354 C Lawson involved in cockfighting and we can prove that In dog fighting it does tend to be more working class and unemployed In the USA, Ortiz (2009) linked an increase in street-based dog fighting to the proliferation of US youth gangs Among interviewed dog fighters and youths (aged 9–16 years), dog fighting was so imbedded in the subculture, it was used to help resolve street/gang conflicts (Evans et al cited in Ortiz 2009) While dog fighters subscribe to pro-criminal values, they are not necessarily in complete conflict with mainstream society Among professional dog fighters, Evans and Forsyth (1998, p 214) observed that although their lives appear to be otherwise conventional ‘Dogmen are committed to the unconventional values associated with dog fighting’ Distinct subcultures of violence exist in which members embrace values that are more permissive of the use of violence (Wolfgang and Ferracuti’s 1967) Implicit within these subcultures is the use of violence as a means of social control and status Dog fighting culture is historically status driven and based on values of masculinity and honour (Gibson 2005; Drabble 1948)— values central to the subculture of violence theory (Anderson 1999) The pit bull—and similar types—are the epitome of such masculinity and consequently are the prime choice for dog fighters The decades of breeding for gameness in the pit bull and the valued bloodlines, ensures they remain the first choice of the professional dog fighter; a prize dog can also bestow great social status on its owner due to the transition of sexual virility, masculinity and aggression from the dogs to their handlers (Kalof and Taylor 2007) Furthermore, legislation prohibiting these breeds/types extends to them the label of ‘dangerous’, making them more attractive to informal dog fighters who wish to intimidate, threaten and occasionally fight ‘They want a dog that matches their reputation It’s a show of strength and aggression, it is a sidearm really’ (The front line dog fighting investigator—Lawson forthcoming; see also “Status Dog” chapter herein) Both formal and informal dog fighters are thought to identify with the fearlessness, loyalty and courage they perceive their dogs to possess—supporting the notion that the dogs in the ring are merely an extension of their owner’s bravado As Ortiz (2009) indicates, gang rivalries can be resolved through dog fighting as the dogs represent the male owners themselves fighting in the ring; arguably this explains why status rather than financial gain is the key motivation for informal dog fighting As status is not fixed, but must be constantly tested and proved, the subculture requires fighting dogs be discarded and easily replaced when they no longer bestow status