Abstract
Background:
Animal abuse is a significant global issue affecting pets, livestock, and wildlife. In Thailand, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Welfare of Animals Act B.E. 2557 (2014) provides a legal framework for animal protection. However, effective law enforcement and forensic investigations are essential for prosecuting offenders. Veterinarians play a crucial role in identifying and reporting abuse, yet their awareness, legal knowledge, and forensic expertise remain unclear.
Aim:
This study explores veterinarians’ perspectives on pet abuse, legal involvement, and forensic investigations in Thailand.
Methods:
A cross-sectional survey was conducted from August to December 2024 using an online questionnaire distributed via social media. A total of 153 veterinarians participated, providing demographic data and responses on three key areas: awareness of animal cruelty and welfare (PAWC), knowledge of relevant laws (PLAT), and understanding of forensic science applications forensic methods used to investigate pet animal cruelty (FMIC). Descriptive statistics and inferential analyses were used to examine associations between demographic factors and awareness levels.
Results:
Veterinarians exhibited high awareness in all three areas (mean scores: PAWC = 4.13, PLAT = 3.59, FMIC = 3.44). Statistical analysis revealed significant associations between gender, age, education level, years since graduation, and workplace awareness levels. Female veterinarians and those working in government agencies demonstrated higher forensic knowledge. Veterinarians aged 35–39 years and those with doctoral degrees exhibited the highest understanding of animal welfare issues.
Conclusion:
Gender, age, education level, years since graduation, and workplace were found to influence veterinarians’ awareness levels and perspectives. The findings highlight the need for continued education and standardized training to enhance veterinarians’ roles in preventing and investigating pet abuse cases. Strengthening forensic veterinary practices can contribute to improved animal welfare and legal enforcement in Thailand.
Keywords: Abuse, Forensic, Law, Pets, Veterinary
Introduction
Animal abuse is a significant global issue, and many countries, including Europe (Bègue, 2022), America (Mota-Rojas et al., 2021), and Asia (Whitfort et al., 2021), express concern over animal cruelty. Thailand is among the nations that prioritize this issue (Lorsirigool et al., 2025). When negative impacts on animal welfare are identified, strict laws must be enacted to prevent cruelty (Kulnides and Lorsirigool, 2023). Animal abuse affects various groups, including wild animals (Carvalho et al., 2023), livestock (Williams et al., 2023), and pets, such as dogs and cats (Whitfort et al., 2021). In pets, abuse can have both physical and psychological consequences. Physical abuse manifests in various forms, such as being struck by owners (Munro and Thrusfield, 2001), forced into fights with other animals (Mota-Rojas et al., 2022), or deliberately poisoned (Klainbart et al., 2024). Psychological abuse often stems from poor welfare practices, including confinement in excessively small spaces, forced cohabitation with incompatible animals, and unjustified punishment (Browning and Veit, 2021).
These physical and psychological effects can lead to stress, immune system weakening, and multiple bodily system dysfunctions (Mârza et al., 2024).
From the past to the present, laws have been enacted to prevent animal cruelty. The first legislation to address this issue was The Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act (1822) in the United Kingdom (Sinclair et al., 2022). In 1824, the world’s first animal protection organization was established in England (Beers, 2006). Over time, other significant laws were passed, including The Protection of Animals Act (1911) in the United Kingdom (Crispin et al., 2002) and the Animal Welfare Act (1966) in the United States (Garner, 2016). Thailand has also implemented several laws related to animal welfare. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Welfare of Animals Act (2014) was enacted to strengthen animal protection measures (Cruelty Prevention and Welfare of Animal Act B.E. 2557, 2014). Additionally, the Public Health Act (1992) outlines proper pet treatment guidelines to prevent pet owners from becoming nuisances or negatively impacting public health and the environment (Chaikhot, 2018). The Veterinary Profession Act (2002) ensures that veterinarians provide ethical and professional animal care (Veterinary Profession Act B.E. 2545, 2002). Similarly, the Animal Hospital Act (2014) mandates that animal hospitals adhere to hygiene and welfare standards (Animal Hospital Act B.E. 2557, 2014). Furthermore, the Animal Epidemics Act (2015) established regulations to prevent and control disease outbreaks among animals while upholding welfare principles (Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558, 2015). Together, these laws play a vital role in preventing animal cruelty and promoting responsible pet welfare management.
