Anthropos 55 (2): 177–193 | issn0587-5161 | e-issn2630-4082 Defining Dangerous Dogs: Breed, Class, and Masculinity Claire Parkinson Edge Hill University, United Kingdom claire.parkinson@edgehill.ac.uk ©2023 ClaireParkinson Abstract. This article examines historical connections between social class,masculinity,anddogbreedsinBritishculture.Itgivesanaccount of the nineteenth and twentieth century origins of the pit bull terrier andStaffordshirebull terrier,and thedogs’ linkstomasculineidentity, workingclasscultureandpractices.Itexaminestheintroductionofthe DangerousDogsAct1991,uklegislation intendedtoprotectthepublic fromdangerousdogs. Throughanexaminationofthediscursivefram­ing of pit bulls, this article argues that there are historical continuities thatconnectsocialclasswithspecificdogtypes,andtheseassociations have informed legislative decision-making. Analysing media and po­litical discourses, this article establishes how the relationship between class identityandbreedshapedthepublic andpoliticaldebateondan­gerous dogs and impacts the material reality of dogs’ lives. Key Words: dog,breed-specific legislation, pit bull terrier,masculinity, class Definirati nevarne pse: pasma, razred in moškost Povzetek. Clanekobravnavazgodovinskepovezavemeddružbenimra­zredom, moškostjo in pasmami psov v britanski kulturi. Predstavi iz­vor pitbul terierja in staffordshirskega bulterierja v devetnajstem ter dvajsetem stoletju in povezave med psi, maskulino identiteto ter kul­turoinpraksamidelavskegarazreda.PreuciuvedboZakonaonevarnih psih (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991), zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva, katerenamenjezašcititijavnostprednevarnimipsi.Spomocjodiskur­zivnega uokvirjanja pitbulov clanek pokaže, da obstajajo zgodovinske kontinuitete,kidružbenirazredpovezujejozdolocenimivrstamipsov, tepovezavepasobile podlagazasprejemanjezakonodajnihodlocitev. Z analizo medijskih in politicnih diskurzov ugotavljamo, kako je raz­merjemed razrednoidentitetoin pasmo oblikovalo javno in politicno razpravo o nevarnih psih ter vplivalo na materialno resnicnost pasjih življenj. Kljucne besede: pes, zakonodaja za dolocene pasme, pitbul terier, mo-škost, razred https://doi.org/10.26493/2630-4082.55.177-193 In the latter decade of the twentieth century, pit bulls and their owners were the focus of breed-specific legislation in the form of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and constructed by media and governmental discourses as deviant. Following a series of widely reported dog attacks in theuk, dangerous dogs legislation focused on the pit bull terrier. News articles referred to pitbulls as ‘devildogs’ and acrossthe politicalspectrumthere werecallsforabreedban(Molloy2011a).Throughnewsmedianarratives, pit bulls became strongly associated with drug culture, violence, deviant masculinity, and a rise in illegal dog fighting. There were an estimated 10,000 pit bulls in theukwhen the 1991 Act was introduced,although how many of these were family pets with no history of aggression, how many had been involved in dog attacks, and how many were involved in dog fighting was unknown as no reliable records existed (Molloy 2011b). Instead,mediareportingondogattackswasusedbygovernmentandthe public as a proxy for quantitative evidence. This article argues that the vilification of certain types of dogs, used to allay public concerns about dog risk in general, has relied on discourses that connect breed, class identity, and forms of masculinised deviance. Media reporting has amplified this discourse, shaping public and politi­cal debate on the topic of pitbulls,and dangerous dogs more generally. A consequenceofthisstrategyisthatbreed-specificlegislationfailsbecause it has been informed by identity politics, and problematic notions about ‘breed’ which rely on institutional methods of standardisation developed in the nineteenth century. Previous studies have established that, during thenineteenth century, theintroductionand regulationofdog classifica­tionintobreedswasintrinsicallyboundupwithideasaboutclass,gender, and race (Ritvo 1987; McHugh 2004; Brandow 2016; Worboys, Strange, and Pemberton 2018; Pearson 2021). Concurrent with the formalisation of breeds, the later decades of the nineteenth century were also an im­portant time in the development of the pit bull terrier, a type of dog that originated in theukand was exported to theusin the 1860s. There has been academic interest in contemporary relationships be-tweendogfightingandmasculinities(Walliss2023;Nurse2021)and,spe­cific to the topic of this article, the pit bull terrier and identity politics (Molloy 2011a; 2011b; Harding 2012; McCarthy 2016). There is, however, a lack of studies that explore the history of theukorigins and develop-mentofthepitbull,dogfighting andtheirlinks toworkingclassidentity, a gap which this article aims to fill. More recent studies have focused on theuscontext (Weaver 2021; Guenther 2020a; 2020b; Arluke and Rowan 2020; Alonso-Recarte2020) where,unliketheukwhichhasnationalleg­ islation that prohibits pit bull terriers, there is no equivalent federal or state breed-specific legislation (bsl). Instead, where they exist,usbreed laws are enacted by individual cities, American Indian reservations, and militaryfacilities.Notonlyaretheredifferencesintheenactmentoflegis­ lation, the social and cultural contexts of theusandukdiffer