Animal abuse can be defined as socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to or death of an animal.1 By including the term socially unacceptable, this definition limits abuse only to behaviors viewed as inappropriate or wrong within a given culture. A more inclusive definition2 removes the caveat of intentional, includes neglect, and defines abuse as any act that, by intention or by neglect, causes an animal unnecessary pain or suffering. It has also been proposed that intentional animal abuse can be viewed as an alternative form of interpersonal violence.3 These variations suggest that context can affect how animal abuse is defined.
In January 2016, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation began tracking animal cruelty crimes through their National Incident-Based Reporting System. In the past, animal cruelty cases fell into the miscellaneous category of other crimes, but now animal cruelty is classified as a group A offense and as a Crime Against Society with 4 categories: simple or gross neglect, intentional abuse and torture, organized abuse (eg, dog and cock fighting), and animal sexual abuse.4 As part of this change, the Federal Bureau of Investigation offers the following definition of animal cruelty:
“Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly taking an action that mistreats or kills any animal without just cause, such as torturing, tormenting, mutilation, maiming, poisoning, or abandonment. Included are instances of duty to provide care, e.g., shelter, food, water, care if sick or injured; transporting or confining an animal in a manner likely to cause injury or death; causing an animal to fight with another; inflicting excessive or repeated unnecessary pain or suffering, e.g., uses objects to beat or injure an animal. This definition does not include proper maintenance of animals for show or sport; use of animals for food, lawful hunting, fishing or trapping.”4
Because of the previous lack of a national tracking system, statistics on the prevalence of animal abuse in the United States are nearly impossible to compile. Findings of the limited studies on this subject suggest that most veterinarians have encountered at least 1 abuse case. Landau5 found that 87% of 15 randomly selected veterinarians from Indiana had treated abused patients, and Sharpe6 reported that US veterinarians encounter a mean of 5.6 cases of animal abuse/1,000 patients. Munro and Thrusfield7 found that 48.3% of 1,000 British veterinarians acknowledged having encountered at least 1 case of abuse. These findings and others5–12 suggest that many veterinarians will encounter a case of animal abuse, neglect, or cruelty at some time during their career.
Many reported cases of animal abuse are presumed to consist of neglect, which can be defined as a failure to provide adequate food, water, shelter, a sanitary environment, or emergency veterinary care to an injured or suffering animal, either intentionally or unintentionally (sometimes referred to as simple neglect), yet research has not validated this presumption.13 Abandonment and hoarding are both specific forms of neglect. Cases of intentional cruelty, however, are often of greater concern, partly because of the established connection between animal cruelty and other forms of violence, such as domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse.1,11,13–19 Although no causal relationship has been established between violence toward animals and future violence toward people, strong evidence exists that both types of violence are related. Even witnessing animal abuse can increase the likelihood of someone later committing violent offenses against animals, people, or both.13,20
This link between animal cruelty and other types of violence has helped support legislative efforts to strengthen the legal consequences of animal abuse. Indeed, it has been suggested that increasing the importance of animal abuse as a crime can help create safer communities by enabling officials to identify people at risk of committing acts of violence. In some states, to further these collaborative efforts, animal abuse investigators and humane-law enforcement agents have been made mandated reporters of suspected child and elder abuse.13
As a result of this recognition, several changes have been made to animal abuse laws in the United States. For example, all states now have felony laws for severe cruelty to animals and laws that prohibit neglect of animals.13 The number of colleges with animal law courses is also increasing, with 161 law schools in the United States and Canada now offering such courses.21 Additionally, the American Bar Association, along with several state and regional bar associations, now have animal law committees.13
To provide guidance to veterinarians on the identification of clinical signs that may indicate an animal has been abused, several indicators used in the detection of child abuse in children have been modified for use in describing cases of suspected animal abuse.7 These indicators include a client who provides an inconsistent history, especially when the injuries are too severe to explain that history. Alternatively, a client may provide a discrepant history, telling different stories to various staff members or stories that do not match what other family members have reported. Other signs include the actual type of injury an animal has sustained, particularly a history of repetitive injury, old unrelated injuries, or rib fractures.
Although they should not be taken in isolation, changes in an animal's behavior that cannot be adequately explained by underlying medical conditions might also be a factor worth further exploration. For example, an animal with signs of fearing a family member, excessive aggression or submission, or relief when separated from the owner may be suspected of having been abused. Lastly, a history of unexplained injuries or deaths of other animals in the household should be considered a warning sign.7
For veterinarians to respond effectively to suspected or confirmed animal abuse in a manner comparable to the response of physicians to child maltreatment, several obstacles, including ethical and legal considerations, must be overcome.22 Such obstacles include the perception that those seeking veterinary care for their animals would not also be abusers; lack of training in dealing with abuse; fears of litigation, adverse financial consequences, and confidentiality breaches or constraints; and lack of appropriate further action taken by authorities after abuse is reported.22,23
Although more and more veterinarians recognize the role they can play in protecting animals and their community, many still have some or all of the aforementioned concerns.23 For a large number of veterinarians, their role in recognizing and responding to animal abuse remains unclear, and as a result, many may remain reluctant to report suspected or confirmed abuse.22,24 Many veterinarians have concerns regarding possible civil and criminal liability should they make a false report or a good-faith report that proves to be unfounded or should they fail to make a report as prescribed by law. Afraid to be wrong, some veterinarians may not feel adequately trained to address animal abuse issues.