Although laws exist to prevent animal cruelty, proving a perpetrator’s guilt requires reliable investigative methods (Merck, 2012; Whitfort et al., 2021). Forensic science is widely used to investigate crimes against pets, particularly in Europe and America (Munro et al., 2020). As interest in this field has grown, many countries, including Thailand, have introduced veterinary forensic science courses (Kulnides and Lorsirigool, 2023). The application of forensic science in animal cruelty cases includes analyzing vaginal or rectal secretions in instances of sexual abuse (Stern and Smith-Blackmore, 2016), linking bullets fired at animals to weapon owners (Walker, 2012), and detecting toxic substances in cases of pet poisoning (Klainbart et al., 2024). Veterinarians play a crucial role in identifying abnormalities in animals and providing expert opinions on such investigations (Monsalve et al., 2021). This research aims to assess veterinarians’ knowledge and understanding of animal cruelty, animal welfare management, pet-related laws, and the application of forensic science when investigating these crimes.
Materials and Methods
Study period and data collection methods
This cross-sectional study will be conducted from August 1 to December 31, 2024. Data will be collected using questionnaires distributed via Google Forms, with links shared through social media platforms such as Facebook and Line groups.
Sample size calculation
The sample size of veterinarians was determined using G*Power version 3.1 (https://download.cnet.com/G-Power/). Based on an effect size of 0.3, power of 0.8, and alpha level of 0.05, the software calculated a required sample size of 150 respondents.
Questionnaire designs
A questionnaire was developed based on a comprehensive literature review of articles sourced from databases such as Scopus and PubMed. The search utilized keywords including forensic science in animals, the role of veterinary medicine in forensic science, animal abuse, animal cruelty, animal welfare, and animal law in Thailand. Articles that did not pertain to dogs or cats or were unrelated to Thai law were excluded. The questionnaire was reviewed for the index of item-objective congruence and approved by experts in veterinary medicine, forensic science, and law before distribution to respondents. This was followed by a pilot test conducted with a small group of veterinarians. A reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha was also performed to ensure the consistency of the instrument. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first section collects demographic data from veterinarian respondents, including gender, age, years since earning a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) degree, highest degree obtained, and workplace. The second section employs a Likert scale to assess three key aspects: (1) perspectives on forms of animal cruelty and improper welfare treatment in pet animals awareness of animal cruelty and welfare (PAWC) across 15 questions, (2) knowledge and understanding of laws related to the prevention of animal cruelty in pets in Thailand knowledge of relevant laws (PLAT) across 15 questions, and (3) knowledge and understanding of forensic methods used to investigate pet animal cruelty (FMIC) across 10 questions.
Assessment Likert scale
In this study, a five-level Likert scale adapted from Sullivan and Artino (2013) was used, with equal intervals of 0.8. The scale was defined as follows: 4.21–5.00 = highest, 3.41–4.20 = high, 2.61–3.40 = moderate, 1.81–2.60 = low, and 1.00–1.80 = lowest.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive analysis was performed to examine the first section of the questionnaire and the Likert-type scale data in the second section, with results presented as percentages and mean ± SD. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to assess relationships between factors in sections one and two, while the Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to compare differences between
groups. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. All statistical data were analyzed using SPSS version 29 (IBM Corp., USA).
Ethical approval
This research was reviewed and granted an exemption from animal research ethics requirements under the Institutional Animal Care and Use Protocol at Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University. The study did not involve any animal procedures. The questionnaire is anonymous and adheres to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. The researcher has completed training in animal research ethics and holds a license for the use of experimental animals in research (License No. U1-08960-2563).
Results
Demographic data
A total of 160 veterinarians participated in the survey. After excluding incomplete data, the final analysis included 153 veterinarians. The proportion of female respondents was higher than that of male respondents (56.2% per 43.8%). Most respondents were aged 30–34 years (58.8%) and had 7–8 years of work experience after graduation (52.9%). Most of the participants held a bachelor’s degree (93.5%) and were employed in veterinary clinics or animal hospitals (75.8%) (Table 1).
