Thrill Killing in Wisconsin

Thrill Killing in Wisconsin

Final Report to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Ray Hutchison Urban and Regional Studies

University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

Karen Dalke Urban and Regional Studies

University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

January, 2011

ii


Final Report to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………….. ii

Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 1

The Problem …………………………………………………………………………. 1

Background Literature ……………………………………………………………… 2

Research Plan ……………………………………………………………………...… 4

Animal Treatment Survey ………………………………………………………. 5

Interviews with Thrill Kill Participants ………………………………………… 5

Definitions of Thrill Killing ……………………………………………………… 6

Results ………………………………………………………………………………… 7

DNR Statistics ……………………………………………………………………. 7

Animal Treatment Survey (Control Group) ….…………….………………….. 8

Animal Treatment Survey (Thrill Kill Participants) ……….….……………….. 10

Interviews with Thrill Kill Participants …….…………………………………... 12

Warden Survey …………………………………………………………………….. 21

Recommendations …………………………………………………………………… 28

Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………... 31

References …………………………………………… ……………………………... 34

Appendix One: Animal Treatment Survey …………………………………………. 38

Appendix Two: Interview Schedule Thrill Kill Participants ……………………... 42

1


Summary

We investigated thrill killing in Wisconsin through personal interviews with persons identified by the DNR as having been involved in thrill killing incidents, a survey of a control group from the general population about animal treatment, and a survey of DNR wardens about the definitions of and occurrence of thrill kill incidents. Persons identified as having been involved in thrill kill incidents are more likely to be from rural environments and report less empathy for animals that have been hurt than persons in the control group. Definitions of thrill killing are not always consistent, and weigh heavily upon rural youth. A number of the incidents reported in the study are not considered to be thrill killing by most DNR wardens.

At the conclusion of the report, we present a series of recommendations that identify educational and community responses to the problem of thrill killing. This section suggests that the DNR and other public bodies 1) establish consistent criteria for a standard definition of thrill killing; 2) collect demographic data in warden interviews and reports on thrill kill participants; 3) require information on thrill killing as part of the Hunter Safety curriculum; 4) promote the hunter mentor program that encourages long-term interaction between responsible hunters or DNR wardens and new hunters who may need more direction; 5) assess alternative intervention strategies to determine the most effective methods to prevent repeat occurrence of thrill kill behavior; and 6) create community activities that encourage competition and connect youth and young adults with wildlife to enhance the legal hunting experience.

The Problem

Over the last decade, there has been increasing concern about the occurrence of “thrill killing” across Wisconsin (Riepenhoff 2005). The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reported several dozen cases since 2005 that included the killing of wild animals by “shooting them with firearms and arrows, running them down with vehicles and clubbing them with baseball bats and homemade weapons, such as sharpened sticks” (Jones 2008). In May 2008, two men were accused of killing hundreds of wild birds and animals in Columbia and Marquette counties simply for a thrill (Journal Interactive 2008). And in January 2009 three young men used their snowmobiles to torture and kill four deer and a fawn in Waupaca County. These incidents are widely described as “thrill killing” by the mass media.

We are not certain where the term thrill kill (or similar terms such as thrill killing and thrill killer) may have originated. There are a number of references to “thrill killing” in descriptions of the infamous case of Richard Leopold and Nathan Loeb, who in 1924 kidnapped and killed 14 year old Bobby Franks “for the thrill” of committing the “perfect crime.” As described by Larson (2008) in his analysis of media coverage of the case, “The second persona developed by the print media is that of the precocious teenage thrill-seekers. This persona, which was seen to exemplify

2

the indulged, immoral youth culture of the 1920s enjoyed by wealthy young men, was also later developed in artistic interpretations of the story of the crime.” It is not clear whether the term “thrill killing” was actually used in reporting of the “Crime of the Century”, as the case was called. In 1964 a low-budget movie directed by Ray Dennis Steckler and titled The Thrill Killers was released. The story concerns several psychotic murderers who escape a mental institution and go on a killing spree in Los Angeles. The term has been in common usage since that time, used to describe a variety of sensational murder cases. In 1998 a fighting video game call Thrill Kill was released for the SONY PlayStation; although the game was quickly withdrawn, copies are widely available today, and there are numerous videos of the game at youtube.com. The most common match for a search of “thrill kill” will reference a band called the Thrill Kill Kult. Thrill killing is not a legal term, but one that comes to us from a variety of sources in recent popular culture. The vague use of the term by the media has been used to refer to the abuse of pets, mistreatment of livestock, and unlawful harvesting of wild animals in addition to murder. Although there is an extensive literature on animal abuse, thrill killing is different from animal abuse per se. Animal abuse most often refers to the mistreatment of pets and domestic animals. Thrill killing usually involves adolescents or young adults abusing one or several animals purportedly for entertainment or the relief of boredom, and it usually is a group activity. Most incidents take place between 6 pm and 6 am (Riepenhoff 2005). While the hunting of wild game is an important tradition in Wisconsin, thrill killing represents something very different. Hunting is a legitimate activity that is regulated by state agencies. Thrill killing is a form of animal abuse that exists outside of normative hunting behavior as it occurs without a license or violates specific regulations (e.g., hunting out of season, killing protected species, or exceeding bag limits). Thrill killing is therefore an unlawful activity that usually involves teenagers or young adults acting as a group and abusing or torturing animals for amusement.

Background Literature

While scholarly literature exists on animal abuse, more specific research on thrill killing is virtually non-existent. To our knowledge, there is just one content analysis study that identifies thrill killing as a form of animal abuse (Bickerstaff 2003). Because of the lack of established literature on thrill killing, previous research on animal abuse provides background to this study.

Ascione (1993:51) defines animal abuse as “socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary, pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal. The question of why animal abuse occurs has been primarily examined by psychologists and psychiatrists (Ascione, 2008; Flynn 2000). As a result, animal abuse is often associated with psychopathology of an individual. For example, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders lists abuse of animals as one criterion for a conduct disorder. Animal abuse has been linked to domestic abuse more generally (Doherty and Hornosty, 2007; Favor and Strand, 2004; Fitzgerald, 2005; Linzey, 2009) and to criminality among adults (Kellert and Felthous, 1985; Tallichet and Hensley, 2005). This research is far from conclusive and has been critiqued on methodological and other grounds (Patterson-Kane and Piper, 2009). It is important that further research moves beyond this narrow psychiatric view to a broader focus on social and environmental factors

3

associated with thrill killing as a form of animal abuse if it is to be prevented in the future. Our research moves beyond explanations that focus on individual pathology to identify socio-cultural reasons for this activity.

Current research suggests an association between animal abuse and criminal behavior. Two primary theses currently exist to explain this association. The progression/graduation thesis suggests that animal abuse moves to violence against human subjects. Because many of these studies are based on self-report inmate studies (Hensley and Tallichet, 2004), caution must be used not to overstate research results: conclusions based solely on an incarcerated population raise issues of validity. The deviance generalization approach suggests that animal abuse is one of many forms of behavior that subjects may engage in, ranging from crimes against property to those involving people (Risley-Curtiss, 2010). Both of these approaches generally study the abuse of farm or pet animals. It is important to emphasize that these studies do not prove that one behavior (animal abuse) has caused another behavior (criminal activity) to occur. While animal abuse has received considerable attention from researchers over the past ten years there are still significant gaps in the research. Little information exists on rural communities and wild animals. A recent study Family Violence, Firearms and Animal Abuse in Rural Communities (2007), looks at the relationship between rural communities, family members, and pets or farm animals. This study discusses how the abuse of family pets and farm animals may be used to control other family members. This is different from violence perpetrated on wild animals where no emotional connection exists. Thrill killing may also be examined through an ethical framework of human-animal relationships (Animal Studies Group, 2006). Relationships to animals are embedded in a culture that is changing faster than any other time in history. One consequence of our “alienation from nature, through our vast numbers, our technology, and our industrial forms of deriving our food” (Moran 2006:76) may be a loss of respect for the natural world and the creatures that occupy it. This coupled with the Western belief that humans are superior to all other species may create an environment conducive to thrill killing (Simmons 2006).