Sharpe6 reported that only 44% of veterinarians believed that they understood the legal rights and responsibilities associated with animal abuse cases, and only 8% believed that their veterinary education provided adequate training on the subject. This is not surprising given that veterinary students receive a mean of 76 minutes of training on animal abuse identification and intervention and only 8 minutes on the topic of human abuse.23 Although these findings suggest a lack of information provided in veterinary education with regard to abuse prevention and intervention, the diagnosis of abuse, cruelty, nonaccidental injury, neglect, or maltreatment of animals is one of the most challenging subjects in clinical work. It requires time, experience, emotional energy, and sensitivity.22 Without the appropriate education and information, veterinarians may be more likely to avoid getting involved than if they were better prepared.6 The purpose of the study reported here was to learn more about veterinarians’ perceptions of animal abuse and their understanding of laws in their states regarding reporting of animal abuse and to obtain newer estimates of the frequency with which veterinarians encounter cases of animal abuse.
Materials and Methods
Survey
An anonymous online survey was created, in collaboration with VIN (an online veterinary community), to evaluate practicing veterinarians’ encounters with and behaviors related to suspected or confirmed animal abuse and their knowledge of applicable laws for reporting such abuse. The survey was created and tested by researchers at Colorado State University after seeking input from representatives of the Animal Welfare Institute, Animals and Society Institute, National Link Coalition, and National Sheriffs’ Association and the attorney with the Animal Legal Defense Fund. After the survey was created, 20 to 30 VIN members were selected to test the survey multiple times for appropriate branching and flow of questions as well as for ambiguity and potentially missing or inappropriate response options. A link to the survey was distributed via an email invitation to all VIN members (n = 34,144), and access was made available from January 26, 2015, to February 28, 2015. A follow-up message was sent 2 weeks after the initial invitation. At the time of the survey, VIN members represented approximately 33% of the profession (n = 102,583). Only respondents who reported they were currently in veterinary practice were included in the study.
The survey was administered directly via the VIN data collection portal, and branching logic was used to display only relevant questions for each participant. The first question was a screening tool to ensure respondents were currently practicing veterinarians. Demographic data such as gender, year of graduation from veterinary college, and state of veterinary practice were then collected via selection of specific options from predetermined lists. The body of the survey consisted primarily of short questions, for which participants were able to select one or more specific options to represent their experiences and perceptions regarding encounters with cases of suspected or confirmed animal abuse (Supplemental Appendix S1, available at: http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/suppl/10.2460/javma.250.6.688). Free-text boxes were provided for participants to enter brief alternate answers when none of the listed options applied to them. A final question at the end of the survey allowed for free-text entry of any comments participants chose to make about mandated reporting of animal cruelty. The state where each respondent practiced veterinary medicine at the time of the survey was recorded, as was whether laws actually existed in the reported state regarding reporting of animal cruelty.25,26
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions (reported as percentages) were computed by use of statistical software.a Descriptive statistics were used to categorize the respondents with respect to their gender, year of graduation, state of practice, and perception of having mandated reporting or immunity laws in their state. Percentages of respondents who practiced in states identified as requiring (mandating) licensed veterinarians to report certain suspected animal cruelty violations as well as in states that provided civil immunity for good faith reporting of animal abuse were also calculated. These findings were compared with data regarding whether respondents believed their state of practice had a mandated reporting law, an immunity law, or both. When assessing any impact of these laws on veterinarians’ reporting behaviors, we believed that whether respondents believed they practiced in a state with a mandated reporting or immunity law was potentially more impactful than whether such laws were actually in place. Therefore, further analysis regarding the potential impact of these laws on respondent behaviors was based on data regarding respondents’ perceptions of these laws rather than on data regarding the actual status of the laws.
Binary logistic regression was used to examine potential associations between respondent gender, year of graduation, and belief that there was a mandatory reporting or immunity law and whether veterinarians chose to report an abuse case and reasons they did or chose not to report an abuse case. Only reasons selected by at least 40 respondents were included in this analysis. Values of P < 0.05 were considered significant.
Frequencies were calculated for respondents who reported animal abuse encounters as well as specific red-flag indicators of abuse. Likewise, frequencies were calculated for responses to questions related to clinic policies; knowledge of the link between animal abuse, child abuse, and domestic violence; forensic evidence; knowledge of online resources to help identify animal abuse; and interest in additional information pertaining to animal abuse. Because not all questions were answered by all respondents, the total number of respondents for each question varied. Reported percentages for each individual question are based on total responses for that question.
