly, BSL regulates the guardianship of pit-bull type dogs¹⁹.

To varying degrees, studies have found that some dog breeds are disproportionately involved in dog-human bites, particularly severe dog bites or bites involving children^20–24. However, the efficacy of BSL in reducing dog bite cases is not clear^25–28. Other studies do not identify breed as a factor affecting aggression^29–31. In addition, obtaining reliable data on dog bites is complicated due to a lack of comparisons to the reference population, lack of breed registration, and incorrect identification of breed, particularly with pit-bull type dogs^19,32.

Evaluation of BSL in other areas has suggested that the legislation results in significant costs due to enforcement and care of animals affected by BSL in shelters, while social benefits of BSL (e.g., perceived safety and positive perceptions of the city) are felt by a minority of the public³³.

Suggested strategies

The BC SPCA believes that approaches to respond to dog aggression in our communities must address the underlying factors that contribute to aggressive behaviour, as well as facilitate solutions through education and data collection.

• Education and awareness: Dog guardians and community members should be educated about dog welfare, the underlying factors that contribute to aggressive behaviour, and reading dog body language to best prevent and mitigate unsafe situations. Children and their families should be educated about safe interactions with dogs.
• Improve access to and use of reward-based training and behaviour services: Positive socialization and training can help provide dog guardians with the skills and knowledge to effectively manage behavioural issues that can lead to aggression. Dogs with a known history of aggressive behaviour (often reported as ‘dangerous’) should be trained in collaboration with reward-based trainers who adhere to ethical, evidence-backed methods, such as those outlined in the BC SPCA AnimalKind Standards.
• Regulate breeding: Legislation should ensure that environments that breed and raise puppies promote socialization in sensitive early life stages.
  Increase access to veterinary care: Regular veterinary care can help mitigate aggressive incidents that may result from health issues in dogs. Reducing barriers that prevent neutering of dogs can reduce risks of undesirable behaviours associated with intact animals.
• Address cruelty and neglect: Jurisdictions should strengthen and enforce laws that address environments that contribute to canine aggression.
• Improve data collection: Agencies should collaborate to accurately record dog bite incidents. Promotion of effective pet licensing programs would also improve data about the general dog population.

Behavioural euthanasia of dogs with aggressive behaviour

In cases where aggression is severe or unpredictable and cannot be effectively treated or managed, the potential for harm may outweigh the ability to provide a safe and humane quality of life for both the animal and those around them. Finding these dogs new homes is not always possible or responsible while keeping the dogs and their community safe. Dogs with aggressive behaviour may also be struggling with fear and stress, worsened by their limited ability to safely explore the world. In these cases, guardians, in collaboration with their veterinarian and trainer, may consider behavioural euthanasia as the most humane and safest option for the dog, their family, and the community. This approach reflects a One Health/One Welfare perspective: recognizing the need to safeguard the health and well-being of people, animals, and the wider community.

Dangerous dogs in BC SPCA care

Aggression can be a natural behaviour in dogs in response to certain situations. However, in some cases, it can pose a serious and ongoing risk to people or other animals. Dogs deemed dangerous, aggressive, or vicious, whether by provincial or local designation (other than Breed-Specific Legislation), or due to a serious incident during care with the BC SPCA, particularly when they present a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of staff and volunteers while in care, are considered not adoptable under BC SPCA guidelines. This decision is never made lightly and is made by a team of qualified professionals that may include veterinarians and behaviour professionals. When no safe or humane outcome is possible, or there are legal obligations, behavioural euthanasia is the most responsible and ethical option to protect public safety, staff and volunteers, the organization, and animal welfare³⁴. Euthanizing an animal can have a deep emotional impact on everyone involved. It is important to acknowledge the psychological toll of losing an animal and to approach it with empathy and compassion, not only for the animal but also for the people making and carrying out these difficult decisions.

Background updated – September 2025

See also:
Animal Training
Selective Breeding of Companion Animals
Tethering of Dogs
Companion Animal Handling and Restraint
Responsible Companion Animal Sourcing

