Who abuses animals Cruelty and neglect cross socio-economic boundaries, and media reports suggest that animal abuse is common in both rural and urban areas.
Domestic violence, child abuse and animal cruelty Data on domestic violence and child abuse cases reveal that a staggering number of animals are victimized by abusive parents or partners each year.
• Intentional cruelty to animals is strongly correlated with oth- • About 10.2 million women er crimes, including violence and men are physically asagainst people. saulted by an intimate partner • Serious animal neglect (such in the U.S. every year (U.S. as seen in cases of animal Centers for Disease Control hoarding) is often an indicator and Prevention, 2011), and of people in need of social or 62 percent of U.S. households mental health services (Lockhave at least one pet. wood, 2002). • In one survey, 71 percent of • Surveys suggest that those who domestic violence victims intentionally abuse animals reported that their abuser also are predominantly male and targeted their animal (Ascione, under 30, while those involved 1997). in animal hoarding are more • In one study of families under likely to be female and over 60 investigation for suspected (Lockwood, 2008). child abuse, researchers found that pet abuse had occurred in 88 percent of the families Most common victims under supervision for physical abuse of their children The animals whose abuse is most (DeViney, 1983). often reported are dogs, cats, horses and livestock. Based on numbers from pet-abuse.com, of 1,880 cruelty cases reported in the media in 2007: • 64.5 percent (1,212) involved dogs (25 percent of these were identified as pit-bull-type breeds) • 18 percent (337) involved cats • 25 percent (470) involved other animals Undercover investigations have revealed that animal abuse abounds in the factory farm industry. But because of the weak protections afforded to livestock under state cruelty laws, only the most shocking cases are reported, and few are ever prosecuted.
Legislative trends The HSUS has long led the push for stronger animal cruelty laws and provides training for law officials to detect and prosecute these crimes. • 50 states currently include felony provisions in their animal cruelty laws. • Before 1986, only four states had felony animal cruelty laws: Massachusetts (1804), Oklahoma (1887), Rhode Island (1896) and Michigan (1931). • Three states enacted felony laws in the 1980s, 19 in the 1990s and 25 more since 2000 (including the District of Columbia).
First vs. second offense Some state laws only allow felony charges if the perpetrator has a previous animal cruelty conviction. Given that only a fraction of animal cruelty acts are ever reported or successfully prosecuted, The HSUS believes all states should allow felony charges for egregious cruelty regardless of whether the perpetrator has a prior conviction. • 43 of the 50 state felony provisions are first-offense provisions. • Six have second-offense felonies (Iowa, Mississippi, Ohio and Pennsylvania have felony laws that apply only on the second offense; Texas and Virginia have second-offense felonies, depending on the situation). • Idaho has a third-offense felony animal cruelty law. • Among the 43 states that have first-offense felony cruelty laws, a majority are limited to cases involving aggravated cruelty, torture, or cruelty to companion animals.
States that have strengthened their felony cruelty laws Since 2002, at least six states have enacted second- or third-offense felony animal cruelty laws, only to readdress and upgrade them to first-offense laws within a few years: • Alaska (third in 2008, first in 2010) • Indiana (second in 1998, first in 2002) • Kentucky (second in 2003, first in 2007) • Nebraska (second 2002, first in 2003)
Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival. More narrowly, it can be the causing of harm or suffering for specific gain, such as killing animals for food or for their fur; opinions differ about the extent of cruelty associated with a given method of slaughter. Cruelty to animals sometimes encompasses inflicting harm or suffering for personal amusement, as in zoosadism. Laws concerning animal cruelty are designed to prevent needless cruelty. Divergent approaches to such laws occur in different jurisdictions throughout the world. For example, some laws govern methods of killing animals for food, clothing, or other products, and other laws concern the keeping of animals for entertainment, education, research, or as pets. In broad terms, there are three conceptual approaches to the issue of cruelty to animals. The animal welfare position holds that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for human purposes, such as food, clothing, entertainment, and research, but that it should be done in a way that minimizes unnecessary pain and suffering, sometimes referred to as “humane” treatment. Utilitarian advocates argue from the position of costs and benefits and vary in their conclusions as to the allowable treatment of animals. Some utilitarians argue for a weaker approach which is closer to the animal welfare position, whereas
others argue for a position that is similar to animal rights. Animal rights theorists criticize these positions, arguing that the words “unnecessary” and “humane” are subject to widely differing interpretations, and that animals have basic rights. They say that the only way to ensure protection for animals is to end their status as property and to ensure that they are never used as commodities. Before modern biology revealed similarities between humans and animals, some thinkers considered humans completely distinct from animals; the controversy over animal welfare was virtually non-existent. Renaissance thinker Leonardo da Vinci, however, who is widely considered one of the greatest geniuses in history, may once have written: “I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.” Although this quote is not found in any of his collected works, da Vinci’s regard for animal welfare is well-documented. He was particularly troubled by the sight of birds in captivity, and biographer Giorgio Vasari wrote that he once purchased caged birds in order to set them free. Da Vinci also expressed anger within his notebooks with the fact that humans use their strength and power to raise animals for slaughter.
