INTRODUCTION

Animal welfare is a global concern that emphasizes ensuring animals achieve an appropriate physical and mental quality of life in accordance with the fundamental needs of each species [1]. The assessment of animal welfare has traditionally been guided by the Five Freedoms principle, which encompasses freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, restriction of natural behavior, and fear or distress. This framework was subsequently expanded into the Five Domains model of animal welfare assessment, comprising nutrition, environment, health, behavior, and mental state, thereby providing a more comprehensive and structured approach to welfare evaluation [2]. In parallel, the One Welfare concept highlights the interconnectedness of animal welfare, human well-being, and the environment, acknowledging that positive changes in one domain can generate beneficial effects across the others [3]. Consequently, many countries have introduced legal frameworks to prevent animal cruelty, and failure to provide appropriate animal welfare may expose animal owners to legal liability [4].

Most countries in Asia, Europe, and the Americas have enacted legislation to prevent cruelty toward companion animals, although the content and enforcement of these laws vary by local values, traditions, and cultural contexts [5]. These legal instruments primarily seek to establish and maintain acceptable standards of animal welfare, with noncompliance potentially resulting in penalties such as imprisonment or monetary fines [6]. In Thailand, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Welfare of Animals Act B.E. 2557 (2014) stipulates in Section 20 that acts of cruelty against animals constitute criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for up to two years, a fine of up to approximately USD 1,200, or both. Furthermore, failure to provide appropriate animal welfare as outlined in Sections 22, 23, and 24 may result in a fine not exceeding approximately USD 1,200 [7]. Despite the presence of such legislation, the investigation of animal cruelty cases and situations involving inadequate companion animal welfare remains challenging for responsible authorities. The acquisition of reliable and objective evidence is therefore critical for effective legal adjudication, and the principles of forensic science are increasingly being applied to support and strengthen these investigative processes [8, 9].

Veterinary forensics refers to the application of scientific principles to the systematic analysis, documentation, and handling of evidence in cases involving animals, including companion animal abandonment, non-accidental injuries, illegal killings, and the trafficking of carcasses or body parts from protected or endangered wildlife species [10]. In recent years, veterinary forensics has been increasingly utilized in the investigation of unnatural deaths among companion animals [11]. Investigations at scenes involving companion animals should adhere to the same chain-of-custody principles applied in human forensic investigations, incorporating careful examination of the surrounding environment, the animal, and any potential weapons or objects associated with the incident [12]. Specialized diagnostic and investigative techniques, such as radiology, toxicology, histopathology, and necropsy, are commonly employed to establish the cause and manner of death, particularly in cases where animal cruelty is suspected [13].

Despite comprehensive animal welfare legislation and the growing recognition of forensic science as a valuable tool in animal cruelty investigations, significant gaps remain in the practical implementation and integration of these frameworks. In many countries, including Thailand, animal welfare laws primarily emphasize legal provisions and penalties, while giving limited attention to operational challenges encountered during investigations, such as evidence collection, documentation, and forensic interpretation. Empirical data on how frontline veterinarians perceive animal welfare enforcement, legal adequacy, and investigative readiness are scarce, particularly in relation to the systematic application of forensic science in companion animal cruelty cases. Moreover, there is a lack of nationally representative qualitative evidence examining whether current investigative practices align with established forensic principles and how these limitations may affect legal outcomes. The absence of standardized veterinary forensic protocols and structured training further exacerbates inconsistencies in case handling, highlighting the need for context-specific research that bridges animal welfare, law enforcement, and forensic practice.

The aim of this study was to explore veterinarians’ perspectives on companion animal welfare, the effectiveness of existing animal welfare legislation, and the current and potential role of forensic science in animal cruelty investigations in Thailand. Specifically, the study sought to identify the perceived drivers of companion animal cruelty, assess the challenges associated with legal enforcement and investigative procedures, and examine veterinarians’ views on integrating forensic science into routine animal welfare investigations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethical approval

Prior to the commencement of the study, ethical considerations related to both human participants and animals were addressed. The research involved only licensed veterinarians and did not include any direct interaction with animals; therefore, animal ethics approval was not required, and an exemption was granted by the institutional ethics committee.

The study protocol, including recruitment procedures, participant information sheets, consent format, questionnaire structure, confidentiality safeguards, and data management procedures, was reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Thailand (Approval No. COA.2-008/2025). This approval confirmed compliance with the Ethics Guidelines of the National Research Council of Thailand, the Declaration of Helsinki, and Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA B.E. 2562), which govern the collection and processing of personal information in digital environments.

