Harming Wild Animals Is Linked To Intimate Partner Violence

Around 47% of women and 44% of men in the U.S. have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV includes physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, as well as stalking, by a current or former partner. Earlier research has found a strong link between IPV and abuse of companion animals. Abusers may hurt these animals to retaliate against or control a partner. But this research has mostly focused on animals living in the home. No study has yet examined whether intentionally harming wild animals is also linked to IPV.

This study measured how common intentional harm to wild animals is, and whether it’s linked to IPV. It also explored whether the motivation for wildlife aggression matters. The authors propose that harming wild animals and abusing a partner may reflect a shared drive to dominate and control those who are more vulnerable.

In August 2025, the researchers surveyed 1,485 paid participants in the U.S. through an online survey platform. All were adults in a relationship now or within the past year. Participants answered questions about their current or most recent partner, an approach meant to reduce the urge to downplay bad behavior (i.e., compared to reporting on their own behavior). They reported whether their partner had intentionally killed or harmed raccoons, squirrels, birds, foxes, possums, rabbits, coyotes, skunks, stray cats, or other wild animals. For each type of animal, they chose their partner’s reason from a list.

The researchers classified killing or harming “for no reason (e.g., to be cruel)” and “for entertainment” as cruelty-related. All other reasons, including hunting, conservation, self-defense, and protecting property, counted as non-cruelty reasons.

Participants also completed a standard questionnaire about abuse they’d experienced from that partner in the past 12 months. It covered psychological, sexual, and physical abuse, as well as severe abuse such as strangling, kicking, or using a knife or gun. The researchers then compared abuse rates between partners who had or hadn’t harmed or killed wild animals, without adjusting for other characteristics.

According to participants, 7.5% of partners had intentionally killed a wild animal and 7% had intentionally harmed one. About 3% had done so for cruelty-related reasons. Birds and squirrels were the animals killed most often, by almost 3% and 2% of partners, respectively. Birds (2%), squirrels (1.5%), and stray cats (1.5%) were the animals harmed most often. Because birds and squirrels pose no real threat, the authors suggest this harm was likely opportunistic or thrill-seeking.

Partners who’d harmed or killed wild animals showed much higher rates of every type of IPV. Among partners who’d killed a wild animal, 88% had been physically abusive in the past year. Among those who’d harmed one, the figure was 92%. By comparison, 46% of partners who’d done neither had been physically abusive.

Sexual, psychological, and severe abuse followed the same pattern. About 82% of partners who’d killed or harmed a wild animal had been sexually abusive, compared with 44% of other partners. Psychological abuse rates were 95.5% and 96%, respectively, versus 72% of other partners. Severe abuse rates were 77% and 79%, respectively, compared with 31.5% of other partners. The authors note that earlier research links acts of severe abuse like strangulation to a higher risk of partner homicide.

Overall, partners who’d harmed a wild animal had around 13 times the odds of some form of IPV compared with other partners. For partners who’d killed a wild animal, the odds were around 11 times as high. All of these links were statistically significant.

Compared with partners who hadn’t harmed or killed wild animals at all, those with cruelty-related motives had much higher odds of abuse. Their odds were around 17 times as high for physical or psychological abuse, around seven times as high for sexual abuse, and around nine times as high for severe abuse. Again, these were statistically significant differences. The researchers also compared partners with cruelty-related motives to those with other motives, such as protecting property or self-defense. They found no significant differences between these two groups for any type of IPV.

Because the data come from a single point in time, the study can’t show which came first or that one behavior causes the other. According to the authors, a content warning at the survey’s start may have shaped who took part. For instance, people who’d experienced abuse may have been more eager to share. Participants also may not have known about everything their partner did to wild animals.

The survey didn’t ask about the frequency or severity of wildlife aggression, and it didn’t define harming versus killing. The motivation categories were imperfect, too. A reason like protecting property could mask cruelty, and judging whether a partner acted to be cruel is subjective.

The authors argue that people who investigate cruelty to wild animals need training on its link to IPV. This includes animal control officers, humane law enforcement officers, and agencies like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Current training tends to focus on companion animals, so advocates can push to broaden it. The findings suggest that harm to a squirrel or stray cat should raise the same concern as harm to a family dog. Similarly, domestic violence services that already ask survivors about harm to companion animals could add questions about wild animals and stray cats.

According to the authors, harm to wild animals is often taken less seriously, partly due to weaker legal protections. Evidence that such harm may signal risks to people can strengthen the case for better protections. The authors specifically urge communities considering bans on wild animal killing contests to weigh these results.

Ultimately, intentional harm to any animal deserves attention — for the animal’s own sake, and as a possible warning sign for the people nearby.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (~50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries, and research on niche topics. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.