When Love Isn’t Enough: Recognizing Animal Neglect and Abuse, Understanding the Psychology Behind It, and Meeting the Needs of Dogs and Cats

I have spent years observing the relationship between humans and their companion animals—in professional contexts, in community spaces, and in the quiet dynamics that most people walk past without a second glance. What I have come to understand, and what I feel compelled to articulate clearly, is that animal neglect and abuse rarely look the way we expect them to.

They are not always dramatic. They are not always intentional. They do not always involve a raised hand or a locked cage. More often, they live in the mundane: the dog who has never been for a walk, the cat without adequate access to water, the pet whose diagnosed thyroid condition goes untreated because its owner finds the medication inconvenient. Recognizing these patterns requires both knowledge and the willingness to look honestly at what we see—including when the person responsible seems to mean well.

This article is my attempt to lay out what I have observed and learned about the behavioral indicators of neglect and abuse in companion animals, the psychological frameworks that explain why owners fail their pets, the genuine needs these animals have, and how those needs can be properly met. I write this not to condemn, but to educate—because in many cases, the harm being done is invisible to the person doing it.

I. What Animal Neglect and Abuse Actually Look Like

Animal welfare science has long distinguished between two broad categories of harm: acts of commission, where deliberate cruelty is inflicted, and acts of omission, where failure to provide adequate care causes suffering. Neglect—the most common form of animal cruelty—falls primarily into the second category. It is, at its core, a sustained failure to meet basic physical, behavioral, and psychological needs. The indicators are not always bruises or broken bones. They live in behavior, in patterns, in the subtle deterioration of an animal who no longer has a way to cope.

The Disappearing Housetraining: Elimination Changes as a Distress Signal

One of the most telling behavioral indicators I have consistently observed is a change in elimination habits in dogs and cats who were previously well-housetrained. This is not simply a training failure—it is a communication. Dogs and cats who have been reliably housetrained, who instinctively prefer to eliminate outdoors or in designated areas, and who will often hold their bladder or bowels for extended periods when no opportunity is provided, do not suddenly begin eliminating indoors without reason. When a dog who has spent years signaling at the door to go outside begins urinating on the floor, or a cat who reliably used its litter box begins defecating elsewhere in the home, something has changed in that animal’s environment or experience of it.

Many dogs and outdoor cats—even those with access to a backyard—actually prefer to eliminate during walks or in specific outdoor contexts. The act is tied not just to biological need, but to behavioral routine, scent-marking behavior, and the environmental cues that trigger it. When those opportunities are removed or drastically reduced, the animal is left managing a physiological need within an environment that does not provide the context it has been conditioned to associate with relief. The result is elimination in the home—not disobedience, but desperation.

What I have observed is that this behavioral change frequently correlates with a reduction or elimination of outdoor access: walks that no longer happen, a backyard that goes unused, or an owner whose schedule has shifted in ways that leave the animal waiting far beyond its physiological threshold. The key detail that distinguishes this from a medical issue is the pattern—it tends to appear after a change in routine rather than gradually over time, and it often coincides with other behavioral changes such as anxiety or withdrawal. Of course, the important nuance here is medical: urinary tract infections, kidney disease, diabetes, and gastrointestinal conditions can all produce similar symptoms, and those possibilities must be ruled out through veterinary evaluation before behavioral or neglect-based causes are assumed. But when a previously consistent animal begins eliminating indoors, the appropriate response is never simply frustration or punishment—it is investigation.

Asking a dog to wait more than eight to ten hours between elimination opportunities is already pushing the limit of what is physiologically reasonable for many animals. For smaller breeds, senior dogs, or those with any underlying health conditions, that window is shorter still. A dog who is holding elimination past the twelve-hour mark is not being obedient. It is being pushed well past what its body can reasonably sustain.

Excessive Clinginess, Vocalization, and Separation Distress

A dog who becomes excessively clingy, who shadows its owner from room to room, who cries, howls, or whines loudly when a door is closed, is not simply being affectionate or dramatic. These are behavioral indicators of anxiety—and often, of unmet attachment and social needs. Dogs are social mammals who evolved in proximity to both their own kind and to humans. Isolation, whether physical or emotional, causes real psychological harm. An owner who leaves a dog alone for twelve or fourteen hours a day, who fails to provide adequate social interaction, or who keeps a dog confined without stimulation is creating the precise conditions under which separation anxiety and hyperattachment develop.