Participation was entirely voluntary. Before accessing the questionnaire, participants were provided with an electronic information sheet outlining the study objectives, procedures, expected duration, potential benefits, and the absence of risks or incentives. Informed consent was obtained electronically by requiring participants to select the “Agree to Participate” option before beginning the questionnaire. No identifying information, including names, addresses, telephone numbers, or employee identification numbers, was collected. To ensure anonymity, demographic information was recorded only in aggregated categories. The informed consent materials were provided in Thai, and the English version was translated using Google Translate and Grammarly.

Study period and location

The cross-sectional study was conducted between August 1 and December 31, 2024. The study sites were purposively selected to represent the six regions of Thailand.

Study design

This study employed a qualitative research design. The questionnaire was structured into two main sections. The first section collected general demographic information, including gender, age, and length of employment within the organization. The second section consisted of open-ended questions designed to elicit in-depth insights into respondents’ perspectives on animal cruelty and the application of forensic science in veterinary contexts.

The open-ended questions addressed four core areas. First, respondents were asked to describe their views on animal cruelty and inadequate animal welfare, including perceived underlying causes. Second, they were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Welfare Act B.E. 2557 (2014) in mitigating pet abuse and to suggest potential legislative improvements. Third, respondents were asked to share their perceptions of procedures used in investigating reported animal cruelty cases, particularly whether these procedures align with standard forensic practices applied in human investigations and which protocols are followed within their respective organizations. Fourth, participants were asked to express their views on the potential benefits of applying FS methods in animal cruelty investigations, as well as their opinions on the value of training programs or courses related to the application of FS principles in veterinary practice.

Before data collection, the questionnaire was reviewed by three subject-matter experts in veterinary medicine, law, and forensic science to assess content validity using the item–objective congruence (IOC) method. All items achieved an IOC score of 1.00, indicating full agreement among experts regarding clarity, relevance, and alignment with the study objectives.

Population and sample size

The study population consisted of veterinarians in Thailand. The sample comprised veterinarians employed by the Department of Livestock Development (DLD), the agency responsible for receiving reports of animal cruelty and enforcing animal welfare legislation in Thailand (Figure 1). The DLD field units operate in nearly all provinces across the country. The sampling frame was based on the official DLD staff directory, which lists all full-time veterinarians working at provincial and district levels.

Eligible participants were veterinarians directly involved in animal welfare and animal cruelty investigations, whereas veterinarians not engaged in these duties were excluded. A total of 18 veterinarians from the DLD participated in the study. Guest et al. [14] suggested that a sample size of 12–20 participants is generally sufficient to achieve data saturation in qualitative research.

Participants were purposively selected to represent all six regions of Thailand, with three veterinarians recruited from each region. This stratified purposive sampling approach ensured geographic diversity and representation of varying professional experiences while maintaining feasibility for in-depth, quote-rich qualitative analysis. The regional stratification was designed to capture perspectives from both urban and rural enforcement settings. The participating provinces included Chiang Mai (North), Nakhon Ratchasima (Northeast), Bangkok (Central), Songkhla (South), Chonburi (East), and Kanchanaburi (West) (Figure 2).

The sample size was considered adequate based on the information power concept, given the focused study aim and the use of detailed open-ended responses organized within a conceptual framework encompassing animal welfare, forensic applications, and legal dimensions.

Data collection and analysis

This cross-sectional study was conducted between August 1 and December 31, 2024. Validated questionnaires were distributed to participants via an online link shared through digital platforms, including Facebook and Line, using Google Forms. Completed responses were compiled into a Word document for analysis.

Data were analyzed using a content analysis approach. Responses were read repeatedly to generate initial codes, which were subsequently grouped into categories and overarching themes, resulting in the development of a coding tree (Figure 3). For example, the raw statement “Owners do not have enough money to provide a good quality of life for animals” was coded as “Lack of economic resources to care for animals,” categorized under “Financial limitations that impact animal welfare and quality of life,” and ultimately incorporated into the theme “Economic and social constraints affecting animal welfare.”

To minimize analytical bias, a double-blind analysis was conducted in collaboration with two additional researchers. Coders underwent calibration prior to analysis to ensure consistency in code application, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. All content analyses were performed using NVivo version 14 (https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/). Member checking was not conducted due to the open-ended nature of the questionnaire and logistical constraints associated with recontacting all participants.

Trustworthiness of the qualitative findings was ensured in accordance with Lincoln and Guba’s criteria through double-blind coding, triangulation, maintenance of audit trails, coder reflexivity, consensus meetings, and the use of illustrative quotations [15]. The study was conducted in line with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines [16] (Table 1).

AL = Athip Lorsirigool, YS = Yuttana Sudjaroen, NK = Narong Kulnides, n = number of participants.

RESULTS

Participant characteristics

A total of 18 veterinarians (9 males and 9 females) from the DLD responded to the questionnaire. Most respondents (n = 14) were aged 30–35 years (77.8%), followed by those aged 35–40 years (n = 2; 11.1%) and 40–45 years (n = 2; 11.1%). Regarding length of employment, 8 respondents had more than 9 years of service (44.4%), 6 had worked for 7–9 years (33.3%), 3 for 3–5 years (16.7%), and 1 for 5–7 years (5.6%) (Table 2).

