The palgrave international handbook of a 159

150

J. Maher et al.

intervention is most commonly dog control notices and out-of-court disposals,
rather than programmes responding to the causes of the problem through
education, training and awareness.

Conclusion
Data from the RSPCA and others demonstrates that all dogs can experience
abuse at the hands of their owners. However, those dogs labelled as status dogs
are victims of acute and specific abuses relating to their breeding, training and
sometimes their roles (for example, fighting), all of which can lead to abandonment and even destruction. The data on the extent of the ownership of
status dogs does not exist per se, but there are a number of indicators of the
existence of this problem and the associated harms. In addition to qualitative
academic research, there are substantial numbers of dangerous dog seizures, of
dogs on the index of exempt dogs and of bull breeds taken in by local
authorities and shelters. Status dogs are routinely abused by owners, breeders
and government agencies. The form this abuse takes can be legal and illegal,
with legislation and its enforcement being a key driver in the creation of the
phenomenon as well as the dogs’ suffering. Consequently, to explain the
phenomenon it is crucial to explore both motivations for ownership and
related abuses and the impact of societal reactions to these dogs.
Status dogs have become an extension of youths’ reputation within hypermasculine street subculture, wherein status is fragile and constantly challenged and in flux. Earning and maintaining status is a constant burden for
youths, and requires harsh treatment of their dogs to ensure they perform
their allocated role as a weapon, protection, a symbol of toughness, a badge
of honour and social and economic capital. By labelling these dogs as
dangerous, society unwittingly reinforces their value to these youths, endangering these animals by corralling them into a vicious cycle of violence.
Contrary to the evidence available from the scientific community which
contests the aims and efficacy of BSL, many status dogs are killed under
the guise of being dangerous, when it is their conformity to a breed standard

and association with interpersonal violence that determines their fate.
Societal reactions (from the media, government and public), arguably, have
generated more problems than they have solved.
Both formal and informal responses are documented as exacerbating the
cultural norm to label and punish animals more than their irresponsible and
abusive owners. In response, we the authors feel compelled to question the
motivation behind these responses—are they a sincere response to legitimate