Johnson and Norton (1980) provide an important model for the evolution of the sports hunter. Their work is based upon field observations of and in-depth interviews with more than six hundred individuals that to describe the behaviors, life experiences, values, and satisfactions of Wisconsin waterfowl hunters. This information was supplemented with “intensive home interviews” with a sample group of deer-gun hunters as well as field contacts with deer-gun hunters in ten management units. Their research suggests that hunters pass through five stages, or phases, of development, summarized below:

Phase One – Shooter Stage: The hunter talked about satisfaction of hunting being closely related to being able to “get shooting”… The beginning hunter apparently wants to pull the trigger and test out the capability of his weapon. Phase Two – Limiting-Out Stage: The hunter still talked about satisfaction gained from shooting, but what seemed more important was measuring success and self through the killing of game and the number of birds or animals shot.

4

Phase Three – Trophy Stage: At this stage of development satisfaction was described in terms of selectivity of game, usually reflecting the hunter’s idea of a trophy. Phase Four -- Method Stage: Hunting has become one of the most important dimensions of that person’s life. It’s what he does best and he lives for the opportunity to practice that expertise. Seldom did satisfaction relate to the “taking of game” at this stage, but instead switched to method. Phase Five – Sportsman Stage: A “mellowing out” stage which apparently many hunters do not reach until about 40 years of age and after many years of hunting experience. At this stage, the hunter finds satisfaction in the total hunting experience and appreciation of nature or the championship of partners or family.

Johnson and Norton do not suggest an inevitable progression through these phases, and they note that relatively few hunters talked about reaching the Sportsman Stage. Their discussion does explain the high level of disdain that many experienced hunters express toward thrill killing.

Our study obviously brings attention to the darker side of human-animal interactions. Although less pleasant, identifying the conditions that promote thrill killing are necessary if we hope to develop prevention measures and reduce suffering to animals and people. Because thrill killing usually occurs as a group activity, the socio-cultural approach should make a substantive contribution by moving beyond individual explanations of psychopathology and suggesting educational and community responses to the problem.

Research Plan

Much of the social science research in the past has focused on animal abuse in general, but not in the context of thrill killing. To gain a comprehensive understanding of thrill killing, we set out a multi-method approach to gain more systematic information and knowledge about this phenomenon in Wisconsin. This thrill kill study will combine qualitative and quantitative approaches to assure a comprehensive understanding of this issue. As reported in the following pages, this approach includes

a) A review of existing DNR statistics;

b) Survey of animal treatment and animal abuse from a control group of young adults

c) Interviews with individuals identified by the Wisconsin DNR as having been involved in thrill killing incidents; and

d) A survey of thrill kill scenarios and definitions of thrill killing with Wisconsin DNR wardens.

5

Animal Treatment Survey

We conducted a survey of nearly 500 young adults from lower-level courses at UW-Green Bay. The student body includes a substantial number of persons from both small towns and rural areas of northeast Wisconsin, and is of an age similar to that of persons most often identified as participating in thrill-kill incidents. The Animal Treatment Survey is derived from the Cruelty to Animals Inventory (CAI), which itself is a brief self-report inventory based on the Children and Animals Assessment Instrument (CAAI). The CAI is an efficient tool that has been used in previous studies (Ascione, Thompson, and Black 1997:170; Dadds, Whiting, Bunn, Fraser, Charlson, and Pirola-Merlo 2004). Our Animal Treatment Survey was used to survey a control group in the general population, and also as part of the semi-structured personal interviews with thrill-kill participants. The Animal Treatment Survey explores the same nine dimensions as the CAAI:

1) Frequency of animal abuse (number of separate acts),

2) Severity of animal abuse (degree of intentional pain/injury caused),

3) Recency of animal abuse (most current acts),

4) Diversity across and within categories (number of types and number of animals within a type that were abused),

5) Animal sentience level,

6) Covert (attempts to conceal cruelty),

7) Isolate (individual versus group cruelty),

8) Empathy (indications of remorse),

9) Duration of animal abuse (period of time over which cruelty occurred)

A copy of the Animal Treatment Survey is included in Appendix One.

Interviews with Thrill Kill Participants The DNR indentified a group of 41 individuals involved in thrill killing as possible subjects for interviews. An agreed upon process for identifying informants was created through discussions with the DNR liaison and research team to determine the most efficient way to make appointments to secure the interviews. An immunity waiver was obtained from all but one of the counties. Four other interviews representing two additional cases were scheduled, but resulted in no-shows. One individual said that he had moved beyond this event and did not want to revisit his earlier behavior. Since these cases spanned a ten year period, a significant number of informants had moved and there was no available contact information. Calls were made by the DNR liaison and by members of the research team, and follow-up letters to the most recent address were sent requesting involvement, but locating individuals to interview was difficult.

6

efinitions of Thrill Killing

Once a contact was made and participation was secured, the warden involved with each case was contacted by the DNR liaison to assist in scheduling interviews at local offices or a local police department to minimize any safety concerns. The DNR liaison would inform the research team of the meeting place and time. This process was necessary as recent state budget cuts impacted the availability of DNR offices statewide and offices did not have uniform operating hours. Once contact occurred, it became apparent that these informants had been interviewed on several occasions and seemed a bit apprehensive to openly share information. As part of informed consent, county immunity waivers were also provided to assure confidentiality and promote active participation. Interviews were conducted with persons identified through the process described above (n=8) after acquiring informed consent. The interviews included demographic data and the respondents prior experience with animals as well as questions about the thrill killing episodes. The semi-structured interview approach allowed follow-up on questions to assure that checklist responses are what the interviewee intended. Sometimes checklists alone can provide misleading information and the ability to follow up with the interviewee will enhance the data gathered (Ascione, Thompson, and Black 1997). The semi-structured interview provides a conversational approach that is focused around the assessment tool, but provides openness for two-way communication. A copy of the interview form is included as Appendix Two.

D

While the term thrill killing has been popularized in media coverage of specific cases of animal

g.

te that a

here is, however, a working definition of thrill-killing that has been used by the DNR in

Thrill killing is defined as an incident that meets four of the following five

Outside normal season or hour framework

b) Harvest by means other than legal firearm or bow

) Not utilizing the meat or part thereof.

) In excess or with disregard to daily bag limits or limits based on sex, age, etc.

abuse, and has been used by DNR officials in interviews reported in this coverage, it does not have a specific legal definition. For example, thrill killing is not listed as a misdemeanor or felony under state law, which means that no one has been charged or convicted of thrill killinThrill killing is not identified as a specific incident or class of activity in existing DNR regulations, which means that there is no “checkbox” on DNR reporting forms to indicaspecific incident is thrill killing. Treporting incidents, as noted earlier. For the present study, we were given the following definition by a representative of the Wisconsin DNR:

criteria: a)

c d

e) Group activity -- cases that involve two or more subjects acting together to illegally harvest game (includes the "contests" i.e. which group can bash the most raccoons, etc.)

It should be noted that all of the criteria included as part of this definition, with the exception of c) not utilizing the meat or part thereof, are violations of DNR regulations. Based upon media accounts of “thrill kill” incidents, three of these criteria b) Harvest by means other than legal firearm or bow, d) In excess or with disregard to daily bag limits or limits based on sex, age, etc., and e) Group activity - cases that involve two or more subjects acting together to illegally harvest game are the most common examples of thrill killing. For example, the reported incidents of running down deer by three persons on snowmobiles, and the killing of dozens of ducks also by snowmobile, involved the use of means other than legal firearm or bow. Results DNR Statistics

There are no authoritative sources for animal abuse – involving domestic animals or wild animals -- at the state or national level. Each year, the DNR reports that it responds to “thousands” of citizen complaints about poaching and other hunting, fishing and public safety violations (c.f., Wisconsin DNR, 2007; Mickelberg and Plautz, 2006), and the Monthly Conservation Warden Reports provide documentation of numerous violations in regions across the state (http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/enforcement/reports/2010/) The Wisconsin DNR report on hunting violations for the period 2004-2009 records more than 500 violations each year in numerous areas, including transporting a loaded gun a vehicle, transporting an uncased gun in a vehicle, and hunting from within 50 feet of a paved road center. This report highlighted the dramatic increase in the illegal use of bait in recent years – from 150 to more than 300 incidents since 2004. These and other statistics, taken from the 2009 Fish & Wildlife Annual Report, are shown below.