What troubles me about how these behaviors are often interpreted is the tendency to label them as personality traits rather than responses to circumstances. A dog is not inherently “clingy”—it has learned that proximity to its owner is the only reliable source of security in an unpredictable environment. The vocalization when doors close is not manipulation; it is distress. When these behaviors are punished rather than addressed at their root, the result is typically an escalation in anxiety, sometimes manifesting as destructive behavior, inappropriate elimination, or outright aggression.

The loudness and persistence of vocalization is often directly proportional to the degree of unmet social need. A dog who screams at a closed door for hours has reached a threshold of psychological distress that no amount of scolding will resolve. The door is not the problem. The absence of whatever the dog experienced as safety and connection is the problem.

Refusal to Walk: The Leash-Untrained Dog

A dog that does not know how to walk on a leash is almost certainly a dog that does not go on walks—or that has gone on them so rarely that the experience remains entirely foreign. Leash training, even rudimentary leash manners, develops through repetition and exposure. A dog who pulls uncontrollably, refuses to move, panics at the end of a lead, or has simply never experienced being walked is not a dog who lacks aptitude. It is a dog whose owner has not provided one of the most basic necessities of the species.

The significance of daily walks for dogs goes well beyond physical exercise. Walks provide sensory enrichment through scent exposure, which constitutes the primary way dogs experience and understand their environment. They provide opportunities for social exposure, which is critical to behavioral balance. They regulate stress hormones, support healthy digestion and elimination, and offer the mental stimulation that prevents the boredom-driven behaviors—destructive chewing, excessive barking, compulsive pacing—that are frequently misattributed to breed temperament or disobedience. A dog that has never been walked is a dog living in sensory poverty, and this is a form of deprivation that I consider neglectful regardless of whether adequate food and water are provided.

Withholding Necessary Medication: The Case of Canine Hypothyroidism

Few situations I have encountered illustrate the intersection of ignorance and neglect as clearly as the refusal or failure to provide prescribed medication for diagnosed medical conditions. Canine hypothyroidism is a common and instructive example, because its consequences are both serious and entirely preventable with consistent treatment.

Hypothyroidism in dogs occurs when the thyroid gland fails to produce adequate levels of thyroid hormones, affecting nearly every organ system in the body. Left untreated, it causes weight gain, lethargy, mental dullness, chronic skin and coat problems, cold intolerance, elevated cholesterol, compromised immune function, and in more advanced cases, neurological signs including head tilt, dragging of limbs, and seizures. Behavioral changes are also well-documented and include marked personality shifts: some dogs become abnormally withdrawn and fearful, while others develop sudden, unprovoked aggression that can escalate to the point where owners are no longer able to safely manage them. The connection between untreated hypothyroidism and behavioral dysregulation is thought to be mediated in part by reduced serotonin function, which impairs neurochemical regulation of aggression and mood. Treatment, by contrast, is inexpensive, straightforward, and highly effective: daily oral thyroid hormone replacement, adjusted periodically based on blood monitoring.

When owners are told their dog has hypothyroidism and a lifelong medication protocol is prescribed, refusal to comply is not a personal preference—it is medical neglect. The dog continues to suffer from symptoms that are entirely manageable. The deterioration that follows is not incidental; it is the predictable outcome of a treatable condition being deliberately or negligently left untreated. The same logic applies to any chronic condition requiring ongoing medication: Addison’s disease, epilepsy, diabetes, heart disease. An animal does not have the ability to seek care for itself. Its welfare is entirely contingent on the choices its owner makes.

Nutritionally Inadequate or Harmful Diets

The rise of the “natural” pet food movement has introduced a particularly insidious form of harm that tends to be accompanied by passionate conviction and community validation. I have personally encountered situations where an owner invested considerable time and effort into preparing homemade meals for their dog—hours spent sourcing ingredients, dehydrating meats, making custom jerky—while the animal was quietly dying of malnutrition. The tragedy in such cases is not indifference. It is misplaced confidence in the absence of actual expertise.

The scientific literature on homemade pet diets is unambiguous. Research from UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine found that approximately 95 percent of homemade dog food recipes analyzed were nutritionally deficient, with 83 percent presenting multiple serious deficiencies. A 2025 study from Texas A&M’s Dog Aging Project found that only 6 percent of homemade dog food recipes met essential nutritional requirements.