Table 1. Presents the demographic data of veterinarian respondents.
| Factor | Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 67 | 43.8 |
| Female | 86 | 56.2 | |
| Age (years) | 25–29 | 41 | 26.8 |
| 30–34 | 90 | 58.8 | |
| 35–39 | 14 | 9.2 | |
| 40–44 | 4 | 2.6 | |
| 45+ | 4 | 2.6 | |
| Years since obtaining a DVM degree | <1 | 10 | 6.5 |
| 1–2 | 18 | 11.8 | |
| 3–4 | 15 | 9.8 | |
| 5–6 | 13 | 8.5 | |
| 7–8 | 81 | 52.9 | |
| 9+ | 16 | 10.5 | |
| Highest degree obtained | Bachelor | 143 | 93.5 |
| Master | 5 | 3.3 | |
| Doctor of Philosophy | 5 | 3.3 | |
| Workplace | Veterinary clinic or hospital | 116 | 75.8 |
| Private company | 19 | 12.4 | |
| Government service | 18 | 11.8 | |
Average questionnaire scores of the responding veterinarians
In the questionnaire responses, the total scores for veterinarians in the PAWC, PLAT, and FMIC aspects were at a high level (4.13 ± 0.36, 3.59 ± 0.61, and 3.44 ± 0.67, respectively). Regarding the FMIC aspect, the perception of forensic science in pet animals was at a moderate level (3.36 ± 0.78) (Table 2).
Table 2. Present the average values obtained from the Likert scale (mean ± SD) in the perspective of veterinarians regarding pet abuse, legal involvement, and forensic investigation.
| Aspect | Indicator | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Perception of the Animal (4.22 ± 0.47) | Animal cruelty involves actions or neglect causing pain, suffering, or unnecessary killing | |
| Animal abusers often exhibit aggressive behavior and view cruelty as personal | ||
| Animal abusers may exhibit harmful, aggressive behaviors towards humans and society | ||
| Animal cruelty harms both physically and psychologically | ||
| Animal cruelty impacts the economy through costs of animal rehabilitation and care | ||
| Animal welfare means physical and mental well-being in various environments | ||
| PAWC (4.13 ± 0.36) | Perception of the concept of animal welfare (4.33 ± 0.53) | The five freedoms ensure animals’ basic needs, comfort, and natural expression |
| Neglect and abandonment are common forms of improper animal welfare | ||
| Breeding or collecting animals often leads to improper animal welfare practices | ||
| Animal welfare assessment should consider both environment and animal’s physical condition | ||
| Perception of forms of animal cruelty and improper welfare treatment (3.84 ± 0.37) | Injuries from sharp objects, impact, heat, or shooting can be distinguished | |
| Clinical signs displayed by animals may indicate poisoning or exposure to toxins | ||
| Body condition score, dehydration, and blood tests help assess starvation | ||
| Demodicosis in pets indicates poor care and potential stress conditions | ||
| Infections like parvovirus or feline leukemia often result from improper animal care | ||
| Perception of laws related to pet animals (3.49 ± 0.81) | The Public Health Act (1992) regulates proper pet care and controls nuisances, with penalties | |
| The Veterinary Profession Act (2002) ensures proper animal care by veterinarians, with penalties for violations | ||
| The Animal Hospital Act (2014) ensures hygienic standards and animal welfare, with penalties for violations | ||
| The Animal Epidemic Act (2015) sets disease control measures, ensuring animal welfare with penalties | ||
| The Animal Cruelty Prevention and Welfare Act (2014) enforces penalties for violations of animal welfare | ||
| Section 20 prohibits unnecessary animal cruelty, with penalties of up to 2 years imprisonment, a 40,000 baht fine, or both | ||
| PLAT (3.59 ± 0.61) | Perception of the Animal Cruelty Prevention and Welfare Act (2014) (3.70 ± 0.60) | Sections 22, 23, and 24 mandate proper animal care, forbidding abandonment or improper transport, with penalties up to 40,000 baht |
| Section 27 allows euthanasia for suffering animals with veterinary approval, requiring owner consent if the animal has an owner | ||
| Section 21 exempts animal killing for food, disease control, religious rituals, or necessary self-defense from being considered cruelty | ||
| Section 21 exempts ear, tail, hair, horn, or tusk removal if necessary and does not harm the animal’s life | ||
| The Animal Welfare Division enforces cruelty prevention laws and receives reports of animal abuse incidents | ||
| Perception of organizations and personnel involved in animal cruelty cases (3.58 ± 0.88) | Livestock offices at all levels enforce animal welfare laws and accept reports of animal cruelty | |
