A world map of banned dog breeds: from XL Bully to Shenzhen's "fierce dogs"
Across the jurisdictions surveyed here, the line between a legal dog and a banned one is drawn in strikingly different ways. Some legislatures name breeds by type; others ban by behaviour; and a few โ notably in China โ ban by physical size and a label of "fierce dog." Mapping those choices side by side shows not only where the bans fall, but where the underlying animal-welfare law does not.
The United Kingdom: banned "types" since 1991
The clearest example of breed-by-name prohibition is the UK. Under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is unlawful to breed, sell, exchange, gift, or allow a banned-type dog in a public place unmuzzled/unleashed. The banned "types" named in the Act and its Designated Types Orders are the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the Dogo Argentino, and the Fila Braziliero โ note the statute itself spells the last as "Fila Braziliero." A fifth type, the XL Bully, was added later: the type of dog known as the XL Bully is designated for the purposes of section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, being a type appearing to the Secretary of State to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose. Specifically, the XL Bully is designated by The Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (England and Wales) Order 2023 (SI 2023/1164), in force at 31.12.2023. Section 1(1)(c) provides the mechanism: further types may be designated by Order of the Secretary of State.
Devolved nations: Scotland and Northern Ireland follow
The same framework extends across the devolved jurisdictions, each with its own 2024 designation of the XL Bully. In Scotland the type of dog known as the XL Bully is designated for the purposes of section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, being a type appearing to the Scottish Ministers to be bred for fighting โ made by the devolved 2024 Order (SSI 2024/31 (Scotland)). In Northern Ireland the XL Bully is designated under Article 25A of The Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, by the devolved 2024 Order (SR 2024/133 (Northern Ireland)), in operation at 5.7.2024. All three UK jurisdictions therefore share the four original types plus the XL Bully, with the same Section 1(1)(c) mechanism for adding more.
Singapore: control, not an outright ban
Singapore sits at the softer end of the spectrum. Singapore does not ban any breed outright; it lists "Specified dogs" subject to additional control measures (e.g., muzzling, licensing). The First Schedule of the Animals and Birds (Licensing and Control of Cats and Dogs) Rules 2024 splits them into two parts. Part 1 โ stricter controls โ includes the Pit Bull, which includes the American Pit Bull Terrier (also known as the American Pit Bull and Pit Bull Terrier), American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, and crosses between them and other breeds; then the Akita, Neapolitan Mastiff, Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Boerboel, Perro De Presa Canario, and crosses of 1 to 8. Part 2 covers the Bull Terrier, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, German Shepherd Dog and its related breeds, Mastiffs including the Bull Mastiff, Cane Corso and Dogue De Bordeaux, and crosses of 1 to 5. These are controlled, not forbidden.
Australia: restricted in NSW, prohibited in Queensland
Australia regulates at the state level. In New South Wales the Companion Animals Act 1998 lists restricted breeds: American pit bull terrier, pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, dogo Argentino or fila Brasileiro, Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario. Queensland takes the harder line. Under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 s.103A, a prohibited dog is a dog of a breed prohibited from importation into Australia under the Customs Act 1901 (Cwlth). The ban is anchored to the federal import prohibition.
United States: California's behaviour-based "vicious dog"
The United States offers a different model. California does not ban a breed by name in the source surveyed; instead ยง 31603 defines "vicious dog." Under the California Food & Agricultural Code ยง 31603, a vicious dog is any dog that, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being, or any dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog that, after its owner or keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behaviour. The focus is conduct, not pedigree โ a meaningful contrast with the type-based bans above.
China: Beijing's height rule and Shenzhen's fierce-dog list
China's breed restrictions appear at the municipal level. Beijing, under the Beijing Municipal Regulations on Dog Keeping Management and the Beijing Municipal Agriculture Bureau Announcement ไบฌๅ็ๅญใ2003ใ47ๅท, applies a height-and-temperament standard: in key management areas, in principle only small companion dogs with an adult body height of 35 cm or under (inclusive) may be kept. Keeping fierce dogs and any breed exceeding 35 cm adult height is banned in key management areas. Working dogs used for guiding the blind and for daily-life assistance are exempt from the 35 cm height limit. The banned list runs from Mastiff and German Dobermann through Rottweiler, Irish Wolfhound, Akita, Bull Terrier and beyond.
