Animal Fighting 355 In order to justify their violent behaviour, Forsyth and Evans (1998, p 203) discern four recurring techniques that dogmen use: ‘(a) denial of injury; (b) condemnation of the condemners; (c) appeal to higher loyalties; and (d) a defence that says dogmen are good people (their deviance-dog fighting expunged by their good character)’ These conditions are consistent with neutralisation theory (Sykes and Matza 1957), which suggests offenders drift between conventional and deviant behaviour using five techniques to neutralise their feelings of guilt and shame (that is: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victims, appeal to higher loyalties, and condemnation of condemners) According to neutralisation theory, offenders dispute the conventional meaning attached to their anti-social behaviour or try to evade moral blame However, unlike subcultural theory where offenders oppose mainstream values, Cohen (2013) proposes pro-social values remain salient for the offender even when violated Each of these techniques were evident in Hughes et al (2011) study with informal UK dog fighters: for example, that the dog needed to fight; was doing what was natural; and was fighting for their group/gang, were common street narratives Furthermore, attention was deflected from their own behaviour to those who reportedly ‘incorrectly’ fought and mistreated their dog, or did it ‘only’ for the money Consequently, those dog fighters who identify themselves as good owners, simultaneously rationalise and minimise the harm they cause to their dogs Arguably, some dog fighters, such as the new informal street fighters criticised by professional fighters, may not require any neutralisation as their abusive behaviour is morally legitimate within their group and thereby free from troubling guilt Responses to the Problem In their investigation into what methods of prevention work, or could work, to suppress dog fighting, Clure and Lum (2011) discuss the various responses to the problem and divide these into the three sections namely (a) education, reformation and redirection programmes, (b) the creation of legislation, and (c) the enforcement of legislation These categories are considered and developed further below: Education Programmes A number of projects that fall within this category in the USA are listed by Clure and Lum (2011), who also identify the absence of thorough evaluation Harding and Nurse (2015, Appendix 4) take a brief tour of some intervention