with a con­ comitant variance in the experience of breed, gender, class, race, ethnic­ ity, sexuality, and nation. This article, therefore, contributes to scholar­ ship on inter-relations between humans and dogs to examine intersec­ tions between class, gender, and the symbolic capital of breed within a ukcontext.Moreover,intersectionality, inthisarticle,isinformedbya critical animal studies perspective which draws attention to the ways in which the symbolic and material exploitation of animals maintains and is maintained by dominant categories of class, race, and gender (Taylor and Twine 2014, 4). Starting with the late nineteenth century, this article traces the devel­ opment of the pit bull terrier and Staffordshire bull terrier, and maps intersections with changing ideas about class and masculinity. It then examines the introductionofukbreed-specific legislationinthe twen­ tieth century. Although media and political discourses assert that breed- specificlegislationprotectsthepublicfromdangerousdogs(Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2009, 2), this article argues that the legislation on dangerous dogs is flawed. Through an examination of the discursive framing of certain dogs, it proposes that there are histor­ ical continuities that connect social class with specific dog types, and these continued associations have shaped public debate and legislative decision-making.Thisstrategy isusedtocalmpublicanxieties about dog risk but does not address key issues such as unregulated dog breed­ ing and poor understanding of dog communication and behaviours.ą For instance, poor breeding practices have detrimental effects on the long-term health and behaviours of dogs (British Veterinary Association 2023)and, inthe uk,mostbites occurinthe home whilst interacting with adog knownto the adultorchild whohas been bitten (Jakeman et al. 2020). Whilst, in general, dog bites are contextual and multifacto- ą There is a licencing system for those breeding three or more litters per year. So-called ‘hobby breeders’ (thosebreedingless thanthreelittersper year)remainunregulated. For further discussion about public understanding of dog communication and behaviours see Parkinson, Herring, and Gould (2023). rial, a lack of understanding of a dog’s specie-specific body language and communication is often a major aspect of such incidents (Jakeman et al. 2020, 3–5). However,addressingbreedingpracticesandthewidespreadlackofun­derstanding of dog behaviours and communication would impact the normalised commodification of dogs and generalised practices of ‘pet ownership.’ As Gary Francione has pointed out, animal welfare lawstend not to affect the interests of humans while exploitation is normalised throughasystemthatclassifiesdogsandotheranimalsasproperty. Fran-cioneargues: ‘becauseanimalsareourproperty,thelawwillrequiretheir interests to be observed only to the extent that it facilitates the exploita­tion of the animal’ (Francione 2008, 43). As such, increasing numbers of dog attacks which stem from factors such as unregulated breeding, and ‘pet ownership’ practices which do not recognise the specie-specific be-haviours and interests of dogs, remain untroubled by any meaningful in­tervention, legislative or otherwise. Given this context for intervention, thisarticleestablisheshowarelationshipbetweenclassidentityandbreed has informed public and political debate and resulted in significant im­pacts for the material reality ofdogs’ lives,whilelegislationremains inef­fective at tackling the issue of dog attacks and dog bite fatalities. Breed, Gender and Class In British culture, dogs have been companions to humans for centuries, butitisonlysincethenineteenthcenturythattheconceptof‘breed’came to define and classifythe modern dog (Brandow 2016;Worboys, Strange, and Pemberton 2018; Pearson 2021). The invention of breed emerged from Victorian values and ideas about class and gender, influenced by new thinking about evolution, industrialisation, and commerce (Ritvo 1987;Worboys, Strange, and Pemberton2018, 7). Inthissense,breed was and continues to be an idealised construction imposed onto the bodies and behaviours of dogs to organise their appearance and temperament into classificatory groups that satisfy the interests of humans according to varying aesthetic whims and functional requirements. Although per­haps self-evident, it is nonetheless worthwhile pointing out that the con­cept of breed does not, in any way, recognise the interests of dogs. The first breed standards –classificationsthat detail the lookand character of each breed – were written in the 1860s and these became the blueprints bywhichpedigreedogswere,andcontinuetobe,judgedatconformation dog shows. In theuk, contemporary breed standards are owned by The Kennel Club. Reviewed and updated to take account of changes to breeds over time, the standard serves as a guideline to the ideal characteristics, ap­pearance, and temperament. Each breed standard includes sections on general appearance, characteristics, and temperament, followed by more detailed descriptions of the ideal head and skull, eyes, ears, mouth, neck, forequarters, body, hindquarters, feet, tail, gait/movement, coat, colour, andsize(TheKennelClubn.d.).Whenthey were firstintroduced, breed standards functioned to organise and order the variability of nature and reflectednineteenthcenturyconcernsaboutpurityandsuperioritywhich