René Descartes, argued that non-humans are automata, complex machines with no soul, mind, or reason. In Descartes dualism, consciousness was unique to human among all other animals and linked to physical matter by divine grace. However, Close analysis shows that many human features such as language, tool use, and self-consciousness can be found in some animals. Charles Darwin, by presenting the theory of evolution, revolutionized the way that humans viewed their relationship with other species. Darwin believed that not only did human beings have a direct kinship with other animals, but the latter had social, mental and moral lives too. Later, in The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote: “There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.” Some philosophers and intellectuals, such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan, have argued that animals’ ability to feel pain as humans do makes their well-being worthy of equal consideration. There are many precursors of this train of thought. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, argued in his An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789): “The question is not, can they reason nor can they talk? but, can they suffer?”
These arguments have prompted some to suggest that animals’ well-being should enter a social welfare function directly, not just indirectly via its effect only on human well-being. Polling evidence suggests that the general public’s concerns for the welfare of farm animals are much lesser than what is commonly believed. For one, there is little evidence that people are willing to trade their own quality of life for improvement in the well-being of farm animals. In one survey of United States homeowners, 68% of respondents said they actually consider the price of meat a more important issue. Worldwide meat overconsumption is another factor that contributes to the miserable situation of farm animals. Links to human violence There are studies providing evidence of a link between animal cruelty and violence towards humans and has also been partly proved to most refer-
ences. Conviction statistics are thought by some to show people convicted for animal cruelty to be more likely to be violent to humans, leading experts to believe that decreasing animal abuse will, in turn, decrease do-
mestic violence.[12] Meanwhile, others explain apparent correlation by criminal courts more often convicting the former for the latter crime as a self-fulfilling prophecy, without any actual link between the two types of actions. [13][14] Others argue
that psychiatry and other authorities outside of courts keep records of who have been cruel to animals and can make biased guesses about whether or not they did violence to humans thereafter and also that they conversely record people who have been violent to humans and can be more biased towards later assuming them to have been cruel to animals, explaining apparent links by institutional bias without link between the actions themselves. There are many reasons why individuals abuse animals. Animal cruelty covers a wide range of actions (or lack of action). Learning about animal abuse has revealed patterns of behavior employed by abusers.[17] Animal cruelty is often broken down into two main categories: active and passive, also referred to as commission and omission, respectively. Passive cruelty is typified by cases of ne-
glect, in which the cruelty is a lack of action rather than the action itself. Examples of neglect are starvation, dehydration, parasite infestations, allowing a collar to grow into an animal’s skin, inadequate shelter in extreme weather conditions, and failure to seek veterinary care when necessary. In many cases of neglect in which an investigator believes that the cruelty occurred out of ignorance, the investigator may attempt to educate the pet owner, then revisit the situation. In more severe cases, exigent circumstances may require that the animal be removed for veterinary care. Farm animals are generally produced in large, industrial facilities that house thousands of animals at high densities; these are sometimes called factory farms. The industrial nature of these facilties means that many routine procedures or animal husbandry practices impinge on the welfare of the animals and could arguably be considered as “cruelty”. It has been suggested the number of animals hunted, kept as companions, used in laboratories, reared for the fur industry, raced, and used in zoos and circuses, is insignificant compared to farm animals, and therefore the “animal welfare issue” is numerically reducible to the “farm animal welfare issue”.
Animal cruelty may involve the following intentional conduct (though each state may have differing laws on what constitutes animal cruelty): Animal fighting (dog fighting, cock fighting, hog-dog fighting) Bestiality (sexual assault) Physical harm or killing (beating, burning, choking, hitting, kicking, mutilating, poisoning, shooting, stabbing, torturing) Targeting the pet for physical harm in order to coerce humans into silence or compliance of their own abuse. Some state laws exempt these activities from animal cruelty laws: Animals in research Euthanasia practices Farming practices Hunting and trapping Pest control Rodeos As of 2011, all but three states (Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota) have passed felony animal cruelty laws thus giving greater resources to prosecutors to effectively handle these cases.