| Municipal and local administrators enforce animal welfare laws and accept reports of animal cruelty incidents | ||
| The Legal Affairs Office, including the director and legal officers, can receive animal cruelty reports | ||
| The Inspectorate and Quarantine Division is involved in animal welfare law and can receive cruelty reports | ||
| Perception of forensic science in pet animals (3.36 ± 0.78) | Forensic science applies scientific knowledge to legal cases, aiding fact-finding and law enforcement processes | |
| The chain of custody tracks evidence handling, ensuring integrity from collection to case resolution | ||
| Crime scene investigation for animal cruelty involves evidence recording, proper collection, and sample preservation | ||
| Animal cruelty cases require veterinarians to assess injuries and determine intent or accidental causes | ||
| FMIC (3.44 ± 0.67) | Applying forensic science enhances animal cruelty investigations, ensuring accurate evidence analysis and justice enforcement | |
| Sexual abuse cases in animals require biological and chemical forensic methods for evidence collection and DNA analysis | ||
| Perception of the application of forensic methods in investigating cases of pet animal cruelty (3.52 ± 0.67) | Animal shooting cases use radiology and gunshot residue tests, applying chemistry and physics for evidence | |
| Animal abuse perpetrators often exhibit antisocial behavior, with psychology methods helping to investigate motives | ||
| Animal cruelty serves as an indicator of potential family violence, applying criminology to investigate behaviors | ||
| Poisoning cases require symptom assessment, owner information, and laboratory samples, applying toxicology for investigation |
FMIC = knowledge and understanding of forensic methods used to investigate pet animal cruelty; PAWC = perspectives on forms of animal cruelty and improper welfare treatment in pet animals; PLAT = knowledge and understanding of laws related to the prevention of animal cruelty in pets in Thailand.
The relationship between the factors
Gender was found to be a significant factor in the FMIC aspect, with females scoring higher than males (p = 0.02). Age was a significant factor in the PAWC aspect, with respondents aged 35–39 years demonstrating the highest level of understanding compared to other age groups (p < 0.01). Regarding the PLAT aspect, significant differences were observed between groups; those who graduated less than a year ago exhibited a greater understanding than those who graduated 3–4 and 5–6 years ago (p < 0.01). Additionally, individuals who graduated more than 9 years ago demonstrated a higher level of understanding than those who graduated 1–2 and 3–4 years ago (p < 0.01). For the FMIC aspect, respondents who graduated 7–8 years ago showed a greater understanding than those who graduated 1–2 years ago (p = 0.03). The highest degree attained was a significant factor in the PAWC aspect, with individuals holding a Doctor of Philosophy degree exhibiting a greater understanding than other groups (p < 0.01). The workplace was also a significant factor in the PLAT aspect, with veterinarians working in government service demonstrating a higher level of understanding than those working in clinics and private companies (p < 0.01). Regarding the FMIC aspect, workplace differences were also observed, with government service veterinarians exhibiting the highest level of understanding, followed by those working in veterinary clinics and private companies (p < 0.01). Additional details are presented in Table 3 and Table 4.
Table 3. The relationship between factors and veterinarians’ perception.
| Variation | df | PAWC | PLAT | FMIC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | p-value | H | p-value | H | p-value | ||
| Gender | 1 | 0.69 | 0.41 | 2.37 | 0.12 | 5.17 | 0.02 |
| Age | 4 | 19.86 | <0.01 | 2.87 | 0.58 | 5.06 | 0.28 |
| Years since obtaining a DVM degree | 5 | 9.21 | 0.10 | 21.23 | <0.01 | 12.69 | 0.03 |
| Highest degree obtained | 2 | 10.79 | <0.01 | 4.94 | 0.09 | 1.09 | 0.58 |
| Workplace | 2 | 2.65 | 0.27 | 25.07 | <0.01 | 34.74 | <0.01 |
FMIC = knowledge and understanding of forensic methods used to investigate pet animal cruelty; H = Kruskal-Wallis H; PAWC = perspectives on forms of animal cruelty and improper welfare treatment in pet animals; PLAT = knowledge and understanding of laws related to the prevention of animal cruelty in pets in Thailand. Bold values indicate statistically significant differences (p-value < 0.05 = significant).