7

Thrill killing represents a subset of the violations listed in the DNR report. While there is no specific category of “thrill killing” in DNR regulations, several high profile incidents have led the DNR to collect information from wardens in separate reports. Two years ago DNR wardens were asked to provide information on the number of thrill kill incidents in their jurisdiction. The following definition was used:

Thrill killing is the indiscriminate killing of wild animals, not associated with hunting seasons or having any intent to retrieve the animal. These cases may involve shooting, clubbing, running down animals with vehicles, as well as roadway discharge and transportation of firearms violations, property damage shooting at signs, etc.

The Wisconsin DNR wardens reported a total of 20 thrill kill cases in 2005, and 17 in 2006. Most of these cases involved groups of two-to-five persons (13 of the 20 reported cases in 2005, 11 of the 17 in 2006), and three of the 17 cases reported in 2006 involved 10 or more persons. We should note that thrill killing is not confined to Wisconsin. The 2008 Annual Report of the Nevada Department of Wildlife, Division of Law Enforcement noted, “We had many ugly big game poaching cases this year. As we do every year, we take each and every potential felony poaching seriously. We saw everything from ‘thrill kills’ to trophy head hunting.” A search of recent news articles finds numerous reports of thrill killing in nearly all areas of the country. Animal Treatment Survey (Control Group)

Respondent Characteristics. The Animal Treatment Survey was completed by 481 students our

r

y grew up

enrolled in introductory-level courses at UW-Green Bay during the spring of 2010. This is control group for the study. Students at the university come from both urban and rural areas across Wisconsin, and many are from small towns in northern Wisconsin. They are of similaage and background to the persons identified as participants in thrill kill incidents and interviewed for this study. Slightly more than half of the students completing the survein an urban environment (34.1 percent reported that they grew up in city, another 16.6 percent in

8

9

suburbs). But another 18.9 percent reported that they grew up in a town, and 25.2 percent in the country. Fewer than five percent of the respondents (4.6) grew up on farms. Nearly 80 percent (79.8) of the students who participated in the survey are currently employed; of this group, 7.7 percent reported full-time employment, 59.7 percent part-time employment, and 12.7 percent seasonal employment.

Human-Animal Interaction and Exposure to Pets. More than 90 percent (90.6) of the 7 percent)

respondents reported that they were responsible at

had

respondents reported that they had pets when they were growing up, and for most (82.this included dogs, cats, or other household pets. A smaller group (6.7 percent) said that they had both house pets and farm animals or wild animals as pets. A smaller number of respondents have pets at the present time (74.8 percent) and for most (95.2 percent) these are household animals.

More than three-quarters (78.0 percent) of the for care of their pets when they were growing up. An even larger number (87.3 percent) said ththey had been taught how to take care of animals; for most (61.3 percent) it was parents who taught them about animals, although more than one-in-ten (11.3 percent) said that no one had taught them about taking care of animals. For most of the respondents (52.3 percent) this instruction was limited to basic animal care; a smaller number (28.6 percent) said that theybeen taught ethics of animal care. Most of those who were responsible for the care of their pets (but only 79.8 percent) said that they enjoyed taking care of animals – two-in-ten did not enjoy taking care of their pets.

Treatment of Animals. Three-quarters of the respondents (77 percent) said that they have “never”

wo

ey have been cruel to. About two-thirds (65

animals on purpose reported that this behavior e or

hurt an animal on purpose; another 12 percent said that they “hardly ever” hurt an animal on purpose. Six percent said that they have hurt an animal more than six times, but fewer than tpercent said that they hurt animals on purpose “frequently.” For those who have hurt animals on purpose, this activity most often involved wild animals (82 percent), followed by pet animals (nine percent) and stray animals (two percent).

The survey also asked respondents which animals thpercent) said that they have not been cruel to any animals, while 22 percent said that they have been cruel to worms or insects, eight percent that they have been cruel to birds or mammals, andtwo percent to fish, lizards, frogs, and the like. For animal abusers (those reporting that they havehurt animals on purpose), an equal number reported that they had done this alone or as a group activity with other friends. Most (two-thirds) said that they did not try to hide the activity, whileone-third said that they tried to hide the activity or sometimes try to hide the activity. About an equal number said that they felt very sad for the animal as said that they sometimes feel bad for the animal; although a small number (three percent) said that they do not feel bad for the abused animal.

Most of those who said that they have hurt occurred more than a year earlier (for most, these were events that may have happened onctwice during their childhood). Only three percent of the respondents said that this activity had taken place in the last six months.

10

Use of Leisure Time. The open-ended question “What do you do in your spare time?” produced a wide range of responses. Among those activities with the largest number of responses was: watching television and/or playing computer games (38.4 percent), sports and athletic activity (34.2 percent), reading and other household activities (47.4 percent), and listening to music (11.0 percent). Hunting was listed by fewer than five percent (3.7) of the respondents.

Conclusions. Among the important results in the control group survey is the following:

1) Most say that they have never hurt an animal on purpose, and most say that they are very upset by those who do participate in this behavior;

2) Many make a distinction between insects and animals, but report abuse of insects; many ask, I have killed spiders, does this count?

4) For most of the sample, it is clear that there were one or two incidents of abuse when they were growing up; many report that that after these incidents they were horrified by their behavior, and feel badly about the incidents of abuse that they report;

5) Among hunters (a small number in our sample, less than five percent), distinction is made between hunting and killing animals, and animal abuse. Most of those who report hunting as a leisure activity indicated that they have not been cruel to animals, and that they feel badly for animals that have been abused.

Animal Treatment Survey (Thrill Kill Participants) Respondent Characteristics. The persons identified as participants in thrill-kill incidents and interviewed for this study do not appear to be substantially different from their peers in the control group survey. They are more likely to have grown up in the country or on a farm (only one lived in a city or suburb while growing up), and as young adults (all are 21-23 years old) they are more likely to maintain a more rural residence (only one lives in a city or suburb, two in towns). They all reported having completed high school, and one had some college. All of the respondents reported that they are employed full-time, most often in blue collar jobs (such as auto mechanic, construction, diesel mechanic, welding). Similar to persons in the control group, the participants in thrill-kill incidents report a wide range of spare time activities, including bowling, volleyball, working on cars and trucks, hanging out with friends, and watching television, as well as outdoor activities such as four-wheeling, hunting, fishing, training hunting dogs, and snowmobiling. None of the respondents said that they played computer games. All of the persons identified as participants in thrill kill incidents reported that they had pets when they were younger. Most often this was a house pet, but also other animals for those who grew up on farms. All of the thrill kill participants reported that they were responsible for the care of animals when they were younger. Only half have pets at the present time (again, most often house pets). All but two said that they had been taught about caring for animals, and most

11

often by parents and other family members. All said that they had been taught basic care of animals, but none mentioned ethical treatment of animals as part of their instruction. Treatment of Animals. Despite the fact that all of the interviews were with persons charged with various hunting violations and identified as thrill kill incidents, most said that they have never or hardly ever hurt an animal on purpose. Even those who say that they have hurt an animal on purpose report that this has happened just once or twice (and not referring to the thrill kill incidents for which they had been charged). Animals that had been hurt on purpose included wild animals as well as stray animals, farm animals, and pet animals. This information stands out from the control group because a) few of the regular interviews reported that they had abused animals, and b) none of the regular interviews reported that they had abused stray animals. Most of the interviewees said that they have mistreated animals in front of others, most with friends who join in on the activity. Most said that they do not try to hide the activity. Most said that sometimes they feel bad, but not always – and the remaining said that they do not feel bad for the animal. Only one said they are very sad and upset about people hurting animals, while most said that they did not know how they feel. Conclusions. If there is a difference between the persons interviewed for the thrill kill incidents and the persons in the control group, it likely is found in attitudes associated with hurting or killing animals.