Shenzhen goes further with an explicit fierce-dog register. Under the Shenzhen Municipal Market Regulation Bureau Notice ๆทฑๅธ็่งใ2024ใ6ๅท, keeping fierce dogs is prohibited in residential areas, commercial areas, industrial zones and other no-fierce-dog areas designated by the municipal competent authorities. The published list includes the Tibetan Mastiff, Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero, Tosa Inu, Central Asian Shepherd Dog, Bull Terrier, Mastiff, Cane Corso, Great Dane, Neopolitan Mastiff, Staffordshire Terrier, Afghan Hound, Rottweiler, Akita, Bullmastiff, Dogue de Bordeaux, American Bulldog, and many more โ each determined by the market regulation department and published to the public.
The welfare-law contrast
Where breed bans exist, companion animal-welfare law typically sits alongside them. The UK Animal Welfare Act 2006 creates both a negative offence and a positive duty. On unnecessary suffering, a person commits an offence where an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, and the suffering is unnecessary. On the positive side, Section 9 imposes a positive duty: a person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice โ needs that include its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
Japan's Animal Welfare Act (ๅ็ฉๆ่ญท็ฎก็ๆณ) takes yet another tack, regulating dangerous animals rather than dog breeds. Dangerous animals and their hybrids designated by the state may not be kept as pets from 2020-06-01; zoos and research institutions must obtain governor permission and use escape-proof facilities. The control is about keeping risk, not about a breed้ปๅๅ.
The legislative gap worth stating
Here is the gap the map exposes. Among the sources assembled for this article, two Chinese municipalities โ Beijing and Shenzhen โ impose breed or fierce-dog prohibitions, yet no national-level Chinese animal-welfare statute appears anywhere in the same dataset. The UK and Japan, by contrast, pair their restrictions with a standing welfare statute: the Animal Welfare Act 2006 on the UK side and the ๅ็ฉๆ่ญท็ฎก็ๆณ dangerous-animal provisions on the Japanese side. A jurisdiction can ban a breed without, in this dataset, having a codified national duty-of-care law sitting next to it. That asymmetry โ prohibition without a parallel welfare code โ is the point worth flagging: breed bans manage public-safety risk at the municipal edge, while the protective floor for the animals themselves is, in China's case here, absent from the national statute shelf.
Sources
All facts above are drawn verbatim from the following first-hand source topics (each C1 substring-verified against an official source file):
- uk_dda_banned_dog_types โ legislation.gov.uk, Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.1; SI 1991/1743; SI 2023/1164 (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-22).
- scotland_dda_banned_dog_types โ legislation.gov.uk, DDA 1991; SSI 2024/31 (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-22).
- northern_ireland_dda_banned_dog_types โ legislation.gov.uk, DDA 1991; SR 2024/133 (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-22).
- singapore_specified_dog_breeds โ AVS/NParks, Animals and Birds (Licensing and Control of Cats and Dogs) Rules 2024 First Schedule (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-22).
- nsw_restricted_dog_breeds โ legislation.nsw.gov.au, Companion Animals Act 1998 (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-22).
- qld_prohibited_dog_breeds โ legislation.qld.gov.au, Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 s.103A (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-22).
- beijing_banned_dog_breeds โ beijing.gov.cn, ไบฌๅ็ๅญใ2003ใ47ๅท (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-22).
- shenzhen_fierce_dog_breeds โ amr.sz.gov.cn, ๆทฑๅธ็่งใ2024ใ6ๅท (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-22).
- banned_dog_breeds_us_ca_fac_31603 โ California Food & Agricultural Code ยง 31603, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-24 via Tokyo relay).
- animal_welfare_act_uk_2006_offences โ UK legislation.gov.uk, Animal Welfare Act 2006 ss. 4 & 9 (first-hand; extracted 2026-07-23).
- jp_animal_welfare_act_dangerous โ env.go.jp, ๅ็ฉๆ่ญท็ฎก็ๆณใฎๆฆ่ฆ (first-hand; retrieved 2026-07-24 via headless Chromium).
Caliber note: every cited source is first-hand official text (C1). No TH/FR hosts are used, so the TH/FR first-hand-degree flag does not apply. Most topics carry needs_review: true (Tavily-extracted, pending secondary confirmation); the Japan topic is needs_review: false.