Table 4. Presents the differences between groups in the same factor regarding perceptions of various issues.
| Variation | PAWC | PLAT | FMIC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 4.10 ± 0.44 | 3.42 ± 0.81 | 3.30 ± 0.89 |
| Female | 4.16 ± 0.34 | 3.70 ± 0.66 | 3.55 ± 0.40* |
| Age (years) | |||
| 25–29 | 4.08 ± 0.50 | 3.55 ± 0.62 | 3.35 ± 0.87 |
| 30–34 | 4.13 ± 0.32 | 3.57 ± 0.69 | 3.50 ± 0.64 |
| 35–39 | 4.38 ± 0.08* | 3.79 ± 0.33 | 3.36 ± 0.18 |
| 40–44 | 4.07 ± 0.001 | 3.73 ± 0.001 | 3.10 ± 0.001 |
| 45+ | 4.00 ± 0.00 | 3.60 ± 0.001 | 3.70 ± 0.001 |
| Years since obtaining a DVM degree | |||
| <1 | 4.27 ± 0.001 | 4.17 ± 0.46a | 3.65 ± 0.37 |
| 1–2 | 4.25 ± 0.24 | 3.29 ± 0.70ab | 2.87 ± 0.99b |
| 3–4 | 3.76 ± 0.69 | 3.48 ± 0.13b | 3.69 ± 0.61 |
| 5–6 | 3.95 ± 0.54 | 3.07 ± 1.03bc | 3.35 ± 0.88 |
| 7–8 | 4.17 ± 0.26 | 3.65 ± 0.58 | 3.53 ± 0.58b |
| 9+ | 4.2 ± 0.19 | 3.82 ± 0.16ac | 3.35 ± 0.24 |
| Highest degree | |||
| Bachelor | 4.12 ± 0.37 | 3.57 ± 0.64 | 3.43 ± 0.69 |
| Master | 4.07 ± 0.15 | 3.75 ± 0.33 | 3.74 ± 0.09 |
| Doctor of Philosophy | 4.47 ± 0.001* | 4.00 ± 0.00 | 3.50 ± 0.001 |
| Workplace | |||
| Veterinary clinic or hospital | 4.12 ± 0.37 | 3.58 ± 0.57 | 3.44 ± 0.68a |
| Private company | 4.06 ± 0.46 | 3.17 ± 0.86 | 2.96 ± 0.6b |
| Government service | 4.26 ± 0.14 | 4.13 ± 0.27* | 3.98 ± 0.05c |
FMIC = knowledge and understanding of forensic methods used to investigate pet animal cruelty; PAWC = perspectives on forms of animal cruelty and improper welfare treatment in pet animals; PLAT = knowledge and understanding of laws related to the prevention of animal cruelty in pets in Thailand.
* Significant at p < 0.05.
a,b,c Significant differences within the same column were determined using the Mann-Whitney U test.
1 SD is not actually zero, but the decimal values have been rounded for presentation.
Discussion
Many Asian countries, including Malaysia (Zolkipli, 2022), the Philippines (Aquino, 2018), and Thailand, have implemented anticruelty laws to protect animals. The penalties for such offenses vary by country and may include imprisonment and fines, with differences in sentencing duration and fine amounts (Kulnides and Lorsirigool, 2023). This study found that veterinarians in Thailand demonstrated a high level of awareness— within a Likert scale range of 3.41–4.20—regarding (1) forms of animal cruelty and improper welfare treatment in pets (PAWC), (2) laws related to the prevention of animal cruelty in pets (PLAT), and (3) forensic methods used to investigate pet animal cruelty (FMIC). The mean scores for these aspects were 4.13 ± 0.36, 3.59 ± 0.61, and 3.44 ± 0.67, respectively.
An analysis of the relationship between variables and perception revealed that sex was significantly associated with FMIC perception, with female veterinarians demonstrating a higher level of understanding than males (p = 0.02). This finding aligns with previous research by Phillips et al. (2010), who reported that females tend to have a greater interest in animal welfare and animal rights than males. Similarly, a survey by Cornish et al. (2016) of veterinarians in Australia and New Zealand found that female veterinarians place greater importance on animal welfare than their male counterparts do. This heightened interest may contribute to a stronger inclination among females to utilize forensic methods in the investigation of animal cruelty cases.