permeated dominant thinking aboutcanines and humans (Pearson 2021, 31–35). These concerns were also evident in the recording of pedigrees, a form of ‘proof,’ albeit sometimes disputed, ofthe lineage and ‘pure’ blood ofaparticulardog. Totheseends, in1874,thefirst KennelClub Stud Book (Pearce 1874) was published. A huge tome at over 600 pages, Volume 1 of the Kennel Club Stud Book attempted to record in the first half of the book, all the prize winners at dog shows since 1859, with the second half organised by breed as a record of each individual dog’s pedigree accom­panied by the names of breeders. Since the 1860s, modern dog breeds have been associated with certain social classes, often connected to ideas about breed function and human occupation or social status, and subject to fluctuating trends and popu­larity. Forinstance,whiletheruralandurbanpoorwerethoughttoshare attributes with feral dogs, also known as ‘curs,’ the classification of pure­bred dogs mirrored the Victorian preoccupation with social stratifica-tion(Howell2012,228;Worboys,Strange,andPemberton2018,50–51).In the markedly defined class hierarchy of nineteenth century Britain, mid­dle and upper-class fashions for dogs were often led by the royal family. Moreover, there was a clear gendering of breed types with, for example, smaller breeds of dog thought to be better suited to women and referred to as ‘ladies’ dogs.’ One commentator noted in 1896 that Yorkshire terri­ers had overtaken King Charles and Blenheim spaniels as the favourite ‘ladies’ dogs’ because, when it came to the trends in fashionable dogs, ‘Royalty leads the way’ (Fitzgerald 1896, 545–546). At the other end of the socialspectrum, the poor and workingclasses expressed quite differ­ent views about what counted as a desirable dog. In his accounts of the London poor, the journalist and reformist Henry Mayhew expressed be­musement onfinding that themalepatronsofaLondontavern who took part in rat-baiting described a white bulldog as ‘a great beauty’ (Mayhew 1861, 5). Mayhew noted that the dog had a forehead that protruded ‘in a manner significant of water on the brain’ had legs ‘as bowed as a tailor’s’ and had an overall ‘sore look, from its being peculiarly pink round the eyes, nose, and [...] all edges of its body’ (Mayhew 1861, 5). It is unsurprising that Mayhew held different views about dog aes­thetics to those of the tavern patrons. At a time when middle-class dog fanciers were endeavouring to establish a regulated and stable system of pedigreeddogclassification,the bulldoghadfallenoutoffavourandwas in decline following the ban on bull baiting in 1835. Initially considered a respectable ‘sport’ with aristocratic and royal patronage in the sixteenth andseventeenthcenturies,royalsupportforbaitingwaswithdrawninthe eighteenthcentury. But,evenwithoutroyalpatronage,baitingcontinued, the main reason being that commercialbreeders of bulls, bears and dogs were from the aristocracy and the economic benefits of baiting ensured there was continued upper class support until the early nineteenth cen­tury. There was, however, a shift in the symbolic capital of dog fighting during this time. No longer the preserve of the upper classes, working-class participation in bull and bear baiting grew and, during the same period, dog fighting became prevalent. Nineteenth century legislative reform made baiting illegal, and this forced dogfighting underground where, unlike other baiting sports, it could be conducted in relative secrecy (Evans and Forsyth 1997, 63). Al­though the upper classes continued to participate covertly in dog fight­ing, the main proponents were working class men. After baiting became illegal, those who engaged in the sport were considered deviant and dog fightingwasconsideredacruelandspecificallyworking-classpractice(p. 63). Asaresultoftheseshiftsandthebulldog’sconnectionstobaiting,the breed had little appeal for the educated middle or upper classes. Harriet Ritvo (1987, 111) writes that the bulldog was ‘a breed that had outlived its usefulness, that had no social cachet, and that appeared to ordinary dog lovers ugly, stupid and brutal.’ To have bulldogs included in the newly established practices of dog exhibition, the Bulldog Club, formed to pre­serve the breed, had to find a way to overcome the stigma and decouple the breed from its associations with the lower classes and cruel practices. One approach was to claim that bulldogs were ‘the only dog with suffi­cient endurance to serve the cruel purposes of depraved owners’ (Ritvo 1987,111).Therhetoricalstrategyworkedandby1885thebulldogenjoyed a newfound popularity as a breed that looked powerful but was ‘peace­able’ (p. 111). Pit Bull and Staffordshire Bull Terrier Origins The pit bull terrier, which would become the focus ofukbreed-specific legislation in the latter decades of the twentieth century, originated from nineteenth century bulldogs, terriers, and rat-baiting dogs, the types of dog Mayhew had encountered in taverns more than a century earlier. AccordingtoJoseph L.Colby,authorof The American Pit Bull Terrier (1936), the first comprehensive guide to the pit bull terrier, the dog was developed for pit fighting by crossing Bulldogs and English White Terri­ers (Colby 1936, 14). Nineteenth-century pit bulls had the powerful head and jaws of the bulldog combined with the lithe speed of a terrier-like body.