DLD = Department of Livestock Development, age and years of service are presented as ranges, Vet no. indicates anonymized participant code.

Opinions on pet abuse and inadequate animal welfare

Six themes were identified from 25 categories and 35 coded key statements derived from veterinarians’ perspectives on pet abuse and inadequate animal welfare (Figure 4). These themes included lack of responsibility and preparation among animal owners (LRPAO), lack of knowledge, understanding, and basic ethics in animal care (LKBEC), economic and social constraints affecting animal welfare (ESCAW), structural problems related to the absence of a stray animal management system and inadequate control of animal owners (SPMS), failure of legal and enforcement systems (FELES), and cultural attitudes and values that are not conducive to animal welfare (CAVAW) (Table 3).

LRPAO = Lack of responsibility and preparation by animal owners, LKBEC = Lack of knowledge, understanding, and basic ethics of animal care, ESCAW = Economic and social constraints affecting animal welfare, SPMS = Structural problems related to the lack of a stray animal management system and inadequate control of animal owners, FELES = Failure of the legal and enforcement systems, CAVAW = Cultural attitudes and values that are not conducive to the welfare of animals, n = number of veterinarians expressing the theme, percentages are based on the total number of respondents (n = 18), Vet No. indicates anonymized participant code.

LRPAO

This theme comprised five categories, eight key coded statements, and responses from six veterinarians. Respondents highlighted owners’ inability to properly care for pets, irresponsible abandonment, and insufficient mental readiness, maturity, skills, and knowledge required for appropriate animal care. One respondent noted, “Most of the causes arise from pet owners who, after a certain period of time, become bored and no longer want to keep their animals” (Veterinarian 7, Central). Another stated, “The owner was unable to provide adequate pet care” (Veterinarian 14, East).

LKBEC

This theme included five categories, seven key coded statements, and input from six veterinarians. Respondents reported that owners often lack knowledge of animal welfare principles, are unaware of their ethical responsibilities, have a limited understanding of animal rights and abusive behaviors, misunderstand what constitutes animal cruelty, and hold attitudes that devalue animals. As one veterinarian explained, “This is caused by owners’ lack of understanding of animal welfare principles, how to appropriately manage animals, and what actions are considered violations of those principles” (Veterinarian 5, Northeast). Another noted that “Knowledge and understanding of the term ‘animal cruelty’ remain limited” (Veterinarian 16, West).

ESCAW

This theme consisted of three categories, five key coded statements, and responses from four veterinarians. Economic hardship and social factors were perceived to directly affect animal welfare and quality of life. Social stress and violence were also reported to influence animal cruelty behaviors. One respondent stated, “Owners do not have enough money to provide a good quality of life for animals” (Veterinarian 17, West), while another emphasized that “Poverty can make it impossible for individuals to properly care for their animals” (Veterinarian 15, East).

SPMS

This theme comprised four categories, six key coded statements, and responses from four veterinarians. Identified issues included the absence of a systematic stray animal management program, lack of animal control regulations, absence of owner identification systems, negative community attitudes toward stray animals, and structural weaknesses that lead to cruel responses. One veterinarian commented, “No control of raising, no control of the animal population” (Veterinarian 1, North), while another stated, “Stray dogs lack an effective population control system” (Veterinarian 8, Central).

FELES

This theme included five categories, six key coded statements, and responses from four veterinarians. Respondents described failures in the justice system to adequately protect animals, insufficient punishment mechanisms, lack of deterrence, gaps in monitoring and reporting, and limited public understanding of animal rights and legal penalties. Two respondents remarked, “Laws are not comprehensive, punishments are not severe, enforcement is not strict, and offenders can continue to live without legal punishment” (Veterinarians 11 and 15, South and East).

CAVAW

This theme comprised three categories, three key coded statements, and responses from three veterinarians. Cultural conflicts between local practices and universal welfare values, as well as human attitudes and ethical traits, were perceived to influence animal abuse. Two respondents noted, “Human characteristics that lack compassion for animals and view them as objects” (Veterinarians 15 and 18, East and West).

Opinions on the effectiveness of animal welfare legislation

Responses concerning the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Animal Welfare Act B.E. 2557 (2014) were grouped into five themes based on 12 categories and 32 coded key statements: effectiveness and enforcement of the law (EEL), improvements and gaps in the law (IGL), clarity and definitions within the law (CDL), public communication, knowledge, and awareness (PKA), and animal control and welfare (ACW) (Table 4).