The age variable was found to be significantly associated with PAWC perception, with veterinarians aged 35–39 years exhibiting the highest level of awareness, as reflected by a mean score of 4.38 ± 0.08 (p < 0.01). This heightened awareness among this age group may be attributed to their accumulated work experience and greater professional responsibility. Although newly graduated veterinarians may possess up-to-date knowledge, they often lack practical experience. These findings are consistent with Monsalve et al. (2019), who surveyed veterinarians in Colombia and Brazil and found that younger veterinarians reported fewer instances of physical animal cruelty compared to their older counterparts. In this study, veterinarians over 40 years of age demonstrated lower awareness than those in the 35–39 age group (p < 0.01), possibly due to reduced access to the most current information, which may contribute to a lower level of understanding. The duration from veterinary graduation was found to significantly influence PLAT perception (p < 0.01). Veterinarians who graduated less than 1 year ago demonstrated greater knowledge of animal cruelty laws than those who graduated 3–4 or 5–6 years ago (p < 0.01). This may be attributed to the current veterinary curriculum, which places increased emphasis on animal cruelty legislation (De Briyne et al., 2020). Additionally, veterinarians who graduated more than 9 years ago exhibited significantly higher awareness of animal cruelty laws compared to those who graduated 3–4 or 5–6 years ago (p < 0.01). This difference may stem from their longer professional experience, which likely provided them with greater exposure to cases involving animal cruelty legislation. Similarly, veterinarians who graduated 7–8 years ago demonstrated a significantly greater understanding of the forensic methods used in investigating cruelty (FMIC) compared to those who graduated 1–2 years ago (p < 0.01). This disparity may be due to their accumulated work experience and increased exposure to cases requiring forensic science techniques. The highest level of education attained by the surveyed veterinarians significantly influenced their PAWC perception (p < 0.01), with those holding doctoral degrees (PhD) demonstrating the highest level of awareness. The superior understanding of the forms and implications of pet abuse among PhD-holding veterinarians may be attributed to the research-intensive nature of doctoral programs. Sverdlik et al. (2018) highlighted that PhD programs require extensive investigation and critical analysis of inform to fosterering a deeper and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.
The workplace setting of the veterinarians who responded to the questionnaire significantly influenced their perception of PLAT. Veterinarians working in government organizations demonstrated the highest level of awareness (p < 0.01), likely due to their role in enforcing laws related to animal-related offences (Devitt et al., 2013). Similarly, workplace settings had a significant impact on veterinarians’ understanding of the FMIC. Those employed in government agencies exhibited the highest level of understanding, with a mean score of 3.98 ± 0.05 (p < 0.01), because they are responsible for conducting on-site inspections in response to animal abuse complaints. These inspections require the application of forensic principles to preserve evidence and prevent contamination (Parry and Stoll, 2020). Veterinarians working in clinics or animal hospitals followed, with a mean score of 3.44 ± 0.68 (p < 0.01), because they frequently encountered abused animals requiring treatment. In contrast, those employed in private companies had the lowest level of understanding, with a mean score of 2.96 ± 0.60 (p < 0.01), likely due to their limited exposure to cases of animal abuse.
Based on the findings of this study, factors such as gender, age, duration since veterinary graduation, highest level of education, and workplace were found to influence the level of awareness and understanding of animal cruelty, related laws, and the application of forensic methods in investigations. To address these differences, regular training on these topics should be conducted annually to ensure a standardized level of knowledge among veterinarians. This could include mandatory continuing education on animal welfare, integration of forensic science into the veterinary curriculum, and collaboration between veterinary professionals and law enforcement. In addition, most respondents were veterinarians working in veterinary clinics or hospitals (75.8%). Future studies should consider the distribution of veterinarian workplaces, increase the sample size to capture greater diversity, and explore other potential influencing factors.
Conclusion
Perceptions of animal cruelty and improper welfare treatment in pet animals were influenced by age and educational attainment. Veterinarians aged 35–39 years and those holding doctoral degrees (PhD) demonstrated the highest levels of understanding. Similarly, knowledge and understanding of laws related to the prevention of animal cruelty in pets (PLAT) were influenced by both the duration from veterinary graduation and workplace setting. The highest levels of understanding were observed among veterinarians with less than 1 year or more than 9 years of experience, as well as those working in government organizations. In addition, knowledge and understanding of forensic methods used to investigate pet animal cruelty (FMIC) were influenced by sex and the workplace. Female veterinarians and government agencies exhibited higher levels of understanding.
