The following article originally appeared in the June 4, 2010 issue of DOG NEWS and is reprinted here by permission of the author.
Animal Abuse Research
Carlotta Cooper
For the past few weeks my computer screen has been covered with saved files with titles such as Social Work and the Law: Proceedings of the National Organization of Forensic Social Work; Animal Abuse and Youth Violence; and Animal Cruelty Prosecution: Opportunities for Early Response to Crime and Interpersonal Violence. I have literally dozens of these files saved, in various stages of reading. I can tell you that they don’t make pretty reading. I can only read so much before I have to stop and play with my puppies to get what I’ve been reading out of my head.
That’s one reason why it was very dismaying to read the March 26, 2010 issue of DOG NEWS, in particular the editorial “States Growing Tougher.” The editorial referred to “growing evidence” that people who abuse animals often go on to attack other humans and mentioned that states are increasing penalties for animal cruelty and “developing better methods for tracking offenders.” I’m afraid there are some problems with these seemingly straightforward statements.
After all the research I’ve been doing one thing is crystal clear: the “growing evidence” that links animal abuse to other forms of abuse is highly suspect. The same is true where animal hoarding is concerned. For instance, the first study of what we call today “hoarding” was conducted in New York City in 1981, with funding from the ASPCA. This would form the pattern for virtually all of the significant later studies on hoarding as well as the studies linking animal abuse to other forms of abuse. Studies on animal abuse, which are being used to convince lawmakers to make tougher laws, create animal abuse registries, and consider laws for “hoarders” are based on animal rights research.
One of the most significant studies of animal abuse and other forms of abuse was done by Randall Lockwood and his co-authors E. Deviney and J. Dickert in 1983: "The care of pets within child abusing families," International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 4, 321-329. It just so happens that Dr. Lockwood became the Vice-President of the Humane Society of the United States the following year, in 1984, a position that he held until 2005. He is currently a Senior Vice President for Anti-Cruelty Field Services for the ASPCA. Yes, he does have credentials in psychology with a doctorate in psychology from Washington University, but his animal rights beliefs have to make any research produced by him very questionable. At least, it should be questioned. And yet, his articles and books have become standards in the field of animal abuse.
Dr. Lockwood worked with humane societies and law enforcement agencies, as a psychologist and in his position as vice president of HSUS for more than 30 years, advising them on the “interactions” between animals and people. He testified in numerous trials involving so-called “cruelty to animals” — dogfighting cases, child abuse, domestic violence, even murder cases, if there were animals involved. He did everything possible to increase awareness of what he considered to be the link between animal abuse and other forms of violence. He continues to provide training to law enforcement, social services, mental health and veterinary professionals. And he has written several books on the subject of animal cruelty. (Information taken from his curriculum vitae and published biography.) In short, he’s been a very busy and successful man when it comes to promoting the idea that there is a link between animal abuse and other forms of violence.
However, just because Randall Lockwood, as vice president of HSUS, believes that animal abuse is linked to other forms of violence, doesn’t mean it’s true. It means that he’s had 30 years to sell this idea to the public and to convince the people in positions of authority — your local police department, child protective services, therapists and counselors, your vet — that it’s true. And now his books are being used to teach courses in animal abuse to other aspiring psychologists.
But Randall Lockwood is by no means the only researcher who has succeeded in putting forward animal rights beliefs to the public. HSUS, ASPCA and the Doris Day Animal League (the people who brought you PAWS and sued the USDA) have funded many similar studies. (Randour, M.L., Krinsk, S., & Wolf, J. (2002). AniCare Child: An Approach for the Assessment and Treatment of Childhood Animal Abuse. Printed and distributed by the Doris Day Animal Foundation and Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Jory, B. & Randour, M.L. (1999). The AniCare Model of Treatment for Animal Abuse (adult version). Printed and distributed by the Doris Day Animal Foundation and Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) They carefully choose researchers who share their ideology and fund their research. It’s not hard to make the research show the results that the researchers hope to find, especially in the field of social sciences. For instance, a study on animal abuse and violence in the home might turn out drastically different if it were conducted in Twiddlestix, Kentucky instead of New York or some other urban area with a high crime rate.
Of course, not all studies about animal abuse and violence can or should be dismissed. No one takes genuine animal abuse lightly. However, at the present time our legislatures are being influenced by people and studies which have been funded by animal rights groups for decades.
There are even some studies that disprove a direct link between animal abuse and violence if you would like to read them:
"The Relationship of Animal Abuse to Violence and Other Forms of Antisocial Behavior," Arnold Arluke (Northeastern University), Jack Levin (Northeastern University), Carter Luke (Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), Frank Ascione (Utah State University). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 14, No. 9, 963-975 (1999).
"The Linkage of Animal Abuse with Interpersonal Violence: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?" Heather Piper (Manchester Metropolitan University, England).
"Reports of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students," Karla S. Miller and John F. Knutson,
(Department of Psychology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA)
One of the strongest thrusts of the animal rights movement in the last few years has been focused on “animal hoarding.” The Humane Society of the United States has shoveled tens of thousands of dollars to Tufts University and the HARC program (Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium), headed by Dr. Gary Patronek — who is a veterinarian, not a psychiatrist. HARC is doing “research” on hoarding, with the same goal that Dr. Lockwood had — to take the idea mainstream in the way that Dr. Lockwood succeeded in convincing the public that there is an easy-to-understand, one-to-one relationship between animal abuse and violence.
HARC is doing research and “educating” social service providers, public health officials, law enforcement, veterinarians and others on the “signs” of animal hoarding. You can bet that you will be reading more about “hoarding” and “hoarders” in your local newspapers and seeing them on your local TV news as this animal rights-led campaign expands — not because there is a sudden epidemic of hoarding, but because this is the latest AR trend. This is the latest way that HSUS has come up with to part animal owners from their animals and to discourage people from owning pets or breeding. There are currently two states with laws regarding animal hoarding (Hawaii and Illinois) but it’s only a matter of time before HSUS pushes for more laws in more states. HARC is even trying to have animal hoarding recognized as a mental illness or “conduct disorder” in the new edition of the DSM for mental health professionals.
Of course, the problem with hoarding from the perspective of an animal owner is that it could be any of us who have more than one animal. Hoarding is defined as basically keeping any number of animals more than someone else thinks you need. Those most often singled out as "hoarders" are elderly, alone and poor. In other words, they are unable to defend themselves if they are accused of being a hoarder.
(I recently read a blog post on an AR web site that thanked someone for posting an article about hoarding. The girl said she was always afraid she was going to become a hoarder but now she knew the signs so she would know what to watch for. She was completely serious. Isn’t that sad?)
Please consider the source when you hear that your legislature is considering tougher new laws for animal abuse, creating an “animal abuse registry” or thinking of making a law about “animal hoarding.” It’s very easy for research to be twisted and the research on animal abuse and violence has been manipulated by HSUS and animal rights groups for the last 30 years.
Posts