1) Persons interviewed for thrill kill incidents were more likely to report that they have abused animals in the past, that this activity occurred until recent past, and that they did not try to hide this behavior. 2) While most respondents in control group said that they feel “very sad” for animals that have purposely been hurt, none of the persons associated with thrill-kill incidents said this, and half said that they do not feel bad for the animal. 3) And while most respondents in the control group said that they feel very bad about people hurting animals, persons associated with thrill-kill incidents expressed ambivalence – only one said that they are “very sad and upset, and most said that the “don’t know” how they feel. 4) As with hunters in the general population, distinction is made between hunting and killing of animals and abuse of animals. One survey was returned with a note following each question that they had killed animals, but had not abused them. In the area reserved for written comments, one of the persons associated with thrill-kill incidents said, “I have never hurt an animal on purpose. I have killed in and out of season. It’s just exciting to me. It’s like a game hunt to the extreme. I love hunting wild animals.”

12

Interviews with Thrill Kill Participants Procedures: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) liaison provided us with documentation for 14 cases involving 52 individuals identified as meeting the thrill kill criteria in 12 different counties from 1998-2009. All of the cases involved more than one person: One case involved seven individuals, four cases involved three individuals and three cases each of two, four and five individuals. All of the individuals were male between 15-23 years of age at the time of the incident. Deer was the animal identified in eight of the 14 cases. The remaining cases involved: mink, raccoons, turkey, cranes, opossum, and coyote. Four of the 14 cases (20.8 percent) involved items other than a bow or gun to kill animals. Ten of the 14 cases (71.4 percent) were in excess of bag limits, but utilized some part of the animal, from collecting horns to eating the meat. Thirteen of the cases occurred outside of normal hunting hours, but nearly half (46.2 percent) happened during the appropriate season. All of the respondents interviewed were 16-20 years old at the time of the incident. Four of the six cases involved deer; the two remaining cases involved small animals and birds. Two of the six cases (33.3 percent) involved items other than a bow or gun to kill the animals. Four of the six cases (66.6 percent) were in excess of bag limits with 50 percent utilizing the kill consistently and 33.3 percent some of the time. All of the cases occurred outside normal hunting hours (100 percent), but almost (67 percent) occurred during the appropriate season. This background information is summarized in the table below, which shows characteristics of those cases forwarded by the DNR, along with information about the cases included in the personal interviews. Outside

Normal Season

Outside Normal Hours

Other Than Bow or Gun

Utilize Kill Excess of Bag Limits

DNR Sample 46.2 100.0 20.8 23.1 71.4

Final Interviews 33.3 100.0 33.3 66.6 66.6

The interviews were digitally recorded except in cases where individuals requested that this not happen. The interviewee was handed the informed consent and asked to read it. After reading it, the researcher asked if the interviewee understood the items on the consent form emphasizing voluntary involvement and that the interview could be terminated at any point if they wished to stop. It was also requested that they not answer something rather than create a fictitious response. The informant was told that the digital recording would be stored at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay in a locked room. After attaining informed consent, the interview consisted of acquiring demographic data, completing the Animal Treatment Survey, and answering the semi-structured interview questions. Results: After numerous calls and letters, eight interviews representing 6 of the identified cases were completed between March-May 2010 involving 6 different counties. Two of the eight

13

informants requested not to be recorded. These cases occurred between 2002-2009. All but one of the participants acknowledged being part of a thrill kill activity as it was defined by the warden involved in the case. This individual acknowledged involvement with the DNR, but did not believe it was thrill killing. Five of the cases involved deer. The other three cases included small game animals or birds. All of these cases involved between two and five people ranging in age from 16-20 years of age at the time of the incident. Two of the six cases utilized means other than a bow or gun to kill the animals. All of the cases were outside normal hours and two were outside the normal hunting season. Bag limits were difficult to determine in some cases. Although several deer could be obtained in different parts of the state, the correct amount of tags were absent in two cases. Three other cases were over the bag limits regardless of available tags. Three of the cases always utilized the kill, two of the cases some of the time, and only one case did not use the animal involved. Interviews

From March-May 2010, eight interviews were conducted with persons identified by the DNR as participating in thrill kill activities. Interviews consisted of open-ended questions and asked identical questions to all respondents. Respondents were encouraged to decline answering a question if they would not be giving a truthful response. There were a few occasions when informants stated, “I do not want to answer.” Due to ethical guidelines agreed upon with the Institutional Review Board (IRB), we simply moved to the next question. We present an overview of the interviews below. After an introduction concerning the purposes of the study, the interviews began by establishing the event that prompted the interview. You have been contacted for this interview because of your involvement with the DNR. They have identified you as a participant in a “thrill kill activity”. What was your involvement in the activity? None of the respondents referred to their activity as thrill killing, but used other terms including road hunting or shining to describe the activity. The majority of respondents stated that the participation was either accidental or they had no intent on harming an animal.

I don’t know what activity they’re talking about. What activity are you talking about? Oh I got cited by ‘em. I got shooting a turkey out of season. A couple years ago. Four years ago my brother and friends. It was around deer hunting. I was 18 years old, still going to high school. It was around 10 p.m. Shining deer. At one point I got out ran through fields chasing deer onto the road and we would hit it.

The interviews completed by DNR wardens during earlier investigations of these cases use the term “shining” to identify the criminal violation of “shining deer while in possession of a firearm or hunting deer with aid of artificial light.” This term is used throughout reports as an acceptable activity when no firearm is involved and practiced regularly by rural youth.

14

We were hunting (had licenses). We were hunting that day so we had one (gun) in the trunk. It was like a spur of the moment thing. We were just out shining. Something we just do for fun, just go shine. Shining with firearms. That was when I got caught was shining with a firearm out of season. Ah I don’t remember—summer time? Summer time. I got pulled over. I was looking for animals. I didn’t have my gun loaded at the time but it was in vehicle at the time… By the time I shot was 11 o’clock at night. I’m way out in the county. Yeah farmland. I shot a raccoon, which was no big deal because (it was on personal property and causing destruction). That’s something were allowed to do. I had a shiner and I was going around for a drive and I just end up coming across the animal

In initial interviews with the DNR the respondents offered information that indicated more planning, “I tried to hit the doe with my car and I wanted to change vehicles so I didn’t make anyone notice.” Although the initial kill happened by accident, some planning did occur as individual acts resulted in several subsequent events. Terms like road hunting were used, which means shooting animals from the road without the proper licenses or following other regulatory guidelines.

We went road hunting. If it would have been after hours it would have been poaching. We had hunting licenses, but were hunting on private land. There was a guy who leaves corn up during hunting season and draws all the deer so he can trophy hunt. We gotta eat.

The respondents stated that taking animals out of season or by illegal means had always existed in their area and they had no idea how it began. Acknowledging participation in these activities often resulted in a follow-up statement that “nothing was wasted.”

How did you come up with participating in this activity? How often do you participate?

I don’t know it was just a thing everybody did it on our block. Everybody knew each other, always hung out and was a thing we did. We were hunting (had licenses). We were hunting that day so we had one (gun) in the trunk It was like a spur of the moment thing. We were just out shining. Something we just do for fun, just go shine.

Don’t really know. Probably fun. We would hit it, kill it with our truck, take it to the garage and cut it up.

After discussing how they may have become involved in thrill killing, the conversation moved on to other activities. These questions tried to determine if there may be activities that contributed to involvement in thrill killing or may have prevented the acts. Most respondents

15

struggled to identify activities that they participated in consistently. Not having much to do or having places to share with other groups there age was reported frequently. Although social activities may have been present, barriers such as money or transportation prevented involvement. Warden interviews also identified boredom as a possible cause for the activity. What do you usually do in your spare time? School? Hobbies? Friends? Pets?

I was in an alternative program ‘cause I would fall asleep in school. I was bored. Always hunted and fished. Had dogs and cats for pets. Back then I was a teenager. I got in more trouble back then so. Um, not really (involvement in extra-curricular high school activities). I don’t know. There ain’t that much to do around here. Go to the bowling alley

Enjoyment of pets and being around animals was something all the respondents enjoyed. Additional questions were asked to determine what types of interaction respondents had with other animals or if they had exposure to different animals. Where did you grow up? Were you around animals? Many respondents had lived in a peri-urban area, the country or had regular visits to farms where they were in contact with livestock. DNR reports also acknowledge that many contacts were made in rural areas. One individual reported always living in the city, but immediately added, we always had “dogs and cats.” All of them recognized a category of wild separate from pets and livestock.