*Vet No. 2 did not answer the questions. EEL = Effectiveness and law enforcement, IGL = Improvements and gaps in the law, CDL = Clarity and definitions of the law, PKA = Public communication, knowledge, and awareness, ACW = Control and welfare of animals, n = number of veterinarians expressing the theme, percentages are based on the total number of respondents (n = 17), Vet No. indicates anonymized participant code, Vet No. 2 did not answer the questions.

EEL

This theme comprised three categories, 14 key coded statements, and responses from 12 veterinarians. Respondents acknowledged that clear legal penalties help deter wrongdoing, raise awareness, and reduce violence against animals, although enforcement remains inconsistent. One respondent stated, “It can help reduce the problem to a certain extent, but there are still limitations. Law enforcement is not widespread” (Veterinarian 15, East). Another added, “The law can help, but acts of abuse are still occasionally observed” (Veterinarian 17, West).

IGL

This theme included three categories, six key coded statements, and responses from four veterinarians. Respondents emphasized the need for stronger penalties, clearer definitions of protected animals, and better legal coverage for stray animals. As noted, “Penalties should be more severe. Problems will persist if animal husbandry is not systematically managed” (Veterinarians 3 and 6, North and Northeast).

CDL

This theme comprised one category, three key coded statements, and responses from three veterinarians. Respondents highlighted ambiguity in the definitions of animal cruelty and “animal owner.” One veterinarian explained, “The definition of ‘animal owner’ may cause issues regarding people who are not owners but provide food to stray animals” (Veterinarian 6, Northeast). Another noted uncertainty regarding whether animal abandonment constitutes cruelty (Veterinarian 16, West).

PKA

This theme included three categories, five key coded statements, and responses from three veterinarians. Respondents emphasized the importance of educating animal owners and improving public understanding of animal cruelty. One stated, “This will help animal owners understand which actions are appropriate and which are wrong or contrary to animal welfare principles” (Veterinarian 5, Northeast).

ACW

This theme comprised two categories, four key coded statements, and responses from two veterinarians. Respondents stressed the need to regulate animal ownership, health care, living environments, and nutrition. One veterinarian stated that it should be clarified whether keeping large numbers of animals in cages or failing to treat sick animals constitutes cruelty (Veterinarian 16, West).

Opinions on procedures in pet abuse investigations

Veterinarians’ responses regarding investigative procedures were categorized into seven themes derived from 26 categories and 52 key coded statements: practical limitations and obstacles (PLO), procedures and standards of animal forensic science practice (PSAFP), knowledge, skills, and availability of personnel (KSAP), laws and limitations on inspection authority (LLIA), application of science and technology in forensics (ASTF), differences between animal and human forensic processes (DAHF), and coordination and collaboration between agencies (CCBA) (Table 5).

*Vet No. 3 did not answer the questions. PLO = Practical limitations and obstacles, PSAFP = Procedures and standards of practice in animal forensic science, KSAP = Knowledge, skills, and personnel availability, LLIA = Laws and limitations on inspection authority, ASTF = Application of science and technology in forensics, CCBA = Coordination and collaboration among agencies, n = number of veterinarians expressing the theme, percentages are based on the total number of respondents (n = 17), Vet No. indicates anonymized participant code, Vet No. 3 did not answer the questions.

PLO

This theme included six categories, 13 key coded statements, and responses from eight veterinarians. Respondents described gaps in investigative rigor, reliance on non-forensic methods, delayed responses, limited resources, and minimal application of forensic techniques. Two respondents stated, “There is no real inspection system. It is merely an inquiry, not using forensic methods to support the process” (Veterinarians 2 and 13, North and East).

PSAFP

This theme comprised five categories, nine key coded statements, and responses from five veterinarians. Respondents reported a lack of standardized procedures for animal abuse investigations and emphasized the need for manuals aligned with human forensic standards. Two respondents noted, “Different local agencies have different investigation procedures. They should have the same standards of inspection as humans” (Veterinarians 15 and 16, East and West).

KSAP

This theme included two categories, six key coded statements, and responses from five veterinarians. Respondents highlighted insufficient training and limited readiness among personnel. One stated, “In veterinary medicine, only a few have been trained in inspecting places” (Veterinarian 17, West).

LLIA

This theme comprised three categories, six key coded statements, and responses from four veterinarians. Legal restrictions on accessing private property were identified as a major obstacle. As noted, “Without the permission of the property owner, only the surrounding area can be inspected” (Veterinarian 10, South).

ASTF

This theme included four categories, eight key coded statements, and responses from three veterinarians. Respondents encouraged greater use of forensic examinations, laboratory methods, and photographic or video evidence to strengthen judicial outcomes.

DAHF

This theme comprised four categories, six key coded statements, and responses from six veterinarians. Respondents noted that although some procedures are similar, animal forensic processes are less developed and less standardized than those used in human cases.