Results
Respondent demographics
Respondents originated from all 50 US states. A total of 1,209 respondents completed the survey (3.5% response rate), of which 1,155 (95.5%) indicated that they were currently in veterinary practice. Only those currently in practice were included in the analysis. Most respondents (n = 793 [70.1%]) were female, whereas 339 (29.9%) were male. The largest proportion of practicing veterinarians reported working in small animal practice (n = 973 [84.2%]), followed by mixed-animal practice (61 [5.3%]), shelter medicine (57 [4.9%]), academia (36 [3.1%]), exotics practice (12 [1.0%]), large animal practice (7 [0.6%]), and other practice (8 [0.7%]). Year of veterinary school graduation was reported as 2000 to 2014 (508 [44.3%]), 1990 to 1999 (286 [24.9%]), 1980 to 1989 (263 [22.9%]), and 1969 to 1979 (91 [7.9%]).
Slightly less than half of respondents (485/1,147 [42.3%]) practiced veterinary medicine in a state with a law mandating the reporting of animal abuse, and 662 (57.7%) practiced in states that had no such law. In response to whether they believed a mandated reporting law existed in their state of practice, only 169 (34.8%) respondents correctly believed that such a law existed and only 190 (28.7%) correctly believed that such a law did not exist (Table 1). A large proportion of respondents (999/1,143 [87.4%]) practiced in states with a civil immunity law to protect those who report abuse in good faith. In response to whether they believed such a law existed in their state of practice, only 197 (19.7%) respondents correctly believed that such a law existed and only 22 (15.3%) correctly believed that such a law did not exist.
Summary of responses to an online VIN survey by practicing veterinarians regarding their understanding of whether laws did or did not exist in their state to mandate reporting of suspected cases of animal cruelty and provide civil immunity for good faith reporting of such cases, by whether such laws actually existed.
| Law | Yes | No | Not sure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandated reporting law | |||
| Actually existed | 169 (34.8) | 62 (12.8) | 254 (52.4) |
| Actually did not exist | 73 (11.0) | 190 (28.7) | 399 (60.3) |
| Immunity law | |||
| Actually existed | 197 (19.7) | 63 (6.3) | 739 (74.0) |
| Actually did not exist | 12 (8.3) | 22 (15.3) | 110 (76.4) |
Encounters with and reporting of animal abuse
When respondents were asked whether they had encountered 1 or more cases of animal abuse (suspected or confirmed) while in practice, 1,005 (87.0%) reported that they had and 150 (13.0%) reported that they had not. Experiences with specific situations were summarized (Table 2), with high proportions reporting having encountered animals with > 1 fracture at different ages (855/1,150 [74.4%]) or with unexplained injuries (854 [74.3%]).
Summary of responses (No. [%]) to an online VIN survey by practicing veterinarians regarding whether they had at any time in the past encountered specific situations in which animal abuse might be suspected.
| Situation | Yes | No | Not sure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unexplained injuries | 854 (74.3) | 247 (21.5) | 49 (4.3) |
| > 1 fracture in the same animal at different ages | 855 (74.4) | 254 (22.1) | 40 (3.5) |
| Unexplained old rib fractures | 787 (68.6) | 316 (27.5) | 45 (3.9) |
| History inconsistent with injury | 337 (29.3) | 755 (65.7) | 57 (5.0) |
| Previous history of unexplained injury or death of another animal owned by the same client | 679 (59.0) | 365 (31.7) | 106 (9.2) |
A total of 1,209 completed surveys were received (3.5% response rate); 1,155 (95.5%) surveys were submitted by currently practicing veterinarians. One thousand five (87.0%) practicing veterinarians reported having encountered at least 1 case of animal abuse while in practice; 561 (55.8%) of these veterinarians indicated that they had reported at least 1 case.
When asked whether their clinics had a policy regarding animal abuse, 721 of 1,154 (62.5%) respondents replied no, whereas 255 (22.1%) replied yes and 178 (15.4%) replied that they were not sure. When asked to whom they would report cases of suspected animal abuse, 455 of 1,131 (40.2%) respondents indicated the municipal or county animal control unit, 341 (30.2%) indicated their direct supervisor or hospital director, 150 (13.3%) indicated the police or sheriff, 149 (13.2%) indicated the Humane Society or Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 4 (0.4%) indicated the prosecutor, and 32 (2.8%) indicated another person or entity. Respondents who indicated that they had encountered ≥ 1 cases of animal abuse were asked whether they had reported these cases, to which 561 of 1,005 (55.8%) replied that they had reported at least 1 case and the remainder (444 [44.2%]) replied that had not done so.
Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the probability of a respondent having reported a suspected case of animal abuse when they believed an immunity law existed in their state (146/209 [70%]) was significantly (P = 0.001) greater than the probability when they did not believe (49/85 [58%]) or were unsure (424/840 [50%]) that such a law existed. Reasons provided for choosing to report a suspected case of animal abuse included protection of the animal (437/561 [77.9%]), other animals (337 [60.1%]), or persons (215 [38.3%]) in the household; ethical beliefs (406 [72.4%]); professional codes of conduct (297 [52.9%]); legal mandates (94 [16.8%]); organizational or corporate policy (60 [10.7%]); and other reasons (95 [16.9%]).