(I lived on) a farm. I’ve never mistreated like a domestic animal ever. That’s completely against my values. I see it on TV. My mom showed dogs for years. I never mistreated animals like that. Spent a lot of time on farms. There were always animals around.

As part of the interview, we pointed out that there were several steps involved in committing this act: finding the animal, loading a weapon, shining, etc. However, the respondents did not recognize the steps in most cases and reported everything as happening quickly. The spontaneity response seemed to gain legitimacy as each scenario had similar elements. For the most part, they had transportation, knew how to use a gun, were presented with an animal they would kill if hunting, and reported excitement eluding the DNR. An amateur like quality emerged in many cases as described in DNR account, “I couldn’t use the scope…When I shot, the rifle’s recoil made the scope hit me….I looked at my hand and it was covered with blood….it was bleeding badly…they threw me an orange hat to stop the bleeding.” Shooting a gun without recognition that it may kick back and injure you did not suggest much experience, planning, or thought. One informant summed it up nicely, “No, ….once you have a driver’s license and I have the power (to shoot a gun), why not use it?” At times the respondents appeared to quietly reflect looking for a reason, but usually responded with, “I really don’t know.” Some gave other reasons:

16

How did you know what to do?

I actually heard it from a guy who was drunk driving home, hit a deer… So when you drink your reactions gonna be slow so if you hesitate for a split second then you hit the deer then you hit the brakes your momentum’s going forward. The deer takes all of the impact. Kids from (the area) had kind of like bets going on, stuff like that. We’d bet a lot of weights, like how much a deer weighed.

Questions were also asked to determine differences in species involved in the thrill killing incidents. Deer were the focus animal in four of the cases. The interviewees had hunted prior to these incidents, and viewed deer as an animal that people often kill. For those who killed small game (e.g. raccoons, opossum) virtually any wild animal that may be out at night could be the target species. Were there certain animals? Which ones? If you did this before, was it the same animal? Did the animals change? Why?

Nobody likes them [because of chronic wasting disease]. Yeah it wasn’t just to kill ‘em it was to eat ‘em. Not many (deer now). We got them just about wiped out. Yeah when I used to hunt back in the day I would see 300 deer in a half mile stretch. They didn’t do that last year.

The following question was another attempt to determine why individuals participated in a thrill kill activity. The majority of the respondents, once again, reported it was an activity that just happened. However, by this point many of the respondents also acknowledged that it was exciting as they might get caught or others would view them as participating in a dangerous activity. While the DNR interviews with the subjects focused on the facts and did not hypothesize why respondents may have participated in thrill killing, our interviews revealed some interesting responses:

Why did you do it?

At the time it was something to do. For the challenge and food. DNR told us it was dangerous. I don’t know. It’s exciting I guess. A lady hit a deer on our road and (inaudible) I kept it. What I could use I used. I ate it. I don’t know it’s just like a big game hunt. I didn’t, I never killed an animal and left it. I always clean it up. I used it for something. I don’t know (inaudible) It’s exciting. You have a gun. I have a tattoo. It’s a deer skull.

17

All of the respondents stated they no longer participate thrill-killing activity – although revealing that they did still participate would suggest that they were in violation of their hunting restrictions. It must be noted that all respondents gave an answer. In other instances, respondents would say, “I don’t want to answer it.” The majority of respondents say getting caught by the DNR was the primary reason for terminating the activity. However, some respondents replaced the activity with more normative behavior once it was available to them. What stopped it?

If we got caught right away we probably would have stopped. We did stop before we got caught …It was like a year later before we finally got in trouble. The other guy that was with us got in trouble and he told them that he had done it with us. Girlfriend. I got one of them and quit hanging out with the guys. I guess I learned my lesson and got caught.

We also tried to identify other factors that may have contributed to participation in thrill killing. None of the participants reported using drugs or alcohol during the activity and did not blame friends or any other activity as contributing to their participation in the activity. DNR statements and charges do not reflect any concerns with alcohol or drug use during their investigations. This may be a result of interviews occurring after the actual event or no involvement of these substances Media reports had suggested that other activities may influence the behavior of thrill kill participants. All of the participants reported enjoying the outdoors and emphasized they did not have money for video games or other activities. Did you ever do this before? Did anything influence your actions? Drugs? Alcohol? Friends? Anything close to it? (Prompts: Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, Video Games) Is this different from hunting, trapping, fishing, video games? How?

I trap. It was a spur of the moment. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Always hunted—small game, deer, pheasants, ducks, geese, squirrel No it was a bunch of guys. We never drank. I never did drugs in my entire life. It wasn’t our thing.

Although the following question was meant to identify who encouraged them to participate in the thrill kill activity, the responses seemed to suggest that the activity was spontaneous. Several respondents interpreted the following question as who taught them to hunt or kill an animal: Who introduced you to this activity or activities?

Not sure how it started, probably by accident. We were sober at the time. Family introduced me to hunting.

18

Always knew that others done it (road hunting), but “they did it for horns.”

Due to the fines and penalties imposed by the DNR, many of the following questions were answered in the past tense as respondents could not currently hunt. In addition due to other felonies, some respondents could only use bow and arrows, limiting the likelihood of a kill due to the skill involved when hunting birds or other animals. In addition, participation with other family members or friends in this activity was non-existent. However, some respondents acknowledged participating in activities that still allowed them to participate in the outdoors. If you hunt, trap, fish, legally, do you use the animals for eating or something else?

Eating. Yes we use them for eating I didn’t have enough money for my truck. They buy coyote pelts or raccoons. Depending on the season, usually 25 to 40 for raccoon. There’s training to be a taxidermist in high school so we sell to them. I never shot a deer. I shot animals out of season but it’s usually out on our property. They’re destroying our property.

All of the respondents stated they had completed the safety course and had hunted with family members since they were about 12 years old. Who taught you to hunt, trap, fish? What was that experience like? Father—enjoyed it. My dad taught me to hunt and fish

Do these people hunt, fish, trap with you now? Why or why not?

Oh let’s see, 15 years from February in ’01. Around 2016 or 2017, I don’t know how that works out. I don’t know if it’s February 2016 or 2017. I didn’t actually count it out. Hunt and fish with family. It is expensive. [Respondent took out current licenses and showed them on the table.] Duck is $25-$30. Deer is $30. I have about $200 in licenses. And then there is ammunition.

Since the individuals identified family members as their primary hunting companions, these relationships seemed to endure regardless of DNR sanctions. Reactions to the thrill kill activity varied based on the maturity level of the people. Parents, adults and significant others were concerned and angry about the behavior, but also questioned the severity of the consequences. However, peers varied and in some cases felt that it was exciting to be part of a news event. Respondents stated they avoid talking about it their involvement in a thrill killing activity.

19

What did these people think about your involvement in the thrill kill activity?

They (friends) all thought it was funny… All the people that were mature thought it was really stupid. My dad was pretty surprised. Brother and friends thought it was funny. Adults were “disappointed” with us. Lost a few friends. There’s a lot more enemies. Family didn’t think it should be so severe.

How did they explain your involvement to others?

I don’t know—didn’t say much. Didn’t really (explain it to others). It was kind of a huge thing at school. If you were a jock you were a hick. If you were a hick you were a jock.

Finally, we asked if anything would have prevented their involvement in the thrill-killing activity. Most could not think of anything that would have prevented their participation in the activity and one acknowledged that he would still do it if it were legal. The responses to continued participation were split. Half of the respondents thought it was an activity they would grow out of once other responsibilities came into their life. The other half of respondents thought it would continue especially if there was an economic benefit to it. Would anything have prevented you from doing this? What?

If it was legal I would do it again. No I don’t think so. Yeah I think it was just a once you finally get your driver’s license you have that power and I have that power Why not use it? To shoot a gun.

If you had not been stopped, do you think you would still be doing it? Why?

Yes—not anything else to do. Go to Y you need money. Nothing else to do. Not a lot of jobs. No. I quit doing it. Girlfriend. (So, it’s a stage thing?) Yeah.

The severity of fines and other consequences served as a deterrent in all cases. All of the respondents had to pay their own fines and could not rely on family to help. Losing expensive weapons and restrictions on future involvement in hunting is viewed as a severe punishment. All of the respondents reported that they missed not being able to participate in hunting. What was the consequence for your behavior? Fine? Jail? Other? Who paid the fine? Did you have a lawyer? Who paid for it?

