The Psych Evaluation!

Let’s do a psych evaluation on the possibilities that psychologists might consider when trying to understand the behaviour and motives behind a person wanting to harm dogs. There has recently been an incident in Parkhurst Forest on the Isle of Wight. Where police have reported that somebody had been deliberately scattering around the forest floor, contaminated dog kibble. To date 2 dogs have died and multiple other dogs have become ill after consuming this interfered with food. Police have conducted inspections, patrols of the area and collected samples for further investigation.

Although I have my theories and educated guesses. I am specifically not directly assuming motive from this behaviour as the act or deed is very clear but the motive is not. There are several wide possibilities which it could be, and I like to narrow it down and try to pinpoint the – WHY?

Educational Disclaimer: This article discusses sensitive educational concepts and training topics. It is provided by Open College UK Limited for informational purposes only and does not replace any professional, veterinary or psychological advice.

“Note: This article explores the severe psychological dysfunctions and displacement mechanisms behind people who commit acts of cruelty, and does not replace local law enforcement updates or professional veterinary safety guidelines.

Hatred of dogs

Firstly, we have to look at a person’s hatred of dogs. This is the most obvious explanation but not always the most likely. Many people genuinely dislike and hate dogs and they may see them as noisy, dirty, threatening, intrusive or just an outright nuisance. But they don’t want them to be harmed. However, if a general dislike of canines is deeper or extreme and it’s combined with anger and especially personality disturbances then harming dogs can become a form of retaliation.

Hatred of dog owners

Could this be the reason?

In my opinion this is actually a very plausible possibility and many people who become obsessed with a grievance don’t usually focus on the direct target for various reasons which can include experiencing consequences for their actions so for that reason people focus on what the target represents and that’s the important bit to understand.

For example: In this particular person’s mind, they may believe dog owners have ruined this beautiful woodland or think ignorant people just let their dogs run wild with no consideration for others or nobody respects the rules of the forest and everyone thinks their dog is special therefore in that mindset the dog becomes a symbolic extension of the actual owner. The emotional target may be the dog owner or the dog walker while the physical target is the actual dog.

Desire to cause suffering

This is where things become darker and sinister!

Most people, even very angry people don’t harm animals especially dogs. To repeatedly and strategically place contaminated dog bait such as in dog kibble in specific areas where that person believes the dog will walk, before the owner see it does require careful planning, anticipation and repetition. And the person doing this dark deed knows in advance that a dog walker may witness their dog’s death and also the families will be devastated especially children.

And here is the psychology bit!

This is central to everything: If that knowledge doesn’t stop them then something is overriding normal natural levels of emerging empathy.

Something is overriding it!

For some people who do this, the actual suffering itself becomes rewarding. And it’s not necessarily because they enjoy the dog suffering but because they enjoy the emotional impact and distress/suffering it has on the dog owner. And this is closer to what is taking place! They may even see dogs has less than!

Power and control

The following is another possibility that psychologists often consider. This is common and it’s found everywhere across the world in human behaviour. This particular person may feel powerless elsewhere in life. By secretly harming animals especially dogs they are creating a situation where nobody knows who they are and they control the outcome. They know the police are searching for them and know with a level of confidence that they won’t be caught. This is a very arrogant and foolish view. They also know that dog walkers are now in a state of fear, apprehension and anticipation as to where they’re taking their dog. This knowledge that is being generated in that persons mind, this knowing creates a sense of significance or power, a rise in energy, a hit in the pleasure centres of the mind so the psychological hit isn’t the death itself, it’s the feeling that I can affect everyone here and nobody can stop me because I’m too clever.

Male or female?

Statistical records show that these acts of covert animal harming have historically been commonly committed by males rather than females. But it’s important to point out in the interests of accuracy that it is a statistical observation not a definite conclusion. Possibly a 40 – 50-year-old male who’s never had a girlfriend and still lives with mum? However, from the behaviour alone nobody can responsibly determine the sex.

