148 J Maher et al are designed in part to improve the standard of socialisation and, therefore, future (dog) behaviours It is perhaps too early to determine the effect of new dog control measures within the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) Whilst its extension to cover private property and the increase in penalties for attacks on assistance dogs have been welcomed by the Communication Workers Union and Guide Dogs for the Blind Association respectively,14 substantial trepidation exists elsewhere regarding the Act’s preventative versus retributive nature and also the potential for innocent dogs and owners to get caught up in the new controls (RSPCA 2014) Rather than seeking to tackle the conditions in society that are leading to issues such as status dog ownership, these new measures apply to all dog owners Dogs can be banned from certain public spaces or muzzled when not in the home; however, there is no requirement for the enforcer to seek behavioural or animal welfare knowledge or expertise when executing such controls The danger may be that any early indications of aggressive behaviour, for which these restraints were intended to cure or control, could instead be exacerbated and this could lead to more, not less, dog attacks The inclusion of attacks on private property, in the era of blame and litigation, is alarming for dog owners of all breeds as it essentially requires dogs to be able to tell the difference between ‘safe’ visitors and those who might cause harm Any attack on the former could ultimately now result in the dog’s destruction Given the aforementioned lack of knowledge with regard to dog legislation and welfare amongst status dog owners, these new measures may well see their dogs disproportionately represented These new measures may also not be in force uniformly across the UK In addition to the devolved nature of animal welfare and control15 a number of police forces and local authorities have expressed concern regarding the requisite resources needed to execute associated duties, going as far as to say they will not enact the legislation within their jurisdiction More local and regional disparity for dogs will arise from additional conditions levied by increasingly risk-averse housing providers keen to prohibit the keeping of dogs in their properties Tenants may be unable to find alternative accommodation and rather than become 14 http://www.cwu.org/media/campaigns/dangerous-dogs-bite-back/political-progress/ and https:// www.guidedogs.org.uk/news/2014/may/new-law-protects-guide-dog-owners#.V1RiVvkrLIU 15 The DDA, as amended, is in force in all three nations within GB, with the very similar Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 in effect in the fourth nation of the UK Additional dog welfare and control measures differ, however, as this policy area is devolved to each of those four nations The respective administrations should be referred to for details of these