Binary logistic regression revealed no significant association between gender, year of graduation, and perception of mandatory and immunity laws and the probability of reporting animal abuse for ethical reasons, to protect the animal, or to protect other animals in the home. However, females were significantly more likely than males to report abuse to protect other persons in the household (P = 0.01) or to uphold professional codes of conduct (P = 0.049).
Respondents’ perception of mandatory reporting laws was significantly associated with several reasons for choosing to report animal abuse. Compared with respondents who did not believe or were unsure a mandatory reporting law existed in their state, respondents who believed that such a law existed were more likely to report a case of animal abuse to protect other persons in the household, to comply with legal mandates, to uphold professional codes of conduct, and to comply with organizational or corporate policy. Compared with respondents who did not believe or did not know an immunity law existed in their state, respondents who believed such a law existed were more likely to report a case of animal abuse to protect other persons in the household or to comply with organizational or corporate policy.
Reasons chosen by respondents with at least 1 animal abuse encounter for not reporting that abuse included being unsure it was abuse (163/443 [36.8%]), thinking it better to educate the client than report the abuse (79 [17.8%]), thinking it was accidental and not intentional (44 [9.9%]), being unsure of the process for reporting (40 [9.0%]), telling their superior or practice manager for them to decide what to do (23 [5.2%]), not knowing they were allowed to report a case (14 [3.2%]), fearing that the animal would suffer as a result of reporting (13 [2.9%]), fearing retaliation by the abuser (12 [2.7%]), fearing that they would damage their relationship with the client (10 [2.3%]), fearing that they would harm the clinic's reputation (9 [2.0%]), fearing that they would injure the client's reputation if wrong (7 [1.6%]), fearing the time it would take if the case went to court (4 [0.9%]), fearing that their own reputation would be harmed (2 [0.5%]), lacking the time or meaning to report it but not getting around to it (1 [0.2%]), and other reasons (98 [22.1%]). No respondent indicated that they feared the financial cost that would be incurred if the case had to go to court.
No significant associations were identified between gender, year of graduation, and perceptions of laws and the most common reasons (ie, represented by > 40 respondents) for choosing not to report animal abuse. The exception was not being sure it was abuse, in which situation respondents who were unsure whether an immunity law existed in their state were significantly (P = 0.04) more likely to select this reason than were respondents who did or did not believe such a law existed.
Additional questions
When asked their views on mandatory reporting laws while in practice, most respondents strongly supported (270/1,125 [24.0%]) or supported (474 [42.1%]) these laws, with 219 (19.5%) having no opinion and 126 (11.2%) opposing and 36 (3.2%) strongly opposing such laws. When asked whether they supported reporting of suspected animal cruelty, abuse, neglect or hoarding provided that immunity from civil and criminal liability would be granted, 465 (41.3%) respondents indicated strong support, 450 (40.0%) indicated support, 145 (12.9%) were neutral, 51 (4.5%) were opposed, and 13 (1.2%) were strongly opposed.
When all survey participants were asked whether they had been asked to submit forensic evidence for a law enforcement investigation or prosecution, 320 of 1,130 (28.4%) respondents indicated they had been asked to do so. When all respondents, regardless of whether they had been asked to submit evidence, were asked how prepared they felt they were to collect forensic evidence, most reported feeling minimally prepared (534/1,132 [47.2%]) or not prepared at all (277 [24.5%]), with 260 (23.0%) reporting feeling moderately prepared and 61 (5.4%) feeling very prepared. When respondents were asked whether they were aware of any online resources to help them identify animal abuse, 746 (65.8%) replied no and 387 (34.2%) replied yes. When asked how interested they were in learning more about identifying and reporting animal cruelty, neglect, abuse, or hoarding, 355 (31.6%) respondents were very interested, 462 (41.1%) were moderately interested, 264 (23.5%) were mildly interested, and 43 (3.8%) were not interested.
Most (921/1,123 [82.0%]) respondents indicated they were certain a link exists between animal abuse and child abuse, whereas 127 (11.3%) were fairly sure such a link exists, 72 (6.4%) thought there might be a link, and 3 (0.3%) believed there is no such link. Results were similar when respondents were asked about the potential link between animal abuse and domestic violence; 908 (80.9%) indicated they were certain of such a link, 130 (11.6%) were fairly sure such a link exists, 79 (7.0%) thought there might be a link, and 7 (0.6%) believed there is no such link.
Discussion
The present study provided some insights into the perceptions and behaviors of veterinarians regarding cases of suspected or confirmed animal abuse. Results suggested that most respondents were unsure of their state laws pertaining to mandated animal abuse reporting or civil immunity for good-faith reporting. The main reasons respondents chose to report animal abuse was a desire to protect animals and people, and the main reasons they chose to not report abuse were uncertainty about whether it was actually abuse and a desire to educate their clients instead of reporting them to the authorities.