CCBA

This theme included two categories, four key coded statements, and responses from three veterinarians. Respondents emphasized the need for multiagency collaboration and noted that public cooperation in animal cases is often lower than in human cases.

Opinions on the use of FS in pet cruelty investigations and training

Six themes were identified from 20 categories and 43 key coded statements: benefits and roles of forensic science in animal investigations (BRFI), capacity building and training in forensic science (CBTF), support and integration of forensic science in veterinary practice (SIVP), national impact and image (NII), challenges and limitations (CL), and standards, processes, and collaboration (SPC) (Table 6).

FS = forensic science, BRFI = Benefits and roles of forensic science in animal investigations, CBTF = Capacity building and training in forensic science, SIVP = Support and integration of forensic science in veterinary practice, CL = Challenges and limitations, SPC = Standards, processes, and collaboration, NII = National impact and image, n = number of veterinarians expressing the theme, percentages are based on the total number of respondents (n = 18), Vet No. indicates anonymized participant code.

BRFI

Respondents emphasized that forensic science enhances investigative accuracy, evidentiary credibility, and judicial efficiency. One veterinarian stated that forensic techniques “enhance both the accuracy and effectiveness of evidence collection and case resolution” (Veterinarian 15, East).

CBTF

Respondents highlighted the need for workshops and structured training curricula to develop veterinary forensic capacity. As two respondents noted, “If there is training, it will be very useful in the work” (Veterinarians 5 and 6, Northeast).

SIVP

Respondents expressed strong support for integrating forensic science into animal cruelty investigations, emphasizing improved evidence quality and investigative effectiveness.

NII

Some respondents noted that applying forensic science could strengthen Thailand’s animal welfare system and enhance national credibility in veterinary practice.

CL

Respondents identified shortages of trained personnel, legal access barriers, and prevailing social values as key challenges to implementing forensic science in veterinary contexts.

SPC

Respondents emphasized that forensic science could support standardized procedures, improve consistency in inspections, and enhance intersectoral collaboration, thereby increasing the credibility of investigative outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Drivers of pet abuse and inadequate animal welfare

In this study, veterinarians reported that pet abuse and inadequate pet welfare management were primarily driven by owners’ irresponsibility in providing appropriate care and by insufficient knowledge and understanding of pets’ basic needs (LRPAO and LKBEC; 33.33%). These findings are consistent with the work of Sarıal and Bozkurt [17], who examined animal welfare perspectives among animal owners in Turkey and reported that welfare outcomes are closely linked to the type of animal kept, the provision of nutritionally adequate food, and the animal’s health status. That study also highlighted the important role of nongovernmental organizations in improving animal welfare.

Socioeconomic factors were also identified as major contributors to compromised pet welfare (22.22%). Financial constraints can limit owners’ ability to provide adequate veterinary care, nutrition, and appropriate living conditions. Similarly, McDowall et al. [18] demonstrated that economic factors strongly influence the physical, environmental, and developmental health of pets, as animals require consistent veterinary care, balanced nutrition, and timely medical treatment when ill. In economically constrained settings, pets may have limited access to vaccinations, and euthanasia may be considered due to the high cost of treating certain viral infections, such as parvovirus. From a social perspective, pets living in supportive environments with attentive owners and positive human–animal interactions tend to exhibit better mental health outcomes. In contrast, exposure to violent environments, including households affected by domestic violence, has been associated with an increased risk of pet abuse [19].

Structural challenges in stray pet management and household pet population control also emerged as significant concerns (22.22%). The absence of coordinated, long-term systems for registration, sterilization, and population control has reduced authorities’ capacity to prevent uncontrolled breeding and the continued growth of stray animal populations across multiple provinces. In some areas, stray animals are subjected to violent handling, raising serious animal cruelty concerns. In addition, guidelines addressing owners’ readiness to care for pets, including limits on the number of animals per household and requirements for microchipping, remain unclear. As a result, regulations and penalties are often ineffective, largely due to difficulties in enforcing pet inspections (FELES; 22.22%). A previous study has suggested that penalties for animal cruelty are frequently perceived as lenient, contributing to repeat offenses and prompting recommendations for increased maximum penalties and more consistent judicial application [20]. Cultural factors further influence behaviors related to pet abuse (CAVAW; 16.67%). In some regions, pet consumption persists under the belief that it is not unlawful, reflecting limited public awareness of existing legal prohibitions. Comprehensive public awareness campaigns and nationwide surveys are therefore needed to clarify which animals may be legally consumed and which are protected, particularly given the severe legal penalties associated with such practices.

Effectiveness and limitations of animal welfare legislation

With respect to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Animal Welfare Act B.E. 2557 (2014), most participating veterinarians agreed that the Act contributes to reducing pet abuse by establishing legal accountability for offenders (EEL; 70.59%). Nevertheless, respondents emphasized the need for further legal development and the closure of existing loopholes (IGL; 23.53%), particularly regarding the treatment of stray animals, animal abandonment, and the killing of animals for consumption, all of which remain legally and ethically contested.