˛ The dogs were closely associated in theuk, and later in America – where they were renamed American pit bull terriers – with prize fight­ers, and tavern and saloon keepers (pp. 14–15).ł Once a favoured dog of young nineteenth century British gentlemen, they fell out of fashion fol­lowingtheintroductionofthe1835legislation. WiththeshiftinVictorian middle-class sensibilities towards working-class ‘animal sports,’ gentle-mennolongerwantedtobe identified as ‘the ownerof a battle-scarred pitdog’ and, Colbynoted in1936, ‘fromthe start the breed earned anun-just reputation due to his fighting ability and the character of the owner’ (p. 15). Despite dog fighting being illegal after 1835, dog fights continued to be heldinthepitsoftavernsand,inanindustrialisedareaofEnglandknown as the Black Country, at ironworking foundries, forges and coal mines. Rat baiting, which was not initially enforced under the 1835 legislation, remained popular until the turn of the century and was often used as a cover for illegal dog fights, both ‘sports’ taking place in pits.4 Although bulldogs had been formally recognised by The Kennel Club as a breed in 1873, pit bull terrier dogs were considered ‘mongrels,’ which, as one expert explained,were crossbreddogs ‘whoseantecedents maybeappar­ent or obscure [...]’ but ‘the chances are that he bears the unmistakable stigma of his unfortunate parentage’ (Our Kennel Correspondent 1931a, ˛ In other accounts, the pit bull terrier is a descendent of dogs referred to as the Bulldog- Terrier and Bull-and-Terrier. See, for example,John F. Gordon (1971, 41). ł A number of famous English pit dogs were taken to America in 1865 by dog fighting trainer ‘Cockney’ Charlie Lloyd where they were crossed with bull terrier-type dogs to produce American pit bull terriers (Gordon 1971, 42). 4 Impromptu dog fights would also take place during workers’ lunch breaks at foundries and mines. 17). Only pedigreed dogs from recognised breeds escaped the pejorative label of ‘mongrel.’5 Not only did the pit bull’s outward appearance fail to meetthestandardofanelitepedigreedbreed,butthedogs’ temperament wasalsobrought into question.In1935, The Times correspondent wrote about the pit bull terrier: ‘his character suited the temper of those who deploredthe embargoplacedbyParliamentuponbull-baiting[...]’ (Our Kennel Correspondent 1935, 17). The dogs’ temperament was considered toparallelthatoftheownerand,duetotheirbackgroundasfightingdogs, pit bulls were closely associated with working-class masculine brutality. Thepitbullterriersharedoriginswiththetypeofdogthatwouldeven­ tually become known as the Staffordshire bull terrier, a breed recognised byTheKennelClubin1935withtheformalestablishmentoftheStafford­ shire Bull Terrier Club. The Staffordshire bull terrier was so named in recognitionofthebreed’sheritageasaBlackCountryfightingdog.Com­ menting on the Staffordshire bullterrier’s transition fromfighting dog to legitimate breed, The Times correspondent noted that the dogs had ‘out­ lived a past that was disreputable in the extreme’ to ‘become an orderly member of canine society’ (Our Kennel Correspondent 1935, 17). This managementofcaninebodiesintostandardisedbreedsandofficialrecog­ nition of the Staffordshire bull terrier resulted in the pit bull falling out of favour. As interest in dog shows grew, the popularity of dog fighting diminished and pit bull numbers declined. One commentator wrote, ‘we have now too much respect for our dogs to test their mettle by encour­ aging them to maul and kill one another’ (Our Kennel Correspondent 1931b, 15). The, now reputable, Staffordshire bull terrier breed made their first appearance at Crufts dog show in 1936 where they received gener­ ouspublicattention,helped inpartby the attendance of well-known ac­ tor, Tom Walls, the owner of ‘Brother of Looe,’ winner of the ‘best bitch’ award. AlthoughtheStaffordshirebullterrierhadofficialrecognitionandwas regularly exhibited at dog shows, the dogs’ symbolic capital remained closely tied to working-class identity. This was made most apparent in an exchange that took place through a series of letters to the editor of The Daily Mail concerning which breed should be regarded as the ‘na­ tionaldogofEngland,’ a designationthat hadbeen attributed to thebull- 5 However, to develop breeds and particular characteristics, it was permissible to cross- breedbetweenpedigreedindividualsandtheprogenyregistered(OurKennelCorrespon- dent 1931a, 17). See also Worboys, Strange,and Pemberton (2018, 219–220). dog since the end of the nineteenth century. Some Staffordshire bull ter­rier supporters tried to renegotiate the meanings attached to the dogs, claiming the breed deserved the accolade of the ‘national dog of Eng­land’ (Paget1934, 8).Others involvedinthe worldofpedigree dog exhi­bition were quick to respond, saying that even if they were classed as a distinctly British dog, the Staffordshire bull terrier was a working-class dog that had ‘changed hands so often in the “pit” or “pub”’ (Hollender 1934, 8). Working-class spaces – the pit and pub – were the sites of mas-culineviolencewhichcombined tofunction asa reminder of the fighting dog origins of the breed. The notion of the unruly mongrel canine body andquestionablepracticesofsomebreederswerealsobroughttothefore. The public were warned that there were issues with the standardisation of the breed and that ‘coloured mongrels and whippets’ were being