The most commonly absent or inadequate nutrients include calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, zinc, choline, and various essential amino acids. Calcium and phosphorus imbalances alone can cause developmental bone disease—nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism—while taurine deficiencies have been linked to dilated cardiomyopathy. Homemade diets built predominantly around a single protein source, such as a jerky-only or high-meat diet without appropriate supplementation, are especially likely to be severely deficient in multiple nutrients simultaneously.

What makes this form of neglect particularly difficult to address is the social dimension. Online communities built around raw feeding, BARF diets, or homemade cooking frequently reinforce the owner’s sense of virtue and competence, while preemptively dismissing warnings from veterinarians as industry bias. This creates a closed epistemic loop in which the very people who might course-correct the owner’s understanding are delegitimized before they can speak. The dog, meanwhile, has no ability to communicate that its coat is thinning, its bones are softening, or that it is quietly failing from within. By the time the clinical signs become undeniable, the damage is often severe and sometimes irreversible.

Food and Water Deprivation During Kenneling

One pattern I have observed repeatedly—and one that tends to be defended with a kind of casual confidence that I find alarming—is the withholding of food and water from dogs while they are kenneled or crated. The reasoning I most often hear is practical: the owner does not want the dog to soil the kennel, so they remove the water bowl before confining it. Some extend this logic to food as well, feeding only when the dog is out. On its surface, this might seem like a reasonable management strategy. In practice, it is a form of deprivation that causes measurable physiological and psychological harm, and it does not even reliably solve the problem it claims to address.

Water is not optional. It is not a variable to be managed for convenience. Water accounts for more than 70 percent of a dog’s body weight, and dogs require approximately one ounce of water per pound of body weight per day—distributed across their waking hours, not front-loaded before confinement begins. Dogs lose fluids continuously through panting, breathing, urination, and even the normal evaporation that occurs through their paws. A dog confined in a kennel without access to water is in a state of progressive, unrelenting dehydration from the moment access is removed. Veterinary sources are consistent: while a dog can technically survive without water for up to 72 hours, dehydration becomes clinically apparent within the first 24 hours, manifesting as loss of skin elasticity, dry and sticky gums, thick saliva, lethargy, and restricted blood flow that reduces oxygen delivery to tissues and organs. In puppies, senior dogs, dogs with underlying health conditions such as kidney disease or diabetes, and dogs in warm or humid environments, this timeline is significantly shorter and the consequences significantly more severe. Chronic or repeated dehydration—even if not acute enough to constitute a veterinary emergency in any single instance—places sustained stress on the kidneys and urinary tract, and can contribute to the development of urinary tract infections, bladder irritation, and long-term organ dysfunction.

There is also a deeply counterproductive irony at the center of this practice: dehydration does not prevent urination. It often worsens urinary urgency and irritation. A dog whose bladder is chronically stressed by insufficient hydration may actually be more prone to accidents, not less—a point that exposes the foundational logic of water restriction as not only harmful but factually incorrect.

The withholding of food during kenneling carries its own distinct set of consequences. Dogs experience hunger not merely as a physical state but as a psychological one. Research published in peer-reviewed behavioral literature has documented that food restriction in animals produces measurable increases in anxiety, frustration, and stress-related behavior—and that these psychological effects compound when the animal is simultaneously confined and unable to engage in any of the natural behaviors that might otherwise offset them. A dog left in a kennel without food, without water, without stimulation, without social contact, and often without any indication of when these deprivations will end, is not simply uncomfortable. It is experiencing a state of multi-system stress in which every biological signal it receives is telling it that something is wrong and it has no means of resolving any of it.

The behavioral consequences I have observed in dogs who are routinely kenneled without adequate food and water are consistent with what the literature describes in animals experiencing chronic resource insecurity: resource guarding that intensifies around food and water when access is finally restored, frantic eating and drinking upon release from the kennel, heightened general anxiety, and in some cases, food-related aggression that was not present prior to the onset of the deprivation pattern. This last outcome is particularly tragic, because the behavior that the owner has inadvertently created through deprivation is then often attributed to the dog’s temperament and used as a justification for punishment rather than addressed at its actual source.