Establishing clear legal definitions of “pet ownership,” “pet abandonment,” and “pet cruelty” within the Act was considered essential for improving enforcement and strengthening animal welfare protection (CDL; 17.65%). Although these terms are defined in the legislation, limited public understanding underscores the need for improved communication and broader awareness initiatives. Caldwell et al. [21], in a retrospective analysis of animal cruelty cases in New York City, reported that most cases involved dogs and cats, with dog injuries more frequently resulting from neglect and cat injuries more often associated with nonaccidental harm. These findings highlight the importance of identifying pet ownership and assessing whether observed injuries are consistent with abuse. Accordingly, public awareness campaigns and community outreach programs should be implemented to improve understanding of animal cruelty and enhance the effective application of the law (PKA; 17.65%). In addition, Striwing and Sarenbo [22] reported that neglecting a dog to the extent that it causes injury to another person constitutes criminal negligence, emphasizing the responsibility of owners to maintain appropriate control when adopting pets. Consistent with these findings, veterinarians in the present study supported legal limits on the number of pets per household and requirements for owners to provide care that meets animals’ basic needs (ACW; 11.76%).

Role of forensic science in pet abuse investigations

Internationally, forensic methods are increasingly used to investigate pet abuse cases, enabling determination of the cause of injury or death and assisting in perpetrator identification [11, 23]. In Thailand, however, forensic science has not yet been widely integrated into pet abuse investigations due to limited training opportunities and the absence of standardized guidelines (PLO; 47.06%). In contrast, reports from other Asian countries, including Taiwan and Japan, indicate that forensic science has been incorporated into veterinary practice, encompassing wound pattern analysis, DNA extraction from wounds to determine injury causation, and necropsies in cases of death associated with inadequate welfare management [24, 25].

Veterinarians in this study noted that investigative procedures for animals remain unclear, despite some similarities with human forensic processes (DAHF; 35.29%). Consequently, the development of standardized forensic practice guidelines (PSAFP; 29.41%) and targeted training for veterinarians involved in examining abused pets (KSAP; 29.41%) were identified as priorities. These findings align with those of Mores et al. [12], who emphasized that forensic examinations must follow systematic procedures consistent with chain-of-evidence principles. The adoption of scientific technologies analogous to those used in human forensics can improve evidentiary accuracy and increase judicial confidence (ASTF; 17.65%). For instance, in cases of pet abandonment, detecting owner DNA on animals can assist in identifying and tracing responsible individuals [26]. Nevertheless, fundamental practices, including high-quality photographic or video documentation and comprehensive medical or necropsy reports, remain essential. Effective implementation of forensic science in pet abuse investigations also requires close interagency coordination (CCBA; 17.65%), as legal restrictions on accessing private property necessitate collaboration among police officers, community leaders, and veterinarians (LLIA; 23.53%).

Implications for veterinary practice and future research

At present, investigations of pet abuse in Thailand have not explicitly incorporated forensic science. Participating veterinarians recommended its broader application to enhance evidentiary reliability and investigative consistency (BRFI; 33.33%). However, limitations remain, including shortages of trained forensic specialists, insufficient personnel, and constrained funding (CBTF and CL; 38.89% and 22.22%, respectively). Increasing public awareness of the role of forensic science in animal investigations is also necessary (SIVP; 38.89%), as reducing animal cruelty can strengthen national and international standing in animal welfare and cruelty prevention (NII; 5.56%).

This study demonstrates that determining whether animal welfare conditions constitute cruelty requires a comprehensive assessment of animal health, living conditions, and owner or perpetrator behavior, particularly when distinguishing intentional harm from deliberate neglect. Integrating forensic methods strengthens such assessments by enhancing evidentiary credibility through trace analysis and proper chain-of-custody procedures, thereby reinforcing animal cruelty legislation and supporting appropriate penalties (Figure 5). These findings align with the One Welfare concept, which emphasizes the interconnections among animal welfare, social factors, and human well-being [3], and highlight the expanded role of veterinarians in promoting responsible ownership and strengthening law enforcement capacity.

Future research should prioritize developing comprehensive handbooks on animal cruelty, animal welfare, and relevant legislation to improve public understanding and assess pet owners’ knowledge. Additional studies are needed to evaluate whether accessible outreach programs can effectively reduce animal cruelty incidence. Practical manuals on forensic examination of abused animals, accompanied by structured training programs for veterinarians and relevant agencies, would further promote standardized investigative practices. Legal mechanisms that enable or require veterinarians to report suspected cruelty to law enforcement, as implemented in the United States [27], should also be explored.