20

We lost our hunting license for nine years. 4,200 dollars plus tickets. I got screwed. They all got less punishment than I did. My lawyer sucked. I was in jail for two days. 20 hours of community service. Three years no hunting and fishing. Me. I paid for it with part-time jobs—cutting grass, doing dishes. Yes but then I lost my license for 15 years. They figured about 12,786 bucks times restitution By the time I was done with 13 months in jail and everything yeah. Yeah and 12 months for cruelty to animals. It blows my mind because the guys that (participated in another activity) did not get nothing as worse or near what I got. I did. I did whatever I could to get money (laughs). I worked on a lot of farms. Helped out on the farms.

If you hunt, fish, trap, were those privileges revoked?

Yeah, we lost our hunting license for nine years. I can bow hunt. I hunt ducks and geese anything, pheasants. I’m not off for three years yet. Eight years of 400 hours of community service (inaudible). Eight years of supervision, probation.

Once again this question was interpreted by respondents as referring to hunting rather than thrill killing. There did not seem to be a clear distinction between the two as both resulted in the killing of an animal, which was the primary focus of those interviewed. After DNR intervention, the respondents did not miss thrill killing, but did acknowledge the loss of a social activity around hunting and hunting seasons. Do you miss this activity? Why or Why not? Any special times?

Yeah. Watch everybody else bring their deer and brag about it. Yes—I do volunteer training now. Yes. Just bought a camera today on eBay. Videotape. I’ve been doing that for the last couple years. Miss deer hunting but work a lot now for good money.

21

Warden Survey

As we completed the personal interviews, we became more interested in the definition of thrill killing that we had been given at the beginning of the study. Some of the activities identified as thrill kill incidents did not appear to match this definition. In one case, the individual shot a number of animals to sell the pelts so that he could purchase new hunting equipment. While this activity was done out of season, it otherwise was normal hunting activity. Before completing the study, we decided to ask DNR wardens about their own definitions of thrill killing, and how these definition might be applied in specific cases.

Methodology. In June 2010 a short survey was sent by email to all wardens in the state. They had an option to return the survey by mail (in just one instance) or by return email (in more than 30 cases). The survey provided six scenarios and asked the wardens to indicate whether or not the activity described in each scenario should be considered thrill-killing (a copy of the survey is found in Appendix Three). Five of the scenarios were based upon the activities of persons who had been identified by the DNR as having been involved in thrill killings, and the sixth was intended to be a clear example of thrill killing. We present an overview of the results of the Warden Survey below.

Analysis. The first scenario presented on the survey read as follows:

A young man has been shooting mink on public lands so that he can sell the pelts to purchase a new gun. He has harvested more than 25 pelts out of season. Is this an example of thrill-killing? Why or why not?

None of the wardens responding to the survey felt that this activity was an example of thrill-killing. The responses were consistent in emphasizing the fact that the animals had been killed for specific purpose of using the pelt:

The fact the mink were taken for the purpose of purchasing a new gun is not the sole factor in my determination as to whether this scenario is a “thrill-kill”. The illegal and unethical act of shooting the mink does not meet my definition of “thrill-killing”, and the mink were utilized for the end purpose of making garments.

No. Although illegal and unethical this violation does not rise to the level of the social killing of animals for the pleasure or enjoyment of one or more members. The fact that the violation described above occurred on public lands or that the animals and or pelts/carcasses were sold or otherwise utilized does not matter.

No. I don’t feel that this is thrill killing because the kid isn’t killing just to kill. He isn’t just killing for the fun of it in my opinion. He is taking the time to utilize the pelts to make himself some money for something he wants. Even though this is wrong due to the methods of taking the mink (firearm and closed season) I still do not feel it is thrill killing.

The second scenario presented on the survey read as follows:

22

Several friends have been hunting for several days without seeing any deer. On the way back to their hotel they see a large buck running toward the road and they speed up to kill it with their truck. They call the police so that they can take the 12 point deer. Is this an example of thrill-killing? Why or why not?

None of the wardens responding to the survey felt that this activity was an example of thrill-killing, although one qualified his response by saying, “One animal killed under the circumstances listed above, no. Multiple animals killed in this manner where some type of social game or gratification occurs, yes.” Two other wardens thought that this would appear to be a borderline case, but did not qualify as thrill killing:

This one is kind of border line for me but I guess I would still say that it is not thrill killing in my mind. Both individuals have licenses and have been out hunting. They weren’t out intentionally out looking for a deer to run down. A large buck crossed the road in front of them and an opportunity presented itself in a seconds notice. They made a bad decision that was probably based more on trying to harvest a large buck and since they couldn’t get one while hunting this was the next best method.

Tough to identify this as thrill-killing however, there seems to be some intent on the thrill of running down the deer with their truck. The difference being apparently, these guys were hunting legally prior to the incident.

With these exceptions, the responses to this scenario were consistent, emphasizing the fact what while the activity is a clear violation of regulations, the persons involved had a specific purpose and made proper use of the animal:

This would not be thrill killing this is an example of pure greed where the ends justify the means in the mind of the violator. They want the mounted antlers for bragging rights regardless of how they got it.

No. In this example the people did not kill for the sake of killing they killed out of frustration and temptation of the easy buck. They called and reported the car accident to bring law enforcement into the scene. A thrill killer might run down a deer but certainly would not call LE to report the incident. A thrill killer would not worry about getting a tag for the deer they would just take it and probably just the head for a trophy.

No. The hunters were disgusted with the deer season and just thought they would run down a deer and try to obtain a tag for the deer. They did not leave the deer behind.

The third scenario presented on the survey read as follows:

A group of friends decide to go “road hunting.” They each have an assigned role: one drives, one looks for deer, and another is the shooter. After killing the deer, they tag it and bring it home to be butchered. Is this an example of thrill-killing? Why or why not?

23

Only one of the wardens responding to the survey felt that this was a clear example of thrill-killing, although this response was qualified by asking about the intent of those involved:

Most likely this would be a thrill kill situation. However, it is important to speak with the “players” and determine their intent.

Two others suggested that the activity was ambiguous, but most likely did not rise to the level of thrill-killing:

Again this one is kind of borderline but again I would not consider it thrill killing. The friends who are doing this are at least utilizing the deer by taking them home and butchering them. They are using what they take even if it is illegal. I think in this case they are doing it for a food source and maybe for the thrill of getting away with it but not necessarily doing it for the thrill of the kill.

This one is more difficult to categorize. If they have the means to harvest deer legally but prefer this method because it is more fun to try to shoot a deer from the road, then it could be a form of thrill killing.

With the exception of these three responses, the response to this scenario was again consistent, emphasizing that while the activity violates several regulations, the animal had been tagged and utilized:

This is not thrill killing, but perhaps a classic case of “poaching.” This is a crime of laziness. The motivation is for the meat (maybe trophy bucks) and not for the pure excitement of the kill.

No. This is just an example of a team of illegal game harvesters. They are unethical, illegal and probably lazy, but not serial event thrill killers.

No—calculated/premeditated road hunters. At night, this behavior would certainly have a “thrill” element due to excitement and nervousness. But again, they are not wasting the animal.

The fourth scenario presented on the survey read as follows:

Some friends are driving around looking for something to do after school. They swerve to hit a group of turkeys by the side of the road, killing one. Over the next few weeks, they kill several more. Is this an example of thrill-killing? Why or why not? All but one of the wardens said that this activity is an example of thrill-killing. The responses were consistent in pointing to the fact that the animals were not utilized and that the group appeared to be looking for an opportunity to kill more animals:

This I would call thrill killing since the reason for the killing is for the rush of the kill and nothing more. The kids are bored and killing for nothing more than breaking the boredom.

24

Yes, this is a case of thrill killing. There is no reason behind what they are doing other than to just kill something. The turkeys aren’t being utilized it isn’t part of an opportunity that presents itself but instead it is something they are seeking out.

Yes, they are killing the animals without any intention of utilizing them. They are doing it for the thrill of the kill.