The correct standard is straightforward: dogs in kennels or crates for any extended period must have continuous access to clean, fresh water. For crating, crate-mounted bowls or no-spill attachments exist specifically to make this practical without creating a mess. Food should be provided according to the animal’s normal feeding schedule—not withheld. If an owner’s concern is elimination in the kennel, the appropriate solution is to reduce the duration of confinement to intervals the dog can reasonably manage, ensure adequate elimination opportunities before and after kenneling, and address the underlying training or scheduling issue rather than engineering a state of deprivation that creates new problems while failing to resolve the original one. Kenneling a dog appropriately—with water always available, food on schedule, a crate sized to allow the animal to stand, turn, and lie comfortably, and confinement periods kept within physiologically reasonable limits—is not difficult. It is simply a matter of prioritizing the animal’s needs over the owner’s convenience.

Additional Behavioral and Physical Indicators

Beyond the specific presentations described above, there is a broader cluster of signs that, taken together or in context, should raise serious concern. Physically, these include visible emaciation or obesity as evidence of chronic malnourishment or overfeeding; coats that are matted, dull, or experiencing patchy hair loss without apparent medical explanation; skin that is chronically infected, scaly, or hyperpigmented; ears with recurrent infections that go without veterinary care; and collars or harnesses that have been left so long they have begun to embed in the animal’s skin.

Behaviorally, I look for animals that are abnormally fearful or that cringe away from sudden movement; resource guarding extreme enough to suggest chronic food insecurity; phobias of specific contexts—such as leashes, car rides, or particular rooms—that may point to past punishment or distress associated with those contexts; animals that are abnormally lethargic and disengaged; and stereotypies—repetitive, ritualized behaviors such as compulsive licking, circling, or pacing—which are hallmark indicators of chronic psychological stress. These behaviors do not appear in well-adjusted animals with adequate social, environmental, and physical stimulation. They are the behavioral residue of a need that has not been met.

II. The Psychology Behind Neglect and Abuse

Understanding why people harm or fail their animals—even animals they claim to love—requires engaging honestly with the psychological literature rather than defaulting to simple moral condemnation. This is not a defense of harmful behavior. It is an effort to understand it, because understanding is the only reliable path to prevention and intervention.

Ignorance: The Neglect of Good Intentions

The single most common driver of animal neglect is not malice—it is ignorance. Some pet owners are simply unaware of the basic physiological and behavioral needs of the species in their care. They do not know how often a dog needs to be walked, what a nutritionally complete diet requires, or what behavioral changes signify pain or psychological distress. Research from Arizona State University’s Center for Problem-Oriented

Policing confirms this directly: some owners are genuinely ignorant of animals’ basic needs and training, and while their neglect may be unintentional, its consequences for the animal are no less real. The person who spends hours making custom jerky for their dog genuinely believes they are being a good owner. The belief and the reality are not required to align.

The problem with ignorance as a driver of neglect is that it is often defended and sometimes celebrated within communities that share it. Social reinforcement of incorrect practices—particularly in online spaces organized around alternative pet care—dramatically amplifies the harm. When incorrect information is validated by peers and the owner has no external mechanism for correction, such as regular veterinary engagement, the animal can suffer for extended periods without any intentional wrongdoing on the owner’s part.

Overwhelm, Life Disruption, and the Declining Caregiver

A second well-documented pattern is what researchers term the “overwhelmed animal caregiver”—an owner who had adequate capacity to care for their pets but whose circumstances have changed. Job loss, illness, divorce, the death of a partner, or the onset of depression can all precipitate a decline in the quality of care an animal receives. These owners are not indifferent; often they have strong emotional attachment and are aware, at some level, that they are no longer meeting the animal’s needs. But they are overextended, and the animal’s needs are less immediately urgent than the human crisis they are navigating.

This psychological profile calls for a different kind of response than intentional cruelty. Punitive intervention may be appropriate in cases of deliberate abuse. It is far less useful when the root cause is a caregiver who has lost the capacity to cope. In these situations, practical support, community resources, and temporary care arrangements may do more for the animal’s welfare than legal action alone.

Attachment Style and Relational Distortion

Psychological research on human-animal bonding has begun to examine how attachment styles—the patterns of emotional engagement developed in early human relationships—manifest in how people relate to their pets. Individuals with anxious attachment styles may anthropomorphize their animals in ways that distort their understanding of what the animal actually needs, substituting their own emotional preferences for objective assessment of the animal’s welfare. An owner who perceives their dog as “preferring” homemade food, or as not needing walks because “he seems tired,” may be projecting their own psychological needs onto the animal rather than accurately reading its signals.

