Status Dogs 147 around links between status dog and the more serious criminal activities, including dog fighting and gangs By employing alternative methodologies Raghavan et al (2013) appear to offer some evidence that BSL can reduce the incidence of dog bites, particularly bites on young people, however they not examine in detail other contributing factors, such as a heightened public awareness—even a moral panic—which could itself cut opportunities for attacks Success in terms of reducing dog bites may more likely be in the form of interventions through enforcement Clarke and Fraser (2013) found that rather than BSL having any measurable effect, it was control notices or ‘ticketing’ issued by the local municipal authority that provided encouraging results BSL penalises the dogs (covered in the legislation) and also responsible owners of those dogs for unproven potentially dangerous behaviour If pre-emptive measures are to be utilised, better these centre around owners who have been identified as irresponsible or likely to misuse their dogs as this will also benefit ‘the dogs themselves if it prevents them from being kept in situations contrary to good welfare’ (Dobson 2011, p 1) While the dog pays the ultimate price with its life, their owner is free to repeat these mistakes if they acquire a new dog, especially if the causes of the attack are not examined and addressed Society rarely holds parents responsible for a dog attack on a child within the home, although there are increasing calls for alternative educational strategies which will require parental identification of the factors that led to an attack (Mannion et al 2015) Furthermore, BSL could inadvertently be contributing to dog attacks and bites by falsely reassuring owners of non-prohibited breeds that their dog is not capable of being dangerous The prohibition of certain breeds has directly increased the allure of behaviourally similar, but marginally physically dissimilar breeds, in order to circumvent legislation In addition to the direct consequences to the four banned breeds, there are clearly other substitute social harms arising from the DDA 1991 (Lawson forthcoming) such as the effect to these comparable breeds Other measures have sought to address human behaviour, for example, the mandatory microchipping of dogs12 provides a legal link between dog and owner Other developments such as new dog breeding legislation13 12 As previously stated, legislation has been passed by the UK Government for England (2015), the Welsh Government (2015) and Scottish Government (2016), all in force for April 2016 Northern Ireland has retained a dog licensing scheme which includes mandatory microchipping 13 Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs)(Wales) 2014 were passed by the Welsh Government and came into force in 2015 This is the first legislation in the UK which requires socialisation, enrichment and enhancement measures at licensed dog breeding establishments