The fifth scenario presented on the survey read as follows:

A group of teenagers has gone critter hunting several times during the spring, shining raccoons with a spotlight. When they located the raccoons, they beat them with a bat or golf club and kill them. Is this an example of thrill-killing? Why or why not? All but one of the wardens felt that this activity was an example of thrill-killing. Another sought to qualify the answer by saying, “This is tough without more details but I would say yes. It is out of season, I presume they know this and are using blunt objects, not legal weapons.” But most responses were unambiguous as to the nature of this act:

Absolutely. The only reason they are killing these animals is for their own enjoyment. The pelts are not valuable and they are not killed in a humane manner.

Yes. There is no reason for this behavior other than the thrill they get from the torture and killing of animals. Bludgeoning animals to death is rare and takes a complete lack of compassion and therefore would fit in this realm.

This again would be thrill killing where the kill is the reason for the trip nothing is utilized and the brutality of the killing adds to the rush that the kids get.

The final scenario presented on the survey read as follows:

During the summer a group of friends discover an isolated wetlands with many groups of waterfowl. Over the course of the afternoon they are able to harvest several dozen ducks as well as several dozen geese. Is this an example of thrill-killing? Why or why not?

This was the only scenario where there was significant disagreement as to whether the activity should be considered thrill-killing. Those who thought that this would not be an example of thrill killing emphasized that this was an example of hunting out of season:

No—gross over-bagging and greed (I am going on the assumption that they are “hunting” the birds and taking possession).

No, just illegal hunting during closed season. Legal means and species, just closed season and greed with that many birds around.

No this sounds more like an over-bagging case where the opportunity was too good to pass up not the wanton killing of mass animals for enjoyment purposes.

Those who identified this scenario as an example of thrill-killing emphasized the fact that a large number of waterfowl had been killed without intent to make use of the animals:

25

Yes. The group just finds themselves in the middle of the resource in the summer – no value again – and decides to kill the fowl for purposes other than conventional hunting.

This is thrill killing also. No legitimate purpose is served by killing the ducks and geese. The thrill is in the killing only.

Yes, using the term harvest is not correct here. It is simply killing, killing for the thrill and excitement. If it were something else several dozen waterfowl would probably not be killed.

But for many of the wardens, it was not a clear-cut case of thrill-killing. As in previous answers, there were questions as to the motivation of the individuals involved, and the utilization of the animals that had been killed:

This may or may not be thrill killing as I would define it. If they just leave the waterfowl lay I would lean towards thrill killing. If they utilize the waterfowl I would look at it as hunting out of season.

It appears this example may be related more to hunting than thrill killing. Again, I would have to talk with the players. Did they leave the birds where they were shot? Were they practicing their shooting skills?

I would need more information such as what are they doing with the waterfowl. In the summer and spring waterfowl are the most colorful and would make beautiful mounts so there might be a reason for the illegal harvests. If the people are merely going and killing waterfowl for the sake of killing them I would say yes to the thrill killing.

Number of Thrill-Kill Incidents. The survey also asked wardens how many thrill-kill incidents they had investigated over the past year, and how many thrill-kill incidents they had investigated over the last five years. Only three wardens reported that they investigated one or more thrill-kill incidents the past year (a total of five incidents), and only reported thrill-kill incidents over the last five years (a total of 37 incidents). Most wardens (n=10) reported investigating just one or two incidents over the last five years. One warden reported 10 incidents over the last five years, accounting for more than a quarter of all such incidents (but did not report any incident in the last year). By this measure, thrill-killing would appear to be relatively uncommon, with an average of fewer than eight events each year reported by the wardens who responded to the survey.

Definition of Thrill-Killing. A general definition of thrill-killing among wardens can be found in many of the responses to the scenarios presented above. For example, when asked about the out-of-season harvesting of several dozen waterfowl in the final scenario, one of the wardens stated

This one is hard for me to comment on without knowing more. What was the method of harvesting them? Was it something that they intentionally knew about and decided to do? If it was an opportunity that just presented itself and they took advantage of it at that time and it was a one time thing then I would say it is more of a case of kids being kids. However it this was planned and something they

26

sought out and thought would be a fun activity and are just killing to kill with no other reason for it then yes I would consider this thrill killing.

The factors important in determining thrill-killing in this example include the method used to harvest the animal, the frequency of the event, and the intentionality of the act. Similar criteria are mention in responses to the other scenarios:

Yes this is a type of thrill killing. First it is during the closed season. Second they are actually looking for the raccoons. Third they are using nontraditional ways of killing the raccoons which is not humane. In my opinion they are doing it for the thrill of chasing the raccoon down and then killing it with pretty much their own bare hands.

If he was just shooting the mink for the “thrill” and he left the mink in the field, then I would classify it as thrill killing. If there is no other purpose for him shooting the mink, other then doing it for the fun of it or the “thrill”, then I would say it would be thrill killing. All hunters probably get excited or enjoy hunting, but when the only purpose is to kill the animal for the thrill and not utilize the animal I would then classify it as “thrill killing.”

As indicated here, we received many thoughtful answers to the questions posed in the survey. We also asked more directly about the definition of thrill-killing that the wardens themselves use to determine which activities would fit this classification.

What is the definition of thrill-killing that you use when deciding that incidents such as those listed above are or are not thrill-killing?

Responses to this question ranged from a short sentence to more than a page. The definitions follow comments made about the earlier scenarios, and most often highlight the method of killing, utilization of the animal, and motivation of the persons involved:

Is there a benefit to the illegal harvest … meat, fur, selling of the killed species? If there is a benefit to the parties involved it is not a thrill kill. Killing and leaving the animal lay or showing off to friends and then dumping are thrill kills.

To me thrill killing occurs when there is an element of intent and thought process that goes into the activity. If it is just a spur of the moment thing when an opportunity presents itself I find that hard to consider thrill killing. Also if the activity is repeated this also weighs into my decision. Finally if the critter that is being harvested is just left for waste then I would also say that this is for nothing other than thrill killing, but if the critter is being utilized for food or income then it is hard to argue that this type of activity is taking place simply for thrill but maybe out of necessity (in their minds).

If there is no other purpose for a person to kill the animal other then doing it for the fun of it or the “thrill”, then I would say it would be thrill killing. If the ONLY reason they kill the animal is because of the joy they get out of killing an animal then I would say it’s thrill killing. It doesn’t matter how the animals is

27

killed (firearm, vehicle, baseball bat, etc.), it was still be considered thrill killing if they killed the animal ONLY for the fun of it.

Several wardens cautioned against the overuse of thrill killing to describe activities involving violations of various state regulations, and to the more general use of the term itself:

I think we also have to be careful not to interpret greed or opportunity as thrill killing. Not everyone who fills their freezer with multiple limits of illegal game should be considered a thrill killer. The bottom line here is that their motivation for killing was to fill their freezer, get even for “slow days” or to impress their friends. Now if they end up wasting these game animals, I would be more likely to consider them thrill-killers. If someone has even the smallest amount of respect for the animal they have killed, they will make every effort to make sure the animal does not go to waste.

The goal of these subjects is to utilize the deer that they kill. The thrill of the kill [is not] the primary motivator but the deer itself. In my thinking this doesn’t absolve them of a thrill-killing episode but further investigation would need to determine their primary stimulus for the event. We didn’t call it thrill killing in the past when events like this occurred with relative frequency.

Summary. Responses to the survey of DNR wardens presented us with a view of how thrill-killing is defined by professionals in the field, but with a somewhat less consistent application of those definitions when applied to individual cases. As shown above, the wardens apply consistent standards in their definition of thrill-killing: animals are killed for excitement and the kill is not utilized in appropriate ways, and these often are serial events involving more than one person. The classic example of this activity, in recent years, has been the clubbing of raccoons by groups of teenagers who keep tally of their kills and compete with other groups.

While these results would appear unambiguous, the scenarios that the wardens were responding to were drawn from cases that the DNR had identified as examples of thrill-killing, and few of the wardens thought that the first three scenarios would qualify as examples of thrill-killing. The final scenario, where a group of friends discover an opportunity to take as many ducks and geese as they can and proceed to shoot dozens of the waterfowl, was not taken from DNR records, but describes an event that meets four of the five criterion used to identify thrill-kill incidents (out of season, not utilizing the kill, in excess of daily limits, and a group activity) and was intended as a clear example of thrill-killing. Only a handful of wardens responding to the survey considered this an example of thrill-killing.