sold as Staffordshire bull terriers (Our Kennel Correspondent 1935, 27), this rhetoric of standardisation and purity being employed to both criticise and defend the newly recognised breed. In the late 1930s, press coverage of a suspected resurgence of dog fight­ing involving Staffordshire bull terriers was denied by both breeders and The Kennel Club. Those involved in breeding and exhibiting Stafford­shire bull terriers were quickto defend the breed and arguethat the dogs were increasing in popularity, being bred for the show ring, and were ‘standardized intype’ (Our Kennel Correspondent 1939, 18). Institutional standardisation through recognition by the Kennel Club may have leant legitimacy to the breed but the Staffordshire bull terrier’s reputation as a fighting dog persisted in some circles, leading one breed expert to note in 1971, that the dogs were ‘associatedwithruffiansandpeoplewhocared little for him as a dog, owning him instead, for what he could win them by fighting’ (Gordon 1971, 34). Masculinity Duringthe1980s,dogownershipincreasedsignificantlyintheukandthe popularity ofStaffordshire bull terriers also grew. By the mid-1980sKen­nel Club registrations of the breed numbered in excess of 40,000 (Young 1985, 3). In media accounts from the 1970s and 1980s it is notable that Staffordshire bull terriers began to appear in major news stories about the re-emergence of badger baiting and dog fighting, practices consid­ered to be directly linked to high levels of unemployment that affected young working-class men. The Times reported that ‘such activities work out frustrations and ownership of a good fighting dog can give a “ma­ cho” boost to the faltering self-confidence’ (Samstag 1985, 3). In an ar­ ticle onbadgerbaiting,the Daily Mail reported that those responsible were urban gangs and the unemployed, ‘mindless thugs too cowardly to fight for themselves. The dogs are surrogates, outlets for their own vi­ olence [...]. These thugs boost their macho images by killing beautiful animals’ (Walker 1987, 6). There were reported to be around 50 badger baiting prosecutions annually by 1985, the year of the first prosecution of the twentieth century for dog fighting (Samstag 1985, 3). Those involved inthe 1985casewerereferred toasthe ‘Enfielddogfightingring.’Making thepointaboutthelinkbetweenunemploymentandorganiseddogfight­ ing, The Times duly reported that the main figures involved were young unemployed men (Young 1985, 3). 1984 had seen record unemployment figures, the highest in post-war history and, as the decade progressed, a record number of house re­ possessions due to unprecedented interest rate rises. Against this eco­ nomic backdrop, there were reported increases in drug use and violent crime, and high-profile media campaigns by therspcapresented new statistical evidence of record levels of animal cruelty in Britain (Molloy 2011b, 103). Mass unemployment and decreasing heavy industry in the ukunderminedtraditionalgenderrolesthatassumedthatthemainwage earner was male, a situation that served to disenfranchise large numbers ofworking-classmen.6 Mediareportsaboutdogfightingandbadgerbait­ ingconnectedtheeconomicrealitiesofunemploymentwithanemergent masculineidentitythatvaluedbrutalityandviolenceanduseddogstoel­ evatepersonalstatuswithinsocialgroups.Emergentformsofmasculinity – hypermasculinity and the ‘new man’ – combined with equality legis­lation for women in the 1970s served to undo the certainty of previous traditional forms of hegemonic masculinity. Additionally, the influence of American gang culture on British masculinity was cited as a partic­ular problem in news media discourse and those involved in cruel ani­mal practices contradicted, what was assumed to be, the enduring rep­resentation of theukas a ‘nation of animal lovers.’ Reports of pit bulls mauling people to death in America made their way intoukpapers and connected ownershipofthe dogs withthe sameproblematicmasculinity, street gangs, and drug culture. Ownership of a pit bull terrier was con­sideredemblematicofadeviantmasculineidentitythatvaluedviolence.7 6 For a full account of British masculinity during the 1980s, see Crowley (2020). 7 See, for example, George Gordon (1987, 6). By the late-1980s, a dominant narrative of pit bull ownership was intrin­sically connected with social deviance and masculinised aggression. News coverage of the Enfield dogfighting ring in 1985 had broughtthe Staffordshire bull terrier’s origins as a fighting dog back into public fo-cus.Althoughthe Staffordshire bullterrier whohadbeen involvedinthe fight – a dog named Kim – was constructed by media accounts as a vic­tim ofthe situation,the breed’s fighting dogoriginswere madeclear. The 1985 press reports also mentioned the American pit bull terrier, a type of dogthatwas,untilthatpoint,virtuallyunknowntotheukpublic.Devot­ingafull page to thesubject of dogfighting, The Times reported that an estimated 500 American pit bull terriers were already in theuk, half of which were used regularly for fighting, and that the dogs changed hands for large sums of money (Samstag 1985, 3). Another article claimed that the dogs were bred for fighting and while they shared the same origins as the Staffordshire bull terrier, the dogs differed in two main ways: un­like the Staffordshire bull terrier, the pit bull was not a recognised breed either in theukor theusand had been bred to be a