The reasons for writing this book were numerous. Initially, it was the murder of 15-year-old Seyi Ogunyemi in Lambeth in 2009 during my research into gangs in Brixton and Stockwell that alerted me to the issue of gangs using status dogs. I quickly wanted to establish if this incident was isolated or extensive. My gang research had already alerted me to issues of urban dog fighting among youths and how young men paraded their aggressive bull breed dogs to gain status among their peers. There was a need to understand this phenomenon by getting behind the media headlines and scare stories to see where the truth lay. Second, there was a need to explore the links with antisocial behaviour and criminal activity and to identify motivations for using dogs to convey status. This involved a search for the facts, which itself proved more difficult and challenging than I had imagined. It also led me to the conclusion that status dogs are now an inclusive and visible element of the UK urban landscape. Lastly, there was a need to place this phenomenon on record and to collate and contextualise the available data.

By linking certain groups of young people to issues of public safety and dog ownership, the book offers a unique contribution towards understanding the motivational complexities of using dogs to convey status. Throughout the book I illustrate the various strands of this phenomenon demonstrating that these strands do not exist in isolation from one another. This issue is much more multifarious than simple arguments about deed or breed and involves complex interrelationships that are key to any understanding.

My investigations illustrate that the status dog phenomenon is recent, but is a current reality in the UK. It is also a highly complex issue due to:

• • the subjective nature of definitions of status or weapon dog;

• • widespread varying opinions on the purpose and efficacy of legislation;

• • lack of agreement on the seriousness of the issue;

• • lack of suitable or available data;

• • poor data quality or evident data inconsistencies;

• • complex methodological difficulties involved in researching ownership;

• • lack of previous academic research, notably UK research;

• • the traversing nature of the topic, spanning as it does, the interdisciplinary nature of the topic;

• • lack of collated knowledge by any single agency.