Disorganized attachment styles—often associated with trauma histories—can manifest as inconsistent caregiving that alternates between intense involvement and withdrawal. The animal in such a household experiences unpredictability, which is itself a significant source of psychological stress. Predictability and consistency are foundational to an animal’s sense of security, and their absence produces chronic low-grade anxiety regardless of whether the owner is, in any given moment, affectionate.

Control, Exploitation, and the Dark End of the Spectrum

At the more severe end, animal abuse is often driven by dynamics of control and the instrumentalization of animals as proxies for other relationships. Research consistently documents the co-occurrence of animal abuse with domestic violence: companion animals are harmed or threatened in a significant proportion of intimate partner violence situations, used as leverage to maintain dominance or punish a partner. In these contexts, the animal is not the primary target—it is a tool through which control over another person is exercised.

Deliberate cruelty independent of other violence is associated with callousness traits, impulse control deficits, and—in childhood presentations—often with histories of trauma, witnessing family violence, and attachment disruption. Animal cruelty in childhood was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria for Conduct Disorder in 1987 and has since been recognized as one of the earlier markers of a trajectory toward interpersonal violence. The psychological mechanisms include desensitization to suffering, distorted attribution of intent to animals, and the use of dominance over a vulnerable being as a means of regulating an impaired sense of self.

I want to be careful not to flatten the spectrum. An overwhelmed single parent who has stopped walking her dog is not the same as a person who deliberately withholds veterinary care to watch an animal suffer. A person struggling to pay for food and bills is not the same as a person who goes on regular vacations and choses not to provide. Both situations harm the animal, but they call for fundamentally different responses—and conflating them serves neither the animals nor the humans involved.

III. What Dogs and Cats Actually Need

The foundational framework for understanding companion animal welfare is the Five Freedoms, originally developed by Britain’s Farm Animal Welfare Council in the 1960s and subsequently refined into the Five Domains model, now the standard used by shelter veterinarians and animal welfare organizations worldwide. These frameworks define welfare not as the mere absence of suffering, but as the active provision of conditions in which an animal can experience positive physical and psychological states. What “good enough” actually requires is made explicit, not left to assumption.

Nutritional Needs

Dogs and cats require species-appropriate, nutritionally complete diets formulated to meet the standards established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) or equivalent regulatory bodies. “Complete and balanced” is not a marketing phrase—it is a regulatory designation meaning that the food meets established requirements for all essential nutrients at appropriate ratios.

Dogs and cats have fundamentally different nutritional requirements. Cats are obligate carnivores who require specific amino acids—taurine and arginine chief among them—that are found primarily in animal tissue and that their bodies cannot synthesize adequately. They also require arachidonic acid and vitamin A in preformed states, meaning plant-based conversions are insufficient. Dogs are considerably more metabolically flexible but still have specific requirements that unformulated homemade diets routinely fail to meet. Both species have different needs at different life stages: growing animals, pregnant or lactating females, and senior animals all require adjustments that cannot be approximated by intuition or social media recommendation.

Physical and Environmental Needs

Dogs require daily physical activity as a physiological necessity. Depending on breed, age, and health status, most adult dogs need a minimum of thirty to sixty minutes of active exercise per day, with high-energy breeds requiring considerably more. Walks, in particular, are not interchangeable with time in a backyard.

The sensory enrichment of novel scents, the cognitive engagement of new environments, and the opportunity for species-appropriate exploratory behavior are not replicated by unsupervised yard time. Regular walks are a non-negotiable component of basic dog care.

Cats require access to vertical space, hiding areas, scratching surfaces, and regular opportunities for predatory play behavior. Their environmental needs are often underestimated precisely because they are less vocally demanding than dogs—but an under-stimulated indoor cat is an animal in a state of chronic deprivation that will manifest in behavioral dysregulation, stress-related illness, and sometimes aggression or withdrawal.