larger type of dog (Samstag 1985, 3). The article ended withaquotefromtherspcathat the pitbullwas ‘lethalasaloaded gun’ (p.30),asentiment echoedin other reportswherethedogswerealsoreferredtoas ‘adeadlyweapon’(Bromp-ton 1989, 11). Within a month of the 1985 prosecution, an American pit bull terrier show washeldinSalford organisedbyEd Reid, theman credited with introducing the dogs to theukand the first person to legally import an Americanpitbullterriertothecountry.Morethan40dogswerereported tohavetakenpartintheshowthatincludedagilityandstrengthtests,and which was promoted as an event that showed the dogs’ positive aspects. Quoted inone pressarticle, Reidpointed out that ‘TheAmericanpitbull has the same background as the Staffordshire bull terrier; although there is an element that does go in for illegal dog fighting, the dog cannot be blamed for that’ (Parry 1985, 5). Whereas the shared origins of the two types of dog were used to vilify the Staffordshire bull terrier in media re­ports, those defending the American pit bull terrier employed the same rhetorical strategy to leverage some degree of legitimacy for the pit bull. Authorised by The Kennel Club as a recognised breed, the Staffordshire bull terrier could lay claim to a pedigreed ancestry which signified legit­imate status, while the American pit bull terrier lacked any such recog­nition. Highlighting the shared heritage of the dogs was used by some supporters to argue for the pit bull to become a recognised breed, but all attempts to negotiate an authorised breed identity for the pit bull were denied by The Kennel Club (Molloy 2011b, 102). After 1985, and for the rest of the decade, news stories about dog fight­ing prosecutions continued to appear, accompanied by a growing sense of alarm about the links between dog fighting and drug-related crime (Molloy 2011b). As the decade progressed, mentions of the involvement of Staffordshire bull terriers in dog fighting diminished and American pit bull terriers became primarily associated with dog fighting practices. However, Staffordshire bull terriers did not disappear from news cover­age, but the narrative shifted to their involvement in attacks on humans, particularly children. Dog attackswould become a regular feature of me-diareportingafter1985andaccordingtoonenewspaper,theStaffordshire bull terrier was fourth on a list of breeds responsible for most attacks in theukafter German shepherds, rottweilers and pit bull terriers (Boseley 1989, 5). Dog Risk and Class The surge inukdog ownership in the 1980s led to newfound concerns about a range of issues connected to dogs: fouling, straying, and an in­crease in dog attacks. An article that labelled Staffordshire bull terriers ‘devil dogs’ and one of two breeds – the other being the bull terrier – re­sponsible for most ofthe attacks on childrensuggestedthat the problems went beyond only these two breeds. Dogs owned by working class peo­ple were, the article suggested, out of control on the streets. There had been 241 dog attacks in London alone over a period of six months and 1,000 stray dogs were being euthanised every day (Ryan 1990, 13). This media narrative ondog ownershipand risk drew a clear line between so­ciallyresponsibleownersandthosewhowereunableorunwillingtokeep their dogs under control. In 1990 the then Junior Environment Minis­ter, David Heathcoat-Amory, declared in a newspaper report on ‘danger pets’ thatsomedogswere ‘notonlypotentiallydangerous –theyareoften cowed mangy creatures breaking open rubbish bags, fouling pavements andparkswherechildrenplayandcreatingtrafficaccidents’becausetheir owners put them ‘out on to the street to roam around housing estates’ (p.13).AssociationsbetweenStaffordshirebullterriersandworking-class spaces such as the ‘pit’ and ‘pub’ had been replaced by the housing estate, public housing built by local authorities for the working classes which had, by the 1980s, become labelled as a social problem, places with high levels of crime and antisocial behaviour (Boughton 2018). Housing es­ tates were labelled in government discourse as ‘pockets of lawlessness’ and young boys and men were considered primarily responsible for the ‘mindless violence’ (Baker 1993, 436). If nineteenth century discourses had likened the poor and working classes to stray ‘curs,’ the media dis­ course of the 1980s and early 1990s framed working-class dog owners as violent and socially irresponsible; an analogue of their out-of-control dogs. Following six years of media coverage of dog fighting, reported in­ creases in dog attacks, and problems with stray dogs and fouling, a catalysing event in 1991 led to the introduction of breed-specific legis­ lation in theuk. An attack by a pit bull terrier on a 6-year-old girl in Bradford was widely reported, accompanied by pictures of the child’s wounds. The incident drew public outrage and intense media pressure on the government to act and introduce legislation that would curb the dangers posed by dogs. Despite the many media reports of attacks by breeds other than pit bulls – particularly rottweilers, German shepherd dogs, Staffordshire bull terriers and bull terriers – the decisionwas made to prohibit the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro, none of which were officially recognised by the Kennel Club. Therewasnodoubtthatthelegislationwasbasedonclasspolitics,apoint confirmed when the then Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, responsible forthe DangerousDogs Act, admittedthatabanwhich included Ken­ nel Club recognised breeds would have upset the middle classes (Baker 1993, 434–435). He wrote, ‘the issue was made more complicated by the fact that the largest number of dog bitings was caused by Alsatians and other domestic breeds whose owners would never have regarded their pets as dangerous’ (p. 434). The distinction between ‘domestic’ and non- domesticbreeds and their relativelevels ofdangerousnesswasconstantly replayed in political and media discourses, promoting a prejudicial nar­ rative that ‘foreign’ dog breeds were a greater risk to public safety. In this regard, pit bull terriers were considered the greatest public danger and Baker wrote, ‘unlike other recognized breeds they were unpredictable and could not bereliablytrained’ (p. 435).Thisdiscourse on the instabil­ ity of the pit bull and other ‘foreign’ dogs ignored the national origins of dog breeds, regarding so-called ‘domestic’ breeds as only those officially recognisedbytheKennelClub.8 Anationalisticzealforinstitutionallyau- 8 For example, the Alsatian or German shepherd dog, rottweiler and Dobermann breeds were developed in Germany. thorised and categorised canine bodies, those that were awarded a Ken­nel Clubbreed standard,marginalisedpitbullterriers, adogthat,despite havingukorigins, was considered to be a definitively American import. The owners were, like their dogs,also stigmatised through stereotypes of gendered working-class deviance. This was exemplified by Baker’s com­ment that ‘the “pit bull lobby” came to my aid by appearing infrontoftv cameras with owners usually sporting tattoos and earrings and extolling thegentlenatureoftheirdogswhosenameswereinvariablyTyson,Grip­per,KillerorSykes’(p.435).Menwearingearringsbreachedconventional standards of hegemonic masculinity while tattoos represented a form of bodily subversion which, at the time, was considered socially unaccept­able. The notion that a dog’s character reflected that of the owner was continually underscored in official pitbullnarratives and,inthe debate onbreed-specificlegislationandmethodstoidentifydogson22May1991 inthe House ofCommons,Members ofParliamentjokedabout ‘whether the dog’s tattoo should match that of the owner. Would’ Baker asked, ‘pit bulls have “love” and “hate” inscribed on each knuckle’ (pp. 435–436). Conclusion The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was rushed through in only six weeks and became law on 24 July 1991.ukbreed-specific legislation made illegal the ownership, breeding, selling or exchange of pit bull terriers.. The issue with banning pit bull terriers quickly became apparent as the dogs did not exist as a recognised ‘breed.’ In other words, pit bulls did not have a Kennel Club standard that specified the appearance and character of the dog. Identifying an officially recognised breed is relatively easy as each dog shares a physical similarity. However, the pit bull terrier had been developed as a fighting dog with value placed on ‘gameness’ – a desire to continue fighting regardless of pain or injury – rather than outward ap­pearance. Althoughpit bulls shared some broadlysimilarcharacteristics, variabilitywas,andis,common. ‘Breed’inthiscontextwas,andremains, a product of nineteenth century processes of institutional standardisa­tion that relies on general adherence to and acknowledgement of the fix­ityofofficialclassificationbyanationalkennelclub.Althoughrecognised by other registries set up as alternatives to national kennel clubs, for the . In 1997, an amendment to the 1991 Act removed the mandatory destruction order and reopened the Exempted Dogs Index, a register of those banned dogs which a court con­ sidered would not be a risk to public safety. purposes ofuk‘breed’-specificlegislation, pit bulls are described not as a breed but as a ‘type.’ą° A series of head and body measurements adapted from a 1977 American pit bull magazine continue to be used to define whether a dog is a ‘pit bull type’ (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2009). ukbreed-specific legislationtargetsdogs becauseofhowthey look,re­gardless of their behaviour. If a dog ‘looks’ like a pit bull type, that dog will either be euthanised or placed on a register, neutered, and ordered to be muzzledand leashed inpublicplacesforthe remainder of their life. Despitebeingatonetimeafavoureddogoftheupperclasses,thepitbull’s continued associations with deviant working-class masculinity have cir­culated through media discourse and informed public and political de­bate on dangerous dogs. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, since the in­troduction of breed-specific legislation in 1991, dog attacks on humans and dog bite fatalities have increased (Parkinson, Herring, and Gould 2023). The material impacts of the Dangerous Dogs Act on the lives of dogs are significant and, due to the misplaced focus on pit bulls, the leg­islation fails to protect the public. References Alonso-Recarte,Claudia.2020. ‘Pit Bulls and Dogfighting as Symbols ofMas­culinity in Hip Hop Culture.’ Men and Masculinities 23 (5): 852–871. Arluke, Arnold, and Andrew Rowan. 2020. Underdogs: Pets, People, and Poverty. Athens,ga: University of Georgia Press. Baker, Kenneth. 1993. The Turbulent Years: My Life in Politics. London: Faber and Faber. Boseley, Sarah. 