My overall impression

If I were push to make an educated psychological guess from just the behaviour alone, I would slightly lean towards it’s not someone who simply just hates dogs but rather a person who is carrying significant anger and resentments by default, towards people. Just people in general and something has triggered that person towards dog owners or dog walkers or people in this particular canine related area. I would say that this need to emotionally disturb and harm people is already there and something has triggered it, evoked it and brought it alive, something has sparked this need to create this harm in others and it’s to do with dogs or dog owners. But to reiterate it’s there already waiting to be triggered.

This person is willing to harm dogs as a vehicle for expressing that resentment, anger and someone whose empathy is impaired to the point that the anticipated distress and upset that it will cause to the owners, does not stop or deter them. I would also add that this person possibly gains a sense of power, revenge, pleasure and satisfaction from the consequences of the act because that need is far greater than their care or concern for the suffering or the discomfort of the dog.

One of the main things that stands out to me is the indirect nature of this act as they are not confronting anyone, they’re not stepping up toe to toe in a confrontational scenario arguing or expressing disapproval or protest against dog owners or dog walkers but they are more so acting anonymously, covertly, operating from concealment ‘hidden’. This is also very revealing and telling about the person, as they may not have the ability to hold a debate or argument or just raise a civil protest and disagreement with someone in a mentally balanced way. Therefore, psychologically this indicates to me that this points towards a grievance resentment, hostility and a desire for control more than simple impulsive anger. Its carefully considered and planned.

Emotional distance

Another aspect that strikes me is the emotional distance involved in a sinister act like this. Most people who become angry with the dog owner would confront or just avoid them but deliberately placing bad food bait in an area where dogs frequent requires an off the beaten track and unique thought process, that leads to fulfilment and a satisfaction for the person doing this. This person has time to think about what they’re doing and they have time to reconsider but they also have time to imagine what the dog owner will go through and the likely consequences thereafter but they still proceed anyway so that suggests to me that whatever emotional reward they receive surely outweighs any feelings of empathy or guilt that might be felt by someone else.

This act is highly rewarding because the person never has to face the owner. This is an observable fact that many people are like this. Some people suppress it; some people can switch it off and some people cannot and it finds another outlet. That’s why I always say that suppression can be very dangerous for some people because it will result in a snapback later. In other words, it will return later and develop into something like this which is a NEED to harm others emotionally.

Whatever disturbance is going on in that person’s mind, there is a clear absence of the normal emotional brakes other have. Cases such as this raise questions about disturbed emotion, empathy, aggression and the darker aspects of human quirks.

One psychological angle

Another psychological angle is that this person may not emotionally perceive the dog as an individual animal but instead the dog becomes an object, a symbol or a representative of something else. People dehumanise or depersonalise a target, because empathy decreases or disappears. This is seen in many forms of cruelty and not just towards animals. Therefore, the dog stops being perceived as a living feeling being but instead becomes a thing that represents the grievance. So now having said all that, this still doesn’t tell us whether the main hostility was towards dog directly, dog owners or society in general or even something else completely different. But it does suggest a strong emotional detachment that most people would find difficult to comprehend.

Was the target really about dogs or were dogs simply the most convenient and effective way to being able to hurt people who loved something that is now gone? Could this be something unresolved in the person doing this! Or does this person see dogs as just dirty horrible little things and switches off completely from their experience or suffering. For most people a dog is not viewed as a possession but as a loved family member, as a pet and anyone deliberately targeting dogs would certainly understand and know that.

Disclaimer & Terms

The educational content on this website—including articles, posts, and comments by Open College UK Limited—is for informational purposes only. It reflects research and insights at the time of writing. Nothing on this site constitutes medical, psychological, or legal advice.

Always consult a qualified professional (such as a GP, doctor, or psychologist) before changing any health regimen or medication.

Content is intended to raise awareness and promote independent thought, not to defame, target, or offend any individual or group. Any reliance on this content is at the reader’s own risk. While we strive for high quality, readers should verify information against their own context and local regulations.

Copyright: All content is owned by Open College UK Limited. Sharing links to this post is welcome, but reproduction without written consent is prohibited.