Animal Neglect Animal neglect may involve the following conduct (though each state may have differing laws on what constitutes animal neglect): Abandonment without proper food, water and shelter (this includes “foreclosure pets” who are abandoned in foreclosed homes) Failure to provide proper food, water and shelter Failing to provide medical care Hoarding Puppy Mills Starvation Tethering a dog outside without proper care
All states have passed laws to prevent various forms of neglect. However, animal neglect cases can be challenging to identify, investigate and prosecute. Additional issues arise in mass animal neglect cases, such as hoarding or puppy mills, and a concern as to housing and caring for the animals when resources are limited.
Difficulties with Animal Abuse Cases Animal cruelty and neglect cases can be some of the most complex cases that investigators and prosecutors handle. Some of the reasons include: there is no victim to give a statement or testify; proving intent requires the gathering and arguing of circumstantial evidence; scientific and forensic evidence is often required to prove the manner and cause of injuries and/ or death; large-scale seizure of animals (from an animal fighting enterprise, puppy mill, or hoarding situation) results in financial burdens on communities that may be required to house the animals as “evidence”; opinions regarding animals and the laws that protect them can be difficult to address in jury trials; and community response to animal abuse cases is often strong resulting in an outpouring of support (or criticism) to investigators and prosecutors who are confined by the laws protecting animals. Expert staff with NCPAA, ASPCA and its Advisory Group will provide the tools and resources to help prosecutors and allied professionals overcome these issues. Abusers of animals are five times as likely to harm humans. Nearly half of the victims who stay in violent households do so because they are afraid for their animals.
Countless more never leave the home for this very reason. Companion animals like cats and dogs may be threatened or harmed; the vulnerability of other animals like horses may also make it difficult for victims to escape in emergencies. The “link” between violence against humans and animals is clear. But there are resources that can help. Understanding the Cycle of Violence After a violent episode, whether physical, emotional, or sexual, tension builds to a breaking point. The abuser blames the victim and minimizes the violence, then woos the victim back in a honeymoon phase, and the victim hopes the cycle is over. But the cycle repeats itself, almost without fail. Many victims hope the violence will end or believe they can protect animals in the home. The truth is that a person who harms animals will likely harm humans– and a person who harms humans will almost certainly harm animals. Staying with an abuser puts every human and nonhuman in the home at risk. Children in violent households, who have likely been abused themselves, represent one-fifth of domestic animal cruelty cases. When a child harms animals it can indicate that serious abuse has been inflicted on the child; consequently, animals are abused in nearly all households in which children have been abused. Furthermore, children who witness animal abuse are at greater risk of becoming abusers. Many violent offenders committed childhood acts of animal abuse.
While Australia is overwhelmingly a nation of animal lovers, unfortunately there are still some in our community who treat animals cruelly. The RSPCA is committed to helping those animals in need through our state-based Inspectorate services. Nationally, the RSPCA employs over 100 Inspectors throughout the country. Every year, they take on the challenging task of responding to approximately 50,000 reports of animal mistreatment. The Inspectorate plays a vital role within the RSPCA, and maintaining their presence is essential in providing continuity of animal welfare services to the community. Unfortunately it costs a lot to maintain this service. The associated costs of funding just one RSPCA Inspector can be as much as $100,000 each year, which constitutes a large part of each Society’s annual budget. While each
state and territory RSPCA struggles to raise enough funds for its existing Inspectors, the sad reality is that, more inspectors are desperately needed. Animal cruelty can take many different forms. It includes overt and intentional acts of violence towards animals, but it also includes animal neglect or the failure to provide for the welfare of an animal under one’s control. In addition to this, it is important to remember animal cruelty is not restricted to cases involving physical harm. Causing animals psychological harm in the form of distress, torment or terror may also constitute animal cruelty. As a result of there being so many possible forms of animal cruelty,
state and territory animal welfare legislation does not attempt to define it in an exclusive way; rather, animal cruelty is described generally as any act or ommission that causes unnecessary or unreasonable harm to an animal. Most animal welfare Acts will provide particular examples of cruelty. These may include: • torturing or beating an animal; • confining or transporting an animal in a way that is inappropriate for its welfare;
• killing an animal in an inhumane manner; • failing to provide appropriate or adequate food or water for an animal; • failing to provide appropriate treatment for disease or injury; and
• failing to provide appropriate living conditions.