The survey respondents appeared to be fairly representative of veterinary practitioners in the United States, as indicated by their demographic characteristics. One important exception was the inclusion of a large percentage (44.3%) of veterinarians who graduated from 2000 to 2014, which was larger than the percentage in the general veterinarian population. This difference between populations may have been attributable to the longer period represented by this grouping (15 years vs 10 years for other groupings), a greater interest in the subject matter than in other groupings, or the comfort that younger (vs older) veterinarians may have in expressing their views online.27
State of practice at the time of survey completion was used in the present study to determine whether respondents practiced in a state that had some type of mandated animal abuse reporting law. Although such laws differ by state in their definition of abuse, 15 states have some type of mandated reporting laws.28 Respondents represented all 50 states. Of respondents from states that had a mandatory reporting law at the time of the survey, only 34.8% were correct in their belief that their state had such a law, with more than half of the respondents unsure a law existed. The proportion of respondents who were unsure about their state law was even larger for those practicing in states without a mandatory reporting law.
Although most states with a mandatory animal abuse reporting law also have an immunity law to protect those who report in good faith, exceptions exist. Some states mandate reporting of animal abuse but have no immunity law, and other states have immunity laws but do not mandate abuse reporting.28 For respondents who practiced in a state with an immunity law, only 19.7% correctly believed their state had such a law, and similar to the situation for mandatory reporting laws, most (74.0%) respondents were unsure their state had an immunity law. Given the fact that each state has a slightly different immunity law, including the nature of the individuals covered and the reasons for their inclusion, this confusion was far from surprising. However, the finding that knowledge of these laws was associated with a respondent's willingness to report a suspected case of animal abuse suggested that veterinarians should be educated about mandatory reporting and immunity laws with more concerted efforts by state veterinary bodies.
When veterinarians were asked whether they had encountered any cases of suspected or confirmed animal abuse during their practice career, most (87.0%) replied that they had. Additionally, when asked about specific potential indicators of abuse, several such indicators had been encountered by > 50% of respondents. Encounters with animals that had unexplained injuries or > 1 fracture at different ages were reported by approximately three-quarters of respondents. Animals with unexplained old rib fractures were reported by 69% of respondents, and animals with a history of unexplained injury, or the death of another animal owned by the same client, were reported by 59% of respondents. Animals with a history inconsistent with the injury or illness for which they were evaluated were encountered less frequently, but were still reported by approximately a quarter of respondents. The number of cases encountered annually was not determined through the survey, but the figure of 87.0% is the same as that identified by Landau,5 who reported that 87% of veterinarians have encountered abused animals.
When asked for the reason for choosing to report a case of suspected animal abuse, most veterinarians who reported at least 1 animal abuse encounter selected responses that reflected a desire to protect animals and people. Perception of having a mandatory reporting law had no effect on the frequency with which these reasons were selected. Over half (55.8%) of respondents who had had at least 1 case of suspected or confirmed animal abuse had reported at least 1 of these cases. Perception that their state had an immunity law increased the likelihood of a respondent reporting a case of animal abuse, but not perception that their state had a mandatory reporting law. It was not possible to examine potential interactions between these 2 variables because only 8 respondents who believed their state had a mandatory reporting law reported also believed that they did not also have an immunity law.
The most common reasons veterinarians selected for reporting a case of animal abuse were to protect the animal and ethical beliefs. Neither of these reasons was associated with gender, year of graduation, or perception of a mandatory reporting or immunity law. However, gender was associated with the likelihood that a respondent would report a case of animal abuse to protect other persons in the household, whereby more females selected this reason than males. This finding might have been attributable to women being more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men or the possibility that the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence might be more obvious for women.
Perception of a mandated reporting law or an immunity law was associated with the likelihood of respondents choosing to report a case of animal abuse because of organizational or corporate policy, perhaps because those who believed their state had a mandated reporting or immunity law were more likely to work in clinics with policies regarding reporting of animal abuse. Other reasons selected more frequently when veterinarians believed their state had mandated reporting laws included legal mandates to do so and professional codes of conduct. These findings could be expected in that respondents who believed their state had mandating laws likely believed they should report a case of suspected animal abuse to uphold the law. Additionally, respondents who believed their state had a mandatory reporting law selected the reason “to protect other persons in the household” more frequently than did those who did not believe they had a mandatory law. Overall, it would appear that the most common reasons veterinarians had for choosing to report abuse did not change on the basis of their perceptions of the existence of mandatory reporting or immunity laws. Veterinarians reported because of their ethical beliefs and concern for the animals, whereas the existence of mandatory reporting laws and immunity laws may have influenced them to report because of legal or professional conduct reasons.