Recommendations for future studies include training programs for specific target groups, such as veterinarians working in private companies. The findings of this study can be used to develop community knowledge dissemination projects and promote interdisciplinary collaboration to strengthen the proactive role of veterinarians in preventing animal cruelty. Furthermore, enhancing the learning framework and legal knowledge through continuous professional development will help improve the effectiveness of veterinarians in both clinical and forensic sciences.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the Graduate School of Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Thailand, for their advice on research methods. Additionally, sincere gratitude was extended to all veterinarians who responded to the questionnaires.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Funding
This study did not receive any financial support.
Authors’ contribution
AL defined the research topic, planned the data collection, analyzed the data, designed the questionnaire, wrote the manuscript, and submitted the original draft. YS assisted in the experiments and writing the manuscript. NK planned the statistical analysis. NP, AK, and KT contributed to data collection via surveys. NS provided information regarding animal law in Thailand. All authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript before submission.
Data availability
All data supporting the findings of this study areavailable in the manuscript.
References
- Animal Epidemics Act B.E 2558. 2015 Office of the Council of State of Thailand. 25th February B.E. 2558. 2015 https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC167022/ [Google Scholar]
- Animal Hospital Act B.E 2557. 2014 Office of the Council of State of Thailand. 26th December B.E. 2557. 2014 https://dld.go.th/th/images/stories/law/english/en_cruelty_prevention_act2014.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- Aquino T.B. Animals in Philippine Law. U. Asia Pacific LJ. 2018;1:45. https://www.scribd. com/document/699528127/Animals-in-Philippine-Law-by-Timoteo-B-Aquino. [Google Scholar]
- Beers D.L. For the prevention of cruelty: the history and legacy of animal rights activism in the United States. Ohio University Press. 2006 https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/37709585_For_the_Prevention_of_Cruelty_The_History_and_Legacy_of_Animal_Rights_Activism_in_the_United_States/citations. [Google Scholar]
- Bègue L. Explaining animal abuse among adolescents: the role of speciesism. J. Interpers. Violence. 2022;37(7–8):5187–5207. doi: 10.1177/0886260520959643. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Browning H., Veit W. Freedom and animal welfare. Animals. 2021;11:1148. doi: 10.3390/ani11041148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carvalho A.F., de Morais I.O.B., Souza T.B. Profiting from cruelty: digital content creators abuse animals worldwide to incur profit. Biol. Conserv. 2023;287:110321. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110321. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Chaikhot P. Legal measures and controls of commercial dog in Thailand. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2018;7(2–2):689–696. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jssr/article/view/245995. [Google Scholar]
- Cornish A.R., Caspar G.L., Collins T, Degeling C., Fawcett A., Fisher A.D., McGreevy P.D. Career preferences and opinions on animal welfare and ethics: a survey of veterinary students in Australia and New Zealand. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2016;43(3):310–320. doi: 10.3138/jvme.0615-091R2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Crispin S.M., Roger P.A., O Hare H., Binns S.H. The 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom: animal welfare perspectives. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2002;21(3):877–880. doi: 10.20506/rst.21.3.1380. https://citeseerx.ist.psu. edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi= 6819703c5c7af375d31ed3a72db94510b7a449d7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cruelty Prevention and Welfare of Animal ACT B.E. 2557. 2014 Office of the Council of State of Thailand. 26th December B.E. 2557. 2014 https://dld.go.th/th/images/stories/law/english/en_cruelty_prevention_act2014.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- De Briyne N., Vidović J., Morton D.B., Magalhães-Sant’Ana M. Evolution of the teaching of animal welfare science, ethics and law in European veterinary schools (2012–2019) Animals. 2020;10(7):1238. doi: 10.3390/ani10071238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Devitt C., Kelly P., Blake M., Hanlon A., More S.J. Dilemmas experienced by government veterinarians when responding professionally to farm animal welfare incidents in Ireland. Vet. Rec. Open. 2013;1(1):e000003. doi: 10.1136/vropen-2013-000003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Garner R. Vol. 8. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2016. Political animals: animal protection politics in Britain and the United States; pp. 303–304. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lorsirigool A., Sudjaroen Y., Kulnides N. Forms of animal cruelty and inadequate animal welfare management in Thonburi district, Dao Khanong subdistrict, Bangkok, Thailand. Int. J. Vet. Sci. 2025;14:397–402. doi: 10.47278/journal.ijvs/2024.250. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Klainbart S., Sykes C.A., Poppenga R.H. Dog and cat exposures to drugs of abuse identified by the California animal health and food safety laboratory system 2013–2023. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024;11:1372614. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1372614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kulnides N., Lorsirigool A. The role of veterinarians in forensic science: a review. World’s. Vet. J. 2023;13(3):452–458. doi: 10.54203/scil.2023.wvj49. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mârza S.M., Munteanu C., Papuc I., Radu L., Diana P., Purdoiu R.C. Behavioral, physiological, and pathological approaches of cortisol in dogs. Animals. 2024;14(23):3536. doi: 10.3390/ani14233536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Merck M. Veterinary forensics: animal cruelty investigations. John Wiley & Sons. 2012 https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20133314259. [Google Scholar]
- Monsalve S., Pereira É.L, Leite L.O., Polo G., Garcia R. Perception, knowledge and attitudes of small animal practitioners regarding animal abuse and interpersonal violence in Brazil and Colombia. Res. Vet. Sci. 2019;124:61–69. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2019.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Monsalve S., de Souza P.V., Lopes A.S., Leite L.O., Polo G., Garcia R. Veterinary forensics, animal welfare and animal abuse: perceptions and knowledge of Brazilian and Colombian veterinary students. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2021;48(6):640–648. doi: 10.3138/jvme-2019-0138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mota-Rojas D., Calderón-Maldonado N., Lezama-García K., Sepiurka L., Garcia R.D.C.M. Abandonment of dogs in Latin America: strategies and ideas. Vet. World. 2021;14(9):2371. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2021.2371-2379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mota-Rojas D., Mariti C., Marcet-Rius M., Lezama-García K., Gazzano A., Hernández-Ávalos I, Whittaker A.L. The welfare of fighting dogs: wounds, neurobiology of pain, legal aspects and the potential role of the veterinary profession. Animals. 2022;12(17):2257. doi: 10.3390/ani12172257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Munro H.M.C., Thrusfield M.V. ‘Battered pets’: features that raise suspicion of non-accidental injury. J. Small. Anim. Pract. 2001;42(5):218–226. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2001.tb02024.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Munro R., Ressel L., Gröne A., Hetzel U., Jensen H. E, Paciello O., Kipar A. European forensic veterinary pathology comes of age. J. Comp. Pathol. 2020;179:83–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2020.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Parry N.M., Stoll A. The rise of veterinary forensics. Forensic. Sci. Int. 2020;306:110069. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Phillips C., Izmirli S., Aldavood J., Alonso M., Choe B. I., Hanlon A., Rehn T. An international comparison of female and male students’ attitudes to the use of animals. Animals. 2010;1(1):7–26. doi: 10.3390/ani1010007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sinclair M., Lee N.Y., Hötzel M.J., de Luna M.C.T., Sharma A., Idris M., Marchant J.N. International perceptions of animals and the importance of their welfare. Front. Anim. Sci. 2022;3:960379. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2022.960379. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Stern A.W., Smith-Blackmore M. Veterinary forensic pathology of animal sexual abuse. Vet. Pathol. 2016;53(5):1057–1066. doi: 10.1177/0300985816643574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sullivan G.M., Artino A.R. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2013;5(4):541–542. doi: 10.4300/JGME-5-4-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sverdlik A., Hall N.C., McAlpine L., Hubbard K. The PhD experience: a review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 2018;13:361–388. doi: 10.28945/4113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Veterinary Profession Act B.E. 2545. 2002 Published in the Government Gazette Thailand. (23rd April B.E. 2545 (2002). No. 119, Part 36a. https://aqi.dld.go.th/webnew/images/stories/00Act/veterinary%20profession%20act%202002%20 b.e.2545.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- Walker R.E. Cartridges and firearm identification. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 2012 [Google Scholar]
- Whitfort A., Woodhouse F., Ho S., Chun M. A retrospective analysis of typologies of animal abuse recorded by the SPCA, Hong Kong. Animals. 2021;11(6):1830. doi: 10.3390/ani11061830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams N., Chaplin S., Hemsworth L., Shephard R., Fisher A. An analysis of substantiated complaints made about incidents of poor livestock welfare, in Victoria, Australia. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023;10:1242134. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1242134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zolkipli A.M. The influence of Animal Welfare Act 2015 enforcement on the rise of animal cruelty cases in Malaysia. Malaysian J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2022;7(12):e001955. doi: 10.47405/mjssh.v7i12.1955. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data supporting the findings of this study areavailable in the manuscript.