The palgrave international handbook of a 150

Status Dogs

141

that admissions are over three times higher amongst children from the most
deprived areas as those from the least deprived. In this data the victim’s
details are recorded, but not the breed (but in any case this would be
subjective as the victim may not have breed knowledge).
8. There is very limited data available on dog-on-dog or other animal attacks.
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association reported that between 2011
and 2013 there were an average of 10 attacks on guide dogs per month,
with the largest proportion (35 %) of aggressors identified as bull breeds
(Moxon 2013). The British Horse Society also collects reports of where
horses have been attacked by dogs and an increase has been noted over a
number of years (Mathieson 2015). They do not record the dog breed or
outcome for the dog breeds involved.
In summation, there are many obstacles to accessing the already limited
quantitative data on the status dog phenomenon and, even more so, harms to
these dogs. One key barrier is the lack of consensus around the definition of
status dogs and lack of clarity around their identification discussed above,
and the general failure of the ‘usual’ sources to record breed and owner/
keeper characteristics. We do know that there are substantial numbers of
seizures of dangerous dogs and dogs on the index of exempt dogs. We also
know that a considerable number of stray dogs and abandoned dogs are
taken in by local authorities and shelters, and, in the case of the latter, these
are most often bull breeds. This, along with the qualitative findings on the
harms currently inflicted on dogs owing to their perceived status, calls for a
consideration of explanations.

Explaining Harm towards Status Dogs
The motivations for animal companionship vary considerably; according to

Beverland et al. (2008) these broadly fall into two categories—intrinsic and
extrinsic ownership, the latter sometimes referred to as the ‘dark side’ of
ownership. Ahuvia (2008) maintains these categories are consistent with the
Bubarian (Buber 1923) ‘Ich-Du’ (I-Thou) and ‘Ich-es’ (I-It) perspectives on
human interpersonal relationships. Intrinsic ownership fits with the ‘Ich-Du’
relationship where the owner sees their companion as intrinsically valuable:
with an inherent value and with the relationship an end in itself. Extrinsic
ownership fits with the Ich-es relationship, where the companion animal has
no inherent value and is instead a means to an end—the owner ‘constructs a
mental idea of the other [animal] and relates only to that idea’ (Ahuvia 2008,