When veterinarians were asked the reason they chose to not report animal abuse in the present study, they were given many options from which to select. Only 2 reasons were selected with any marked frequency: uncertainty about whether it was actually abuse and the desire to educate their client rather than report them. Given that many reasons exist for people abusing animals, there are likely times when client education might be a better choice than reporting.29 In fact, it has been suggested that most cases of maltreatment result from ignorance and accidents rather than intention or pathological behavior and that early intervention may prevent further maltreatment.24 Many other reasons often cited for failing to report animal abuse, such as fear of cost, time, and repercussions,11 were far less commonly selected in the present study. Few veterinarians selected fear of retaliation; harming the reputation of the clinic, the client, or themselves; or fear of the time or money it might take if the case went to court. It is worth noting, however, that several responses provided as other reasons in free-text entries indicated a feeling of being discouraged by their boss to report the potential abuse (data not shown).
The prominent themes, both from the responses and the free-text comments, were that veterinarians carefully considered the situation and tried to make assessments of the best possible course of action. Veterinarians could be considered scientists at heart, who likely feel most comfortable with concrete scientific knowledge. Gray areas, such as what constitutes abuse, are likely harder to deal with. Yet, the veterinarian's role is not to determine beyond all doubt whether an animal has been abused; that is the responsibility of authorities trained for this purpose. Laws regarding mandated reporting of animal abuse and providing civil immunity for reporting have been created to protect people who make reports in good faith. It must be made clear to veterinarians that they are not responsible for making a diagnosis of neglect or abuse, but that they are responsible for sharing their concerns with the appropriate authorities. Their decision to report a suspected case of animal abuse is only the first step, and other experts will determine whether legal action is indicated.2,24
Interestingly, most of the free-text reasons provided in the present study for failing to report animal abuse were further explanations about the desire to educate clients or the uncertainty felt when trying to assess abuse. An additional reason provided in the other-reason category was that the abuse had already been reported by someone else.
When the most common reasons for not reporting animal abuse were analyzed, the only significant association identified was that veterinarians who believed their state had an immunity law were more likely to indicate they were unsure it was abuse than were those who did not believe or were not sure their state had an immunity law. Although the reason for this finding was unclear, 1 possibility is that those who felt they were protected with an immunity law might have felt an additional responsibility to be correct in their assessment of abuse. This possibility warrants further exploration, particularly given the challenge veterinarians often feel in trying to assess abuse.11,18
For veterinarians who may be concerned about litigation or retaliation after reporting animal abuse, the experiences of physicians as they struggle with fear of legal action when reporting child abuse may be helpful. For example, physicians have been advised to consult with others when unsure about an abuse case so that any decision to report originated from a group rather than an individual, thereby avoiding any possible legal action and criticism against a particular physician.23,30 Additionally, the inclusion of physicians as part of a mandated reporting system has not been shown to have any adverse economic impact on physicians.23 Other steps that veterinarians can take to feel more confident when reporting animal abuse include maintaining comprehensive medical records, including assessment and historical data, statements made by clients, observed behaviors of clients and their animals, detailed descriptions of injuries, and results of laboratory tests and diagnostic procedures, relevant photographs, and other images.24
As one of few persons likely to interact with an abused animal, veterinarians are in a unique position to witness and identify animal abuse.18 Part of this process is to ensure that a policy for reporting of suspected cases has been established at their clinic. In the present study, more than half (62.5%) of respondents reported that their clinic had no such policy and 15.4% indicated not knowing whether their clinic had one. This is an area that appears to have room for improvement. It has been suggested that one of the most important steps a veterinarian can take to help ensure a positive outcome in abuse cases is to prepare for this possibility in advance by having a clinic policy.24 The policy should address factors such as determining whether reporting is mandated or protected in the state where veterinarians practice and knowing the correct agency to which the abuse should be reported. Data from the present study indicated that most veterinarians report animal abuse cases to a municipal or county animal control unit or a direct supervisor or hospital director, making it important for supervisors or directors to know to whom such a report should be conveyed. It is also important to work as a team to establish an internal decision-making process and ensure everyone feels comfortable with animal abuse recognition and the steps involved in collecting forensic evidence.24
Studies23,31,32 have shown that physicians are less likely to report child abuse if they lack confidence in the system or projected outcome. One way to help ensure positive outcomes is to create collaborative relationships with local veterinarians, shelter veterinarians, and specialized forensic veterinarians.13 Research33 has also shown that other factors that reduce the chance of child abuse reporting include pediatrician gender and years in practice, with men and those in practice for longer periods reporting child abuse less frequently than females and those in practice for shorter periods. These associations were not identified for veterinarians in the present study but should be investigated further.
Veterinarians have specialized knowledge that can aid in the collection of medically relevant evidence during investigations concerning animal abuse. They can conduct physical examinations, collect evidence at the scene, run laboratory tests, and perform necropsies that can be vital parts of abuse court cases. Veterinarians are able to offer professional opinions as to whether an animal has been injured or has signs of pain and can help clarify whether abuse has taken place, yet most veterinarians do not feel adequately prepared to handle such cases.13,18 Indeed, 65.8% of veterinarians in the present study indicated they were unaware of any online resources to help them identify animal abuse. These figures are close to those of other investigators,11 who reported that 76.4% of veterinarians feel inadequately trained to distinguish between suboptimal care and legal neglect and 84% feel the need to include training on how to recognize and report animal abuse in veterinary curricula.