1989. ‘Terror of the Canine Craze.’ The Guardian, 15 June. Boughton,John.2018.MunicipalDreams:TheRiseandFallofCouncilHousing. London: Verso. Brompton, Sally. 1989. ‘Give a Dog a Bad Name.’ The Times, 31 March. Brandow, Michael. 2016. A Matter of Breeding: A Biting History of Pedigree Dogs. London: Duckworth Overlook. BritishVeterinaryAssociation.2023.‘Policy Statement:bvaandbsavaPosi­tion on CanineBreedingServices.’ https://www.bva.co.uk/media/5546/bva -and-bsava-policy-position-canine-breeding-services-2023-final-version .pdf. Colby, Joseph L. 1936. The American Pit Bull Terrier. Sacramento,ca: News Publishing. Crowley, Matthew. 2020. Representations of Working-Class Masculinities in Post-War British Culture. London: Routledge. ą° Examples of other registries include the United Kennel Club (ukc), Unified Bull Breed Registry (ubbr) and theukBully Kennel Club (ukbkc). DangerousDogsAct.1991.ukPublicGeneralActs,c.65.https://www.legislation .gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/contents. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2009. Dangerous Dogs Law:Guide for Enforcers. London: Departmentof Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Evans, Rhonda, and Craig Forsyth. 1997. ‘From Entertainment to Outrage: A SocialHistoricalViewofDogfighting.’ InternationalReviewof Sociology 27 (2): 59–71. Fitzgerald, William G. 1896. ‘Dandy Dogs.’ Strand Magazine 11 (5): 538–550. Francione,GaryL.2008. AnimalsasPersons:EssaysontheAbolitionofAnimal Exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press. Gordon, George. 1987. ‘The Dog That’s Got America in a Grip of Fear.’ Daily Mail, 27 August. Gordon, John F. 1971. TheStaffordshireBullTerrier. London: Hutchinson. Guenther, Katja M. 2020a. ‘“Taking the Ghetto Out of the Dog:” Reproducing Inequality in Pit Bull Rescue.’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 43 (10): 1795–1812. ———.2020b. TheLivesandDeathsofShelterAnimals.Stanford,ca:Standford University Press. Harding, Simon. 2012. Unleashed: The Phenomena of Status Dogs and Weapon Dogs. Bristol: Policy. Hollender, V. C. 1934. ‘The Staffordshire Bull Terrier.’ Daily Mail, 9 August. Howell, Philip. 2012. ‘Betweenthe Muzzleand theLeash:Dog Walking,Disci-plineandtheModernCity.’InAnimalCities:BeastlyUrbanHistories,edited by Peter Atkins, 221–242. London: Routledge. Jakeman, Molly, James A. Oxley, Sara Owczarczak-Garstecka, and Carri West­garth.2020. ‘PetDog Bitesin Children:Management and Prevention.’bmj Paediatrics Open 4 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000726. Mayhew, Henry. 1861. London Labour and the London Poor. London: Griffin. McCarthy, Daniel. 2016. ‘Dangerous Dogs, Dangerous Owners and the Waste Management of an “Irredeemable Species.”’ Sociology 50 (3): 560–575. McHugh, Susan. 2004. Dog. London: Reaktion. Molloy, Claire. 2011a. ‘Dangerous Dogs and the Construction of Discourses of Risk.’ In Theorizing Animals, edited by Nik Taylor, 107–128. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2011b. ‘Contested Meanings and Canine Bodies.’ In Human and Other Animals: Critical Perspectives, edited by Bob Carter and Nickie Charles, 93–111. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Nurse, Angus. 2021. ‘Green Criminological Perspectives on Dog-Fighting as OrganisedMasculinities-BasedAnimal Harm.’ Trends in Organised Crime 24 (5): 447–466. Our Kennel Correspondent. 1931a. ‘Crossbreeding in Dogs.’ The Times, 12 September. ———. 1931b. ‘A Dog of Courage.’ The Times, 28 December. ———. 1935. ‘Old Fighting Dogs: Changed Character of the Bull-Terrier.’ The Times, 29 July. ———. 1939. ‘Dog-Fighting in the Past.’ The Times, 20 February. Paget, J. B. 1934. ‘Our National Dog?’ Daily Mail, 2 August. Parkinson, Claire, Lara Herring, and David Gould. 2023. Public Perceptions of Dangerous Dogs and Dog Risk. Ormskirk: Edge Hill University. Parry,Gareth.1985.‘MalignedBulldogsGetaChancetoShine:FirstAmerican Pit Bull Terrier Show in BritainHeld in Salford.’ The Guardian, August 26. Pearce, Frank C. S. 1874. The Kennel Club Stud Book: A Record of Dog Shows and Field Trials. London: Kennel Club. Pearson, Chris. 2021. Dogopolis: How Dogs and Humans Made Modern New York, London, and Paris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ritvo, Harriet 1987. The Animal Estate: The English and other Creatures in the Victorian Era. Cambridge,ma: Harvard University Press. Ryan, Sean. 1990. ‘Tough New Code to Muzzle the “Devil Dogs.”’ Daily Mail, June 27. Samstag, Tony. 1985. ‘Prosecutions EndrspcaFrustration.’ The Times, 1Au­gust. Taylor,Nik,andRichardTwine.2014. TheRiseofCriticalAnimalStudies. Lon­don: Routledge. The Kennel Club. N. d. ‘Breed Standards.’ https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk /breed-standards/. Walker, Alice. 1987. ‘This Battle to Stop the Badger Going to the Dogs.’ Daily Mail, 28 April. Walliss, John. 2023. ‘Crimes Against Non-Human Animals: Examining Dog Fighting in theukand theusathrough a Green Criminology Perspective.’ Sociology Compass 17 (6): e13087. Weaver,Harlan. 2021. BadDog:PitBullPoliticsandMultispeciesJustice.Seattle, wa: University of Washington Press. Worboys, Michael, Julie-Marie Strange,and Neil Pemberton. 2018. The Inven­tion of the Modern Dog: Breed and Blood in Victorian Britain. Baltimore, md: Johns Hopkins University Press. Young, Robin. 1985. ‘Two Men are Jailed for Roles in “Vicious and Horrific” Dogfight.’ The Times, 1 August.