References

1. Province of British Columbia. (2003). Community Charter.  https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/03026_00
2. City of Richmond. (2013). Bylaw No. 7932. https://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/Bylaw_No_7932_Consolidation_07272057004.pdf
3. District of Tumbler Ridge. (2020). Bylaw No. 692. https://tumblerridgedist.municipalwebsites.ca/ckfinder/connector?command=Proxy&lang=en&type=Files&currentFolder=%2F&hash=c245c263ce0eced480effe66bbede6b4d46c15ae&fileName=Animal%20Responsibility%20Bylaw%202024.pdf
4. City of New Westminster. (2018). Bylaw No. 7586. https://www.newwestcity.ca/database/files/library/7586_Animal.pdf
5. Town of Lake Cowichan. (2021). Bylaw No. 1019.  https://www.town.lakecowichan.bc.ca/dl/1052-2021%20Amendment%20to%20Animal%20Control.pdf
6. City of Coquitlam. (2009). Bylaw No. 4240.  https://publicdocs.coquitlam.ca/coquitlamdoc/getdocIF.asp?doc=4572110
7. Casey, R. A., Loftus, B., Bolster, C., Richards, G. J., & Blackwell, E. J. (2014). Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 152, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.12.003
8. Baslington-Davies, A., Howell, H., Hogue, T. E., & Mills, D. S. (2023). An assessment of scientific evidence relating to the effect of early experience on the risk of human-directed aggression by adult dogs. Animals, 13(14), 2329. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142329/s1
9. Kleszcz, A., Cholewińska, P., Front, G., et al. (2022). Review on selected aggression causes and the role of neurocognitive science in the diagnosis. Animals, 12(3), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030281
10. Blackwell, E. J., Twells, C., Seawright, A., & Casey, R. A. (2008). The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3(5), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.008
11. Walsh, E. A., Meers, L. L., Samuels, W. E., et al. (2024). Human-dog communication: How body language and non-verbal cues are key to clarity in dog directed play, petting and hugging behaviour by humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 272, 106206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106206
12. Ramgopal, S., Bykowski, M. R., Chow, I., Losee, J. E., & Saladino, R. A. (2019). Weather patterns in the prediction of pediatric dog bites. Clinical Pediatrics, 58(3), 354–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922818809518
13. Dixon, C. A., & Mistry, R. D. (2020). Dog bites in children surge during Coronavirus Disease-2019: A case for enhanced prevention. The Journal of Pediatrics, 225, 231–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.06.071
14. Plana, N. M., Kalmar, C. L., Cheung, L., Swanson, J. W., & Taylor, J. A. (2022). Pediatric dog bite injuries: A 5-year nationwide study and implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 33(5), 1436–1440. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008670
15. Reisner, I. R., & Shofer, F. S. (2008). Effects of gender and parental status on knowledge and attitudes of dog owners regarding dog aggression toward children. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 233(9), 1412–1419. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.233.9.1412
16. Reese, L. A., & Vertalka, J. J. (2020). Preventing dog bites: It is not only about the dog. Animals, 10(4), 666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040666
17. D’Onise, K., Haze, S., & Caraguel, C. (2017). Mandatory desexing of dogs: One step in the right direction to reduce the risk of dog bite? A systematic review. Injury Prevention, 23(3), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042141
18. Arroube, A., & Pereira, A. F. (2025). Dog neuter, yes or no? A summary of the motivations, benefits, and harms, with special emphasis on the behavioral aspect. Animals, 15(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15071063
19. Patronek, G. J., Sacks, J. J., Delise, K. M., Cleary, D. V., & Marder, A. R. (2013). Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 243(12), 1726–1736. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726
20. Sacks, J. J. (1989). Dog bite-related fatalities from 1979 through 1988. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 262(11), 1489–1492. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.262.11.1489
21. Sacks, J. J., Lockwood, R., Hornreich, J., & Sattin, R. W. (1996). Fatal dog attacks, 1989–1994. Pediatrics, 97(6), 891–895. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.97.6.891
22. Cornelissen, J. M. R., & Hopster, H. (2010). Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation. The Veterinary Journal, 186(3), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.10.001
23. Meek, E., Lewis, K., Hulbert, J., & Mustafa, S. (2024). Who let the dogs out? A 10-year review of maxillofacial dog bite injuries. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 62(9), 831–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2024.07.012
24. Essig, G. F., Sheehan, C., Rikhi, S., Elmaraghy, C. A., & Christophel, J. J. (2019). Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 117, 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.11.028
25. Ledger, R. A., Orihel, J. S., Clarke, N., Murphy, S., & Sedlbauer, M. (2005). Breed specific legislation: Considerations for evaluating its effectiveness and recommendations for alternatives. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 46, 735–743. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2834488/
26. Creedon, N., & Ó’Súilleabháin, P. S. (2017). Dog bite injuries to humans and the use of breed-specific legislation: A comparison of bites from legislated and non-legislated dog breeds. Irish Veterinary Journal, 70(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1
27. Wyker, B., & Gupta, M. (2024). Emergency department visits for dog bite injuries in Missouri municipalities with and without breed-specific legislation: A propensity score-matched analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1354698. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1354698
28. Nilson, F., Damsager, J., Lauritsen, J., & Bonander, C. (2018). The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in Odense, Denmark—A time series intervention study. PLoS One, 13(12), e0208393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208393
29. Hammond, A., Rowland, T., Mills, D. S., & Pilot, M. (2022). Comparison of behavioural tendencies between “dangerous dogs” and other domestic dog breeds – Evolutionary context and practical implications. Evolutionary Applications, 15(11), 1806–1819. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13479
30. Schalke, E., Ott, S. A., von Gaertner, A. M., Hackbarth, H., & Mittmann, A. (2008). Is breed-specific legislation justified? Study of the results of the temperament test of Lower Saxony. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3(3), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.004
31. Ott, S. A., Schalke, E., von Gaertner, A. M., & Hackbarth, H. (2008). Is there a difference? Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed-specific legislation regarding aggressive behavior. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 3(3), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.09.009
32. Olson, K. R., Levy, J. K., Norby, B., et al. (2015). Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff. The Veterinary Journal, 206(2), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.019
33. Hawes, S., Ikizler, D., Loughney, K., et al. (2020). A quantitative study of Denver’s breed-specific legislation. Animal Law Review, 26(2). https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/alr/vol26/iss2/2
34. BC SPCA. (2025). Our euthanasia policy. https://spca.bc.ca/faqs/euthanasia-policy/