In the study reported here, nearly a third of all veterinarian participants reported they had been asked to submit forensic evidence, yet 71.7% of all respondents reported feeling not at all or only minimally prepared should they be asked; only 5.4% felt very prepared. Respondents appeared to feel more confident in their knowledge of the link between animal abuse and child abuse or domestic violence, with > 80% of respondents indicating they were certain such a link exists and < 1% indicating they believed there was no link. These figures are similar to those reported in 1999 by Sharpe,6 who found that 86% of veterinarians agreed with the statement that clients who abuse their animals are more likely to abuse their children and 77.1% agreed that clients who abuse their animals are more likely to abuse their spouses. Results of a limited number of studies13,34–38 suggest that animal abuse may be linked to child physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect; intimate partner violence; elder abuse; and other interpersonal violent crimes. Additionally, recognition is growing of the role that animal abuse plays in domestic violence.15,39
Research on the link between animal abuse and other forms of violence has prompted changes in policies and helped support efforts for collaborative approaches to reduce all forms of violence.24 For example, as of 2014, 29 states have enacted legislation that includes provisions for pets in domestic violence protection orders.40 Additionally, many communities now offer safe havens for animals belonging to human victims of domestic violence and encourage cross-training of professionals who work with abused people and animals. Yet, clearly more research is needed to further guide efforts in these areas.3
The need and desire for more information on topics related to animal abuse appeared to exist for the veterinarians surveyed in the present study. When asked how interested they were in learning more about animal abuse, 72.7% of respondents indicated they were at least moderately interested, whereas only 3.8% reported no interest. More information should be provided in veterinary school but must also be made more accessible to practicing veterinarians. Updated information on relevant state laws regarding animal abuse reporting should be provided to all veterinarians to increase their knowledge on these matters. This information should be accurate, complete, easy to find, and updated regularly. Both national (eg, AVMA) and state veterinary organizations should make it a priority to share this information. As key players in the one health initiative, veterinarians share a responsibility for protecting and promoting public health by working to reduce all forms of violence. Findings of the present study suggested that veterinarians have a desire to do just this; however, better tools, resources, and information are needed to help them succeed.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank VIN, the Animal Welfare Institute, and the Animals and Society Institute for assistance with the survey.
ABBREVIATIONS
| VIN | Veterinary Information Network |
Footnotes
SPSS, version 21, SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill.
References
1. Ascione FR. Children who are cruel to animals: a review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoös 1993; 6:226–247.
2. Sinclair L, Merck M, Lockwood R. Forensic investigation of animal cruelty: a guide for veterinary and law enforcement professionals. Washington, DC: Humane Society of the United States, 2006.
3. Randour ML, Gupta M. The psychology of animal abuse offenders. In: Brewster MP, Reyes CL, eds. Animal cruelty: a multidisciplinary approach to understanding. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2013; 307–326.
4. Federal Bureau of Investigation. UCR Program: Criminal Information Service Division. Available at: www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-program-quarterly/ucr-quarterly-january-2015. Accessed Jun 2, 2015.
5. Landau R. The veterinarian's role in recognizing and reporting abuse. In: Ascione FR, Arkow P, eds. Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention. West Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press, 1999; 241–249.
6. Sharpe MS. A survey of veterinarians and a proposal for intervention. In: Ascione FR, Arkow P, eds. Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention. West Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press, 1999; 250–256.
7. Munro HMC, Thrusfield MV. “Battered pets”: non-accidental physical injuries found in dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract 2001; 42:279–290.
8. Patronek GJ. Animal cruelty, abuse and neglect. In: Miller L, Zawistowski S, eds. Shelter medicine for veterinarians and staff. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell, 2004; 427–452.
9. American Humane Association. Nonaccidental injury in dogs and cats in Colorado: final report to Animal Assistance Fund. Englewood, Calif: American Humane Association, 2003.
10. Kuehn BM. Animal hoarding: a public health problem veterinarians can take a lead role in solving. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 221:1087–1089.
11. Donley L, Patronek GJ, Luke C. Animal abuse in Massachusetts: a summary of case reports at the MSPCA and attitudes of Massachusetts veterinarians. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 1999; 2:59–73.
12. DeViney E, Dickert J, Lockwood R. The care of pets within child abusing families. Int J Study Anim Probl 1983; 4:321–329.
13. Phillips A, Lockwood R. Investigating and prosecuting animal abuse. Alexandria, Va: National District Attorneys Association, 2013.
14. Ascione FR, Friedrich WN, Heath J, et al. Cruelty to animals in normative, sexually abused, and outpatient psychiatric samples of 6- to 12-year old children: relations to maltreatment and exposure to domestic violence. Anthrozoös 2003; 16:194–210.