Social and Behavioral Needs

Dogs are social mammals who require consistent, meaningful human interaction as a core component of their welfare. Social isolation—whether produced by long working hours, physical separation, or emotional unavailability—creates anxiety that compounds over time and becomes increasingly difficult to treat. Dogs need not only physical proximity but qualitative engagement: training, play, direct communication, and the consistency that allows them to predict and understand their environment. For dogs, training is vital for the safety and wellbeing of the dog parent, anyone who walks the dog, other people exposed to the dog, and the dog themselves.

Training is frequently misunderstood as a matter of owner convenience rather than animal welfare. But a trained dog is not merely a more manageable dog—it is a dog with a reliable framework for understanding what is expected of it, which dramatically reduces stress. The fear, confusion, and helplessness of an untrained dog in an unpredictable household is a form of psychological harm, even when no deliberate cruelty is intended.

Medical and Veterinary Needs

Preventive veterinary care—annual or biannual examinations, appropriate vaccination protocols, parasite prevention, and dental care—is a baseline requirement, not a luxury. The Five Freedoms framework explicitly states that animals must have freedom from pain, injury, and disease through “prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.” An owner who delays, avoids, or refuses veterinary care is not making a neutral choice; they are allowing a preventable harm to persist or progress.

The psychological dimension of why owners refuse veterinary care often involves some combination of financial constraint, distrust of conventional medicine, social community influence promoting “natural” alternatives, and denial. Each of these requires a different kind of engagement. Financial constraint calls for practical solutions: payment plans, community resources, low-cost clinics. Distrust or denial calls for education and honest conversation about evidence. The one response that does not serve the animal is to accept the owner’s reasoning unchallenged.

IV. How to Fulfill These Needs—and What to Do

Meeting the needs of companion animals is not complicated in principle, though it does require consistency, knowledge, and a willingness to subordinate convenience to the animal’s welfare.

For dogs: daily walks of appropriate length for the breed and age; a nutritionally complete, veterinarian-approved diet; regular training using positive reinforcement methods; adequate social interaction and time in the company of people; consistent veterinary care including routine monitoring and treatment of any diagnosed conditions; and a predictable daily routine that reduces ambient anxiety.

For cats: a species-appropriate diet with attention to protein requirements and hydration; an enriched indoor environment that meets their needs for exploration, predatory play, scratching, and rest; consistent social interaction calibrated to the individual cat’s tolerance and preference; and the same standard of veterinary care described above.

For owners who are struggling—whether due to ignorance, overwhelm, or changing circumstances—the appropriate response from those around them is engagement rather than judgment. Sharing accurate information without shaming. Offer to assist if you can. Connecting people to resources rather than simply criticizing choices. Recognizing when a situation has exceeded what education and support can address, and being willing to involve animal welfare authorities when the harm to the animal is serious and ongoing.

For those of us who observe these situations from the outside, I want to be direct: the discomfort of a difficult conversation is not an adequate justification for silence. An animal cannot advocate for itself. It cannot seek help, make a phone call, or explain to a veterinarian that it has not been walked in three weeks. Every person who observes a pattern of neglect and says nothing because it feels intrusive has made a choice—and the animal bears the cost of that choice. Reporting suspected neglect or abuse to local animal control or humane law enforcement is not an act of aggression toward the owner. It is an act of advocacy for a being who has no other recourse.

A Final Note

I do not believe that most people who harm their animals through neglect are bad people. I believe they are often uninformed, overwhelmed, or operating under belief systems that have been socially validated in ways that insulate them from correction. But the animal’s experience does not change based on the owner’s intention. A dog who has not been walked in months is suffering the consequences of that deprivation regardless of whether the owner feels it has a backyard. A cat whose chronic skin infection goes untreated is in pain regardless of whether the owner prefers to avoid pharmaceuticals. The subjective experience of the animal is the moral reality we are accountable to, even when our intentions are gentle.

What I have tried to articulate here is a framework for seeing what is sometimes deliberately made invisible—by denial, by ignorance, by social pressure, and by the very human tendency to see what we want to see rather than what is there. These animals are entirely dependent on the humans who chose to bring them into their lives. That dependency is not an inconvenience to be managed; it is a responsibility to be honored.