Animal cruelty is when someone hurts an animal or does not care for an animal responsibly, like not giving a dog or cat food and water. It is against the law to be cruel to or harm animals, even your own pets. It’s also called animal abuse, or neglect. What should you do about it? Animal cruelty is a serious problem. If you see an animal being hurt, remember that you can help speak up for that animal. Depending on the situation, there are different ways you can help but keep these three rules in mind: Don’t touch. Never try to stop a person hurting an animal by yourself or try to help an animal who is hurt. Even though both situations can be upsetting, they can put you in a dangerous situation. Get an adult. Find help from someone like your mom, dad, teacher, or trusted neighbor. Tell them what you saw and together, find help. Call for help: If you witness animal abuse, have your parent or guardian call 911 because it is an emergency. If you notice an animal not being cared for properly, your parent or guardian should call animal control. What can PAWS do to help?
PAWS has no legal authority to catch people abusing animals, but your local animal control officers do. Here is a list of animal control phone numbers in Western Washington. You can also find the phone numbers for animal control near the front of your phone book, or call your local police or sheriff department. Why are people cruel to animals? Sometimes it is simply that people do not understand that what they are doing to an animal is causing the animal pain. Other times, people who have been abused themselves will be cruel to animals because they think that is the only way to treat others. The worst cruelty situations are when people hurt animals knowing that it hurts the animal, and they do it to cause the animal pain. It is hard to say why someone would do this, but often they see the animals as objects instead of creatures with feelings. Why should I report animal abuse? People who abuse animals are more likely to hurt other people. This is why it’s so important to report animal abuse. Not only will you help the animal, but you will help your community be a safer place for everyone.
On a late May afternoon last year in southwest Baltimore, a 2-yearold female pit bull terrier was doused in gasoline and set alight. A young city policewoman on her regular patrol of the neighborhood of boarded-up row houses and redbrick housing developments turned her squad car onto the 1600 block of Presbury Street and saw a cloud of black smoke rising from the burning dog. She hopped out, ran past idle onlookers and managed to put out the flames with her sweater. The dog, subsequently named Phoenix, survived for four days with burns over 95 percent of her body, but soon began to succumb to kidney failure and had to be euthanized. It was only a matter of hours before the story, made vivid by harrowing video footage of the wounded dog, was disseminated nationwide in newspapers, TV and radio newscasts and countless Web sites. An initial $1,000 reward for the capture of the culprits would soon climb to $26,000 as people around the country followed Phoenix’s struggle for life. A gathering of people in Venice Beach, Calif., held a candlelight vigil for her. A month later, the mayor of Baltimore, Sheila Dixon, announced the creation of the Anti-Animal-Abuse Task Force to work in concert with city officials, local law enforcement and animal rights and animal-control groups to find ways to better prevent, investigate and prosecute such crimes. The scale, speed and intensity of the response were striking. The subject of animal abuse, especially the abuse of pit bulls in dog-fighting activities, has achieved a higher profile after the 2007 arrest of the N.F.L. star Michael Vick for operating an illegal interstate
dog-fighting operation in Surry County, Va. But the beleaguered pit bull is merely the most publicized victim of a phenomenon that a growing number of professionals — including police officers, prosecutors, psychologists, social workers, animal-control officers, veterinarians and dogcatchers — are now addressing with a newfound vigor: wanton cruelty toward animals. Before 1990, only six states had felony provisions in their animal-cruelty laws; now 46 do. Two years ago, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals formed the nation’s first Mobile Animal Crime Scene Investigation Unit, a rolling veterinary hospital and forensic lab that travels around the country helping traditional law-enforcement agencies follow the evidentiary trails of wounded or dead animals back to their abusers. In addition to a growing sensitivity to the rights of animals, another significant reason for the increased attention to animal cruelty is a mounting body of evidence about the link between such acts and serious crimes of more narrowly human concern, including illegal firearms possession, drug trafficking, gambling, spousal and child abuse, rape and homicide. In the world of law enforcement — and in the larger world that our laws were designed to shape — animal-cruelty issues were long considered a peripheral concern and the province of local A.S.P.C.A. and Humane Society organizations; offenses as removed and distinct from the work of enforcing the human penal code as we humans have deemed ourselves to be from animals. But that illusory distinction is rapidly fading.