15. Gupta M. Functional links between intimate partner violence and animal abuse: personality features and representations of aggression. Soc Anim 2008; 16:223–242.
16. Vaughn MG, Fu Q, Beaver KM, et al. Effects of childhood adversity on bullying and cruelty to animals in the United States: findings from a national sample. J Interpers Violence 2011; 26:3509–3525.
17. Henderson BB, Hensley C, Tallichet SE. Childhood animal cruelty methods and their link to adult interpersonal violence. J Interpers Violence 2011; 26:2211–2227.
18. Benetato MA, Reisman R, McCobb E. The veterinarian's role in animal cruelty cases. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011; 238:31–34.
19. Rajewski G. Tufts now: CSI: Animal abuse. Available at: now.tufts.edu/print/articles/csi-animal-abuse. Accessed Mar 18, 2015.
20. Baldry AC. Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and indirectly victimized at school and at home. Crim Behav Ment Health 2005; 15:97–110.
21. Animal Legal Defense Fund: Animal Law Courses. Available at: aldf.org/animal-law-courses/. Accessed Nov 21, 2016.
22. Arkow P, Munro H. The veterinary profession's roles in recognizing and preventing family violence: The experiences of the human medicine field and the development of diagnostic indicators of non-accidental injury. In: Ascione FR, ed. International handbook of animal abuse and cruelty: theory, research, and application. West Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press, 2008; 31–58.
23. Arkow P. The veterinarian's role in preventing family violence: the experience of the human medical profession. In: Understanding and addressing the link between child maltreatment and animal abuse. Englewood, Calif: American Humane Association, 2004.
24. Arkow P, Boyden P, Patterson-Kane E. Practical guidance for the effective response by veterinarians to suspected animal cruelty, abuse and neglect. Schaumburg, Ill: AVMA, 2011. Available at: ebusiness.avma.org/Files/ProductDownloads/AVMA%20Suspected%20Animal%20Cruelty.pdf. Accessed Jun 2, 2015.
25. Advocacy SP. Animal Cruelty Laws State by State. Available at: www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/AnimalCrueltyLaws.pdf. Accessed Nov 22, 2016.
26. Animal Legal Defense Fund. Animal Protection Laws of the United States and Canada. Available at: aldf.org/resources/advocating-for-animals/animal-protection-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america-and-canada/. Accessed Nov 22, 2106.
27. Abrahamson K. New consumer study: millennials are 2X as likely to purchase products they share about. Available at: www.sharethis.com/blog/2014/09/23/new-consumer-study-millennials-2x-likely-purchase-products-share/#more-12535. Accessed Jun 2, 2015.
28. Wisch RF. Table of veterinary reporting requirement and immunity laws. Available at: www.animallaw.info/topic/table-veterinary-reporting-requirement-and-immunity-laws. Accessed Jun 2, 2015.
29. Gullone E. Conceptualizing animal abuse with an antisocial behavior framework. Available at: nationallinkcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/AntisocialBehaviorGullone.pdf. Accessed Jun 2, 2015.
30. King M. Red flag: signs of animal abuse. Vet Prod News 1998; 10:18–21.
31. Vulliamy AP, Sullivan R. Reporting child abuse: pediatricians' experiences with the child protection system. Child Abuse Negl 2000; 24:1461–1470.
32. Steinberg KL, Levine M, Doueck HJ. Effects of legally mandated child-abuse reports on the therapeutic relationship: a survey of psychotherapists. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1997; 67:112–122.
33. Gunn VL, Hickson GB, Cooper WO. Factors affecting pediatricians' reporting of suspected child maltreatment. Ambul Pediatr 2005; 5:96–101.
34. DeLisi M, Neppl TK, Lohman BJ, et al. Early starters: which type of criminal onset matters most for delinquent careers? J Crim Justice 2013; 41:12–17.
35. Dadds MR, Whiting C, Hawes DJ. Associations among cruelty to animals, family conflicts, and psychopathic traits in childhood. J Interpers Violence 2006; 21:411–429.
36. Hensley C, Tallichet SE. The effect of inmates' self-reported childhood and adolescent animal cruelty: motivations on the number of convictions for adult violent interpersonal crimes. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2008; 52:175–184.
37. Vaughn MG, Fu W, DeLisi M, et al. Correlates of cruelty to animals in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J Psychiatr Res 2009; 43:1213–1218.
38. Peak T, Ascione F, Doney J. Adult Protective Services and animal welfare: should animal abuse and neglect be assessed during Adult Protective Services screening? J Elder Abuse Negl 2012; 24:37–49.
39. Walton-Moss BJ, Manganello J, Frye V, et al. Risk factors for intimate partner violence and associated injury among urban women. J Community Health 2005; 30:377–389.
40. Wisch RF. Domestic violence and pets: list of states that include pets in protection orders. Available at: www.animallaw.info/article/domestic-violence-and-pets-list-states-include-pets-protection-orders. Accessed Jun 2, 2015.
