MPs have warned that the Government's moves to tackle irresponsible dog ownership do not go far enough.
Plans to close a loophole which allowed dog owners to escape prosecution if the animal attacked someone in a private property have been announced.
Backed by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, it said the plans fell short of creating a "comprehensive and effective regime for tackling the increasing problem of out-of-control dogs".
For many young people, dogs are increasingly viewed as a commodity which can be traded up or down like a mobile phone.
It has become less about whether the dog will fit into family life and more about, 'What will this dog do for me, how much will it make me?'.
Through their reputation for aggression or ability to intimidate [bull breeds] are also used in drug deals, gambling debts and loan-sharking, where their owners do not have recourse to law if the money owed is not paid because his business is illegal.
The dog says, 'I am here to be taken seriously' - it acts as a 'minder' and a 'heavy' when collecting dues. People believe that possession of an aggressive dog means that the threats posed by such men will be carried out.
The six leading vets and animal charities have written to Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne to say they were "very concerned" at the proposed replacement of Dog Control Orders with less specific anti-social behaviour measures.
Allowing untrained council workers or police community support officers to issue orders "could lead to compromises in animal welfare or even make dog behaviour worse due to lack of understanding in these areas", it added.
[It could also] lull communities into a false sense of security around dogs and not actually address the real problem - irresponsible owners.
This could lead to greater division within communities and potentially marginalise all dog owners - even those trying to be responsible.
We cannot see how the new measures will provide for effective early intervention and prevention.
Charities have spoken out against the government’s proposed new dangerous dog measures – planned in the aftermath of the death of 14-year-old Jade Anderson – warning that they could "cause more problems than they solve".
The six leading vets and animal charities said they were "extremely concerned" that the Home Office planned to put dog measures in anti-social behaviour legislation rather than a dedicated Bill.
MPs in the environment, food and rural affairs committee last month said the government had "comprehensively failed" to tackle irresponsible dog ownership.
The introduction of compulsory microchipping is a giant leap for dogs and their owners and is something that vets have long campaigned for. Microchipping is a safe and effective way to link dogs to their owners and is an essential part of responsible ownership.
Microchipping is a small cost in terms of dog ownership with veterinary practices offering microchipping for around £15-£20 or for free as part of a practice promotion.
Dogs Trust and other rehoming charities are also offering free microchipping at their centres and through local authorities.
You've been telling us what you think about the compulsory microchipping of dogs in England on our Facebook page.
Michelle Garner It's a good idea, but we all know that the "good" owners have this done anyway, and the "bad" owners still won't bother so can only think if this becomes legislation how on earth is it going to be policed?
Nicky Nobbs Can't see any reason not to have your dog chipped! It's cheap enough and if anyone says they can't afford it then they can't afford to have a dog.
Charlotte Fernandes Yes they should! Too many dogs end up abandoned in rescue centres, so chipping them will call into question the owners who abandon them.