Veterinary needs for animal cruelty recognition and response in the United States center on training and workplace policies.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the experiences and perceptions of veterinary professionals in the US responding to suspected cases of animal cruelty. SAMPLE: 1,027 US veterinary professionals. PROCEDURES: An anonymous survey was distributed via social media and veterinary professional associations between October 15 and November 15, 2020. RESULTS: Responses indicated that more cases of suspected animal cruelty were seen by those who reported having had cruelty training and in workplaces with emergency intake or a relationship with law enforcement. In addition, suspected cases were more likely to be reported to authorities by respondents who indicated there was a workplace policy for handling cruelty cases and by individuals who indicated that they were aware that they were mandated reporters. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The important needs for veterinary professionals in relation to animal cruelty are more training to recognize animal cruelty, workplace policies for reporting, and knowledge of reporting laws.

The Influence of Evidence on Animal Cruelty Prosecution and Case Outcomes: Results of a Survey.

Two hundred prosecuting attorneys completed a survey concerning priorities in taking on animal cruelty cases and the factors that help or hinder prosecuting such cases. Respondents commented on the priority given such cases. Questions also addressed specific kinds of evidence that had been used to decide whether to take on a cruelty case and were used in court. Results showed that prosecutors most frequently relied upon "traditional" sources of evidence, including detailed medical and crime scene reports and good quality photographic evidence. Other sources of forensic evidence such as DNA, computer forensics, forensic accounting, blood, and trace evidence were rarely employed. Veterinary forensic evidence, including forensic necropsies and detailed medical reports, was viewed as an important factor by a majority of prosecutors in deciding whether to accept a case for prosecution and in achieving a successful outcome, but a need for additional training for investigators was indicated.

Characterization and comparison of injuries caused by spontaneous versus organized dogfighting.

OBJECTIVE To characterize and compare injuries found in dogs involved in spontaneously occurring dogfights with those of dogs used in illegal organized dogfighting. DESIGN Retrospective case-control study. ANIMALS 36 medium-sized dogs evaluated following spontaneous fights with a dog of the same sex and similar weight (medium dog-medium dog [MDMD] fights), 160 small dogs examined following spontaneous fights with a larger dog (big dog-little dog [BDLD] fights), and 62 dogs evaluated after being seized in connection with dogfighting law enforcement raids. PROCEDURES Demographic characteristics and injuries were recorded from medical records. Prevalence of soft tissue injuries in predetermined body surface zones, as well as dental or skeletal injuries, was determined for dogs grouped by involvement in BDLD, MDMD, and organized dogfights. The extent of injuries in each location was scored and compared among groups by 1-factor ANOVA. Patterns of injuries commonly incurred by each group were determined by use of prevalence data. RESULTS Mean extent of injury scores differed significantly among groups for all body surface zones except the eye and periorbital region. Mean scores for dental injuries and rib fractures also differed significantly among groups. Organized fighting dogs more commonly had multiple injuries, particularly of the thoracic limbs, dorsal and lateral aspects of the head and muzzle or oral mucosa, dorsal and lateral aspects of the neck, and ventral neck and thoracic region. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE To the authors' knowledge, this was the first study to compare injuries incurred during spontaneous and organized dogfighting. Establishing evidence-based patterns of injury will help clinicians identify dogs injured by organized dogfighting and aid in the prosecution of this crime.

Relationship Between Scarring and Dog Aggression in Pit Bull-Type Dogs Involved in Organized Dogfighting.

When pit bull-type dogs are seized in an investigation of organized dogfighting, heavily scarred dogs are often assumed to be highly dog aggressive due to a history of fighting. These dogs may be deemed dangerous and euthanized based on scarring alone. We analyzed our existing data on dogs seized from four dogfighting investigations, examining the relationship between the dogs' scars with aggression towards other dogs. Scar and wound data were tallied in three body zones where dogfighting injuries tend to be concentrated. Dog aggression was assessed using a model dog and a friendly stimulus dog in a standardized behavior evaluation. Scarring and dog aggression were significantly related, more strongly among male (Fisher's Exact p < 0.001) than female dogs (Fisher's Exact p = 0.05). Ten or more scars in the three body zones was a reasonable threshold with which to classify a dog as high risk for dog aggression: 82% of males and 60% of females with such scarring displayed dog aggression. However, because many unscarred dogs were dog aggressive while some highly scarred dogs were not, we recommend collecting behavioral information to supplement scar counts when making disposition decisions about dogs seized in dogfighting investigations.