Beyond these initiatives, future studies should adopt multi-stakeholder qualitative comparative designs incorporating perspectives from veterinarians, law enforcement officers, community organizations, and policymakers. Forensic case-audit studies are also warranted to evaluate evidence-handling quality and identify procedural gaps across agencies. Ultimately, the development of a national Veterinary Forensic Readiness Framework in Thailand would provide a structured foundation for standardized and effective animal cruelty investigations.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that pet abuse and inadequate animal welfare in Thailand are driven by multiple, interrelated factors spanning individual, structural, legal, and sociocultural domains. The most prominent contributors were owners’ lack of responsibility and preparedness and insufficient knowledge and ethical understanding of animal care (LRPAO and LKBEC). Economic and social constraints (ESCAW) further limited owners’ capacity to provide adequate care, while weaknesses in stray animal management systems (SPMS) contributed to persistent welfare challenges. Although existing legislation was perceived to play a meaningful role in reducing cruelty through legal accountability (EEL), gaps in enforcement, unclear definitions, and limited public awareness (IGL, CDL, and PKA) reduced its overall effectiveness. Importantly, veterinarians identified substantial shortcomings in investigative procedures, particularly the limited application of forensic science, lack of standardized protocols (PSAFP), and insufficient training and personnel capacity (KSAP), which collectively undermined evidence reliability and case outcomes.

The findings highlight the need for a more integrated and operational approach to addressing pet abuse and animal welfare. Strengthening owner education and public awareness initiatives is essential to address LRPAO and LKBEC, while coordinated strategies for stray animal population control are required to mitigate SPMS-related challenges. From an enforcement perspective, clearer legal definitions, consistent inspections, and proportionate penalties are needed to enhance the deterrent effect of existing laws. The study also underscores the practical value of integrating forensic science into routine investigations, as supported by veterinarians’ views on its benefits (BRFI). Developing standardized investigative protocols, expanding forensic training opportunities, and promoting interagency collaboration (CCBA) would substantially improve evidentiary quality and judicial confidence.

A key strength of this study lies in its national scope and qualitative design, which enabled in-depth exploration of frontline veterinarians’ perspectives across all regions of Thailand. The use of stratified purposive sampling ensured representation from diverse geographic and enforcement contexts, while systematic content analysis enhanced analytical rigor. By linking welfare, legal, and forensic dimensions, the study provides one of the first comprehensive empirical insights into the practical realities of animal cruelty investigations in Thailand.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. Data were collected through an online questionnaire, which may have introduced self-selection bias and limited opportunities for follow-up clarification. The study focused exclusively on veterinarians employed by the DLD, thereby excluding perspectives from other key stakeholders such as law enforcement officers, nongovernmental organizations, private practitioners, and policymakers. In addition, the absence of direct case file analysis limited the ability to objectively assess investigative outcomes or evidentiary quality. These factors may constrain the generalizability of the findings beyond similar regulatory contexts.

Future research should adopt multi-stakeholder qualitative and mixed-method designs to capture a broader range of perspectives on animal cruelty prevention and enforcement. Empirical evaluation of forensic practices through case-audit studies would be valuable for identifying procedural gaps and weaknesses in evidence handling. The development and pilot testing of standardized forensic guidelines, accompanied by structured training programs for veterinarians and related agencies, represent critical next steps. Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of public awareness campaigns and legal reforms on animal cruelty incidence would further inform policy and practice.

Overall, this study highlights that addressing pet abuse and inadequate animal welfare requires more than legislative frameworks alone. Effective prevention depends on responsible ownership, public awareness, robust enforcement mechanisms, and the systematic integration of forensic science into investigations. By strengthening investigative capacity, standardizing procedures, and fostering interagency collaboration, Thailand can enhance animal welfare protection and ensure the consistent application of animal cruelty legislation. These efforts align with the One Welfare concept and reinforce the expanding role of veterinarians in safeguarding animal well-being, supporting justice systems, and contributing to broader societal benefits.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The supplementary data can be made available from the corresponding author upon request.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

AL, YS, and NK: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, and formal analysis. AL: Visualization and supervision. AL and YS: Drafting and editing of the manuscript. NP, SP, AR, MI, SC, KS: Investigation, data curation, and formal analysis. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

Veterinary World remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in the published institutional affiliations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Graduate School of Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Thailand, for their guidance on research methods. We extend our sincere gratitude to all veterinarians who participated in the questionnaires. We are particularly grateful to the veterinarians from the Department of Livestock Development, Nontachai Santichat and Arunroj Kullaya, for providing valuable information on the department’s fieldwork procedures in response to reported incidents. We also thank Chaikamon Chantrasmee for assistance with the design of the figures and flowcharts.