References

American Kennel Club. (2024). Hypothyroidism in dogs: Signs, symptoms, treatments. https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/health/hypothyroidism-in-dogs/

Animal Humane Society. (n.d.). The Five Freedoms for animals. https://www.animalhumanesociety.org/health/five-freedoms-animals

ASPCA Pro. (n.d.). The Five Domains model for animal welfare. https://www.aspcapro.org/resource/five-domains-model-animal-welfare

Bègue, L., et al. (2025). Intentional harm to animals: A multidimensional approach. PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11995979/

Bright, M. A., Huq, M. S., Spencer, T., Applebaum, J. W., & Hardt, N. (2018). Animal cruelty as an indicator of family trauma: Using adverse childhood experiences to look beyond child abuse and domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 287–296.

Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. (n.d.). Addressing animal abuse and neglect in the veterinary profession. https://www.canadianveterinarians.net

Calder, C. D. (2025, January 17). Building better lives for our pets: The Five Freedoms, Provisions, and Domains. CattleDog Publishing.

https://cattledogpublishing.com

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Arizona State University. (n.d.). Animal cruelty. https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/animal-cruelty-0

Crist, M. A. (n.d.). Recognizing the signs of animal abuse. Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine. https://vetmed.tamu.edu/news/pet-talk/animal-abuse/

Farm Animal Welfare Council. (1979; revised 1993). Five Freedoms. UK: HMSO.

Frontiers in Animal Science. (2025). Home-prepared dog food: Benefits and downsides. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/animal-science/articles/10.3389/fanim.2025.1506003/full

Hawkins, R. D., et al. (2017). Psychological risk factors for childhood animal cruelty. Child Abuse & Neglect.

Mellor, D. J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the ‘Five Freedoms’ towards ‘A Life Worth Living.’ Animals, 6(3), 21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4810049/

O’Brien, K. (2025). Study finds 94% of homemade dog diets lack complete nutrition. Presented at ACVIM Forum, Louisville, KY. Texas A&M Dog Aging Project.

PetMD. (2023). Hypothyroidism in dogs. https://www.petmd.com/dog/conditions/endocrine/c_dg_hypothyroidism

Port Jefferson Animal Hospital. (2024). Is there a link between hypothyroidism in dogs and aggression? https://www.portjeffersonanimalhospital.com

Psychologs. (2025). Attachment theory and animals: The psychology behind human-pet bonds. https://www.psychologs.com

Remillard, R. L. (2008). Homemade diets: Attributes, pitfalls, and a call for action. Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, 23(3).

Shelter Animals Count. (2024). Animal abuse facts and statistics 2024. https://www.shelteranimalscount.org

Small Door Veterinary. (n.d.). Hypothyroidism in dogs. https://www.smalldoorvet.com/learning-center/medical/hypothyroidism-in-dogs/

UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. (n.d.). Homemade dog food and nutritional deficiencies (cited in multiple secondary sources).

VCA Animal Hospitals. (n.d.). Hypothyroidism in dogs. https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/hypothyroidism-in-dogs

Walden University ScholarWorks. (n.d.). Understanding why people abuse animals. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu

Wauthier, L., & Williams, J. M. (2022). A qualitative study of children’s accounts of cruelty to animals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Whole Dog Journal. (2024). Help for dogs with hypothyroidism. https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/health/help-for-dogs-with-hypothyroidism/

Wikipedia. (2025). Cruelty to animals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals

Wounded Paw Project. (2025). What is considered animal neglect. https://woundedpawproject.org

Heart of Brooklyn Veterinary Hospital. (2023). How long can a dog go without water? https://www.heartofbrooklynveterinary.com/site/blog/2023/09/30/how-long-dog-go-without-water

McMillan, F. D. (2013). Stress-induced and emotional eating in animals: A review of the experimental evidence and implications for companion animal obesity. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 8(6), 376–385.

Northwest Veterinary Clinic, Stanwood. (2022). How long can a dog go without water? https://www.nwvetstanwood.com/site/blog/2022/11/15/how-long-can-a-dog-go-without-water

Orvis News. (2021). Should my dog have water in her crate? https://news.orvis.com/dogs/should-my-dog-have-water-in-her-crate

Paws in Chelsea. (2024). Understanding dog kennel anxiety and how to manage it. https://www.pawsinchelsea.com/blog/understanding-dog-kennel-anxiety-and-how-to-manage-it

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ashley Sophia is a model, actress, entrepreneur, and engineer. She applies systems thinking from her engineering background to understanding human behavior and building community pathways to independence — translating analytical expertise into accessible resources for the public.