REFERENCES

1. Rault JL, Bateson M, Boissy A, Forkman B, Grinde B, Gygax L, Jensen MB. A consensus on the definition of positive animal welfare. Biol Lett 2025;21(1):20240382. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
2. Voogt AM, Ursinus WW, Sijm DT, Bongers JH. From the Five Freedoms to a more holistic perspective on animal welfare in the Dutch Animals Act. Front Anim Sci 2023;4:1026224. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
3. Pinillos RG. One Welfare, companion animals and their vets. Comp Anim 2018;23(10):598-598. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
4. Ferrere MR. Animal welfare underenforcement as a rule of law problem. Animals 2022;12(11):1411. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
5. Sinclair M, Lee NY, Hötzel MJ, de Luna MCT, Sharma A, Idris M, Marchant JN. International perceptions of animals and the importance of their welfare. Front Anim Sci 2022;3:960379. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
6. Kulnides N, Lorsirigool A. The role of veterinarians in forensic science:A review. Worlds Vet J 2023;13(3):452-458. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
7. Lorsirigool A, Sudjaroen Y, Kulnides N, Pumipuntu N, Kullaya A, Santichat N, Tawinwang K. Veterinarians'perspectives on pet abuse, legal involvement, and forensic investigation in Thailand:A cross-sectional study. Open Vet J 2025;15(6):2806-2806. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
8. Monsalve S, de Souza PV, Lopes AS, Leite LO, 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. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
9. Turkmen Z, Zengin S, Kuloglu Genc M, Yayla M, Tekin Bulbul T, Mercan S. The role of forensic veterinary toxicology in pet custody cases. J Anal Toxicol 2022;46(9):e239-e242. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
10. Parry NM, Stoll A. The rise of veterinary forensics. Forensic Sci Int 2020;306:110069. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
11. Doukas D. Non-accidental injuries in dogs and cats:Review of post-mortem forensic evaluations and the social significance of small animal practice. J Hell Vet Med Soc 2022;73(1):3543-3552. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
12. Mores CM, Castro MBD, Melo CBD. Forensic examinations in the investigations of crimes involving animals:A review. Cienc Rural 2025;55(3):e20240071. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
13. Takenaka CS, de Souza CNA, Momo C. Case studies and technical aspects of the forensic necropsy of exhumed companion animals. Forensic Sci Int 2023;345:111624. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
14. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006;18(1):59-82. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
15. Enworo OC. Application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria to assess trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. Qual Res J 2023;23(4):372-384. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
16. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ):A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19(6):349-357. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
17. Sarıal GSK, Bozkurt Z. Animal welfare attitudes of pet owners:An investigation in central and western parts of Turkey. Kocatepe Vet J 2020;13(4):388-395. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
18. McDowall S, Hazel SJ, Chittleborough C, Hamilton-Bruce A, Stuckey R, Howell TJ. The impact of the social determinants of human health on companion animal welfare. Animals 2023;13(6):1113. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
19. Mota-Rojas D, Monsalve S, Lezama-García K, Mora-Medina P, Domínguez-Oliva A, Ramírez-Necoechea R, Garcia RDCM. Animal abuse as an indicator of domestic violence:One health, one welfare approach. Animals 2022;12(8):977. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
20. Mota-Rojas D, Mariti C, Marcet-Rius M, Lezama-García K, Gazzano A, Hernández-Ávalos I, Whittaker AL. The welfare of fighting dogs:Wounds, neurobiology of pain, legal aspects and the potential role of the veterinary profession. Animals 2022;12(17):2257. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
21. Caldwell S, Patterson-Kane E, Brandler E, Gupta M, Lockwood R. Animal cruelty in New York City:Cruelty cases presented to the ASPCA in partnership with the NYPD 2013–2022. Animals 2025;15(5):662. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
22. Striwing H, Sarenbo S. Dog owners'supervising duty and criminal negligence–a critical review of two judgments by Swedish courts of appeal. Forensic Sci Int 2021;1:100031. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
23. Davitkov D, Bajovic V, Radojkovic JA. Animal cruelty by children and juveniles:Case studies in veterinary forensic and legal practice. Vet Glas 2025;79(1):65-82. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
24. Yanai T. Current status of veterinary forensic science in Japan. J Toxicol Pathol 2025;38(1):3-16. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
25. Hsiou CL, Hsu CC, Liao PW, Yang FH, Lee AN, Huang WH. Forensic death investigations of dog bite injuries in 31 cats. Animals 2022;12(18):2404. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
26. Oefelein R, Cresswell S, Matheson C. Transfer and persistence of owner DNA on domestic pets. Sci Justice 2025;65(2):83-91. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]
27. Patterson-Kane EG, Kogan LR, Gupta ME, Touroo R, Niestat LN, Kennedy-Benson A. Veterinary needs for animal cruelty recognition and response in the United States center on training and workplace policies. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2022;260(14):1853-1861. [Google Scholar] | [Crossref]