28

Recommendations

The purpose of this research is to provide a better understanding of thrill killing, but also identify educational and community responses to the problem. Teenagers and young adults comprise the identified age group in this study. One of the primary concerns identified in the interviews by this group was a lack of activities available in their communities allowing friends to come together and compete. Competition was described as a way to gain status in a group. Since those interviewed reported enjoying the outdoors and possessing the skills to hunt these should be considered important for constructing interventions.

Hunting is a tradition in Wisconsin, but the larger social environment continues to change very rapidly. Our communities are increasingly urbanized and disconnected from nature, more fatherless households exist where a hunting tradition is not passed on, emotional appeals of animal-rights activists have gained ground, and there are shrinking outdoor recreational opportunities (Stokes 1991). Cultural traditions adapt to changing societal conditions, and hunting is no different. Using information from our interviews, along with Jackson and Norton’s (1980) theory of stages of development for hunting participation, we present recommendations for educational and community responses to thrill killing:

• Establish consistent criteria for a standard definition of thrill killing.

• Collect demographic data about thrill kill participants for warden interviews and future reports on thrill kill incidents.

• Standardize the Hunter Safety curriculum and include thrill killing as required part of the curriculum.

• Promote the hunter mentor program that encourages long-term interaction between responsible hunters or DNR wardens and new hunters who may need more direction.

• Assess alternative intervention strategies to determine the most effective methods to prevent repeat occurrence of thrill kill behavior.

• Create community activities that encourage competition and connect youth and young adults with wildlife to enhance the legal hunting experience.

Establish consistent criteria for a thrill killing definition. The most important issue that arose during this study was the lack of a consistent definition of thrill killing. Without a consistent definition, it is difficult to determine the number of incidents, the extent of the problem, whether the number of incidents has increased in recent years, and the like. Bills that have been drafted for introduction to the Wisconsin state legislature have skirted the issue. For example, legislation drafted by Representative Andy Jorgensen reads, “No person may intentionally or recklessly kill or harm any wild animal by harassing or pursuing the wild animal with a motor boat or motor vehicle” (WRN Contributor, 2009; also Whisner, 2009). The legislation was drafted in response to several high-profile thrill killing incidents, but there is no effort to define “thrill killing”.

29

Without a precise definition of thrill killing, it is difficult to identify specific characteristics or needs of individuals involved in the activity. For example, those who may be involved in poaching may have different educational or community needs than a group involved in thrill killing activities. A consistent definition would clarify these different groups. Once the determination is made, the individual can directed to the appropriate intervention. Thrill killing is a social term, not a legal one. There are no specific laws that define thrill killing and no additional penalty enhancements for persons convicted of thrill killing activity, other than penalties assessed for wanton waste or malicious waste of natural resources (Section 23.095) that might occur in the same incident. These additional violations might be the additional criteria necessary to classify the incident as “thrill kill” by social definition. Collect demographic data in warden interviews and reports on thrill kill participants. We have had the opportunity to review DNR reports for some two-dozen thrill kill incidents. These reports include extensive information on the thrill kill incident, along with background information about participants. But much can be learned from other demographic information about the participants, including family background information, current education and employment status, and the like. This information can be analyzed to learn more about the family background, educational careers, and activities of thrill kill participants. Over time, this will become a valuable source of information for developing programs and interventions to better reach youth and young adults across the state.

Standardize and Expand the Hunter Safety curriculum. Most of the participants acknowledged that they had participated in hunter safety courses. These same respondents stated their behavior may have been impacted with a thorough understanding of the fines and other consequences. Although they knew that taking an animal in an unlawful manner could result in fines, they seemed surprised by the large amounts of money and the long-term revocation of applying for licenses. Hunter safety programs are a logical access point to start the discussion regarding thrill killing. Wisconsin, like other states, has recommended guidelines for Hunter Safety programs. The courses touch on such additional topics as wildlife identification and management, game care, first aid and survival, history of hunting and hunting or outdoor ethics and responsibilities. Additionally Conservation Wardens teach a session on rules and regulations and reporting violations.

All of the persons interviewed for this study had participated in Hunter Safety programs, were familiar with domestic pets and with wildlife, and had engaged in hunting with family and friends for many years. Yet they still participated in behavior that was labeled as thrill killing by the DNR. This suggests that additional emphasis should be given to thrill killing and responsible hunting in Hunter Safety programs – indeed, this is the only venue where we can be sure that a consistent message about responsible hunting is provided to those who will go into the field. We suggest that a very clear and direct discussion of thrill killing be included in Hunter Safety education in an effort to reduce the occurrence of thrill killing among beginning hunters.

Promote the Hunter Mentor and Learn to Hunt programs. Research has shown that the beginning hunter “apparently wants to pull the trigger and test out the capability of his weapon” (Jackson and Norton 1980:18). One respondent acknowledged that his thrill killing activities emerged

30

simply from having a gun and wanting to use it. Developing community activities that meet this need could be a natural outgrowth of the Hunter Safety course. Shooting competitions using targets or clay pigeons overseen by hunting instructors gives youngsters an opportunity to “get shooting”. Legislation was recently enacted that addresses these issues by creating a mentored hunting program. This program allows persons age 10 and up to obtain a hunting license without having completed hunter safety, provided that they hunt with a mentor. Additionally, a relatively new program called “Learn to Hunt” provides novice hunters with approximately 4 hours of classroom training for a specific species, such as turkeys or waterfowl and then goes on an actual hunt for that species with an experienced mentor. The classroom session includes a review of safe gun handling, history and management of that particular species in Wisconsin, and specific techniques used for that species.

Assist with high school age intervention strategies. In some situations, it may appear that an individual has a more active role in thrill-killing activities. In this situation, it may warrant an evaluation process to determine the best intervention: 1) being paired with a responsible hunter, 2) private training with a DNR agent or 3) involvement in a group. Responsible hunters, often outraged by thrill-killing activities, may be a readily available volunteer pool. Some of those interviewed said that they knew of others involved in this activity. Creating a collaborative relationship between previous offenders and DNR wardens to investigate future thrill kill incidents may be beneficial.

Create community activities that encourage competition and enhance legal hunting experiences while alleviating boredom. The interviews identified individuals who had competitions for the number or size of animals taken during their thrill killing activities. Jackson and Norton (1980) refer to this phase as the “Limiting-Out Stage” where the focus is meeting the maximum number of animals allowed or filling the tag. Once again competitions or group activities that allow the young hunter to measure his or her skill level in relation to others could be created. Target competitions, hunting dog trials, or other associated skills related to hunting could be created to allow individuals to come together with friends and compete in more normative ways. Many of those interviewed emphasized that they enjoyed outdoor activities, but their communities provided no organized activities for this population of young people. A diversity of activities could reconnect youth with nature. Those interviewed who no longer hunt found other ways to meet this need, including videotaping wildlife or helping others train bird dogs. These activities could be included in organized community activities. Several of the subjects interviewed said they participated in thrill kill events because they were bored or there wasn’t anything else to do. Engaging in some of the activities listed, while enhancing the hunting experience, would also allow less time to “get bored.”

By undertaking these recommendations, the goal is to create encourage youth to develop an image that is positive in their local communities, that identifies them as a skillful hunter, one who also enjoys wildlife in other venues, is a practicing conservationist, and teaches others. To paraphrase a statement by Jackson and Norton (1980: 20), as we learn more about the motivations and behaviors associated with thrill killing, we will be in a better position to preserve and improve hunting through expanded hunter education and better management and enforcement policies.

31

Conclusions

In my opinion the same analysis that can be applied to this can be applied to other socially unacceptable actions. Why do people do them? It is understanding the psychology of the individual during the time period leading up to the actual act. It is finding the underlying issues that brought them to that point for the truly clinical individuals. I think people act out in ways that are socially unacceptable because of any number of traumatic events that happen in their lives.

DNR Warden

Definitions of Thrill Killing. Not all of the cases identified for this study meet all the elements of what we consider to construe thrill killing. Only four of the cases identified by the DNR and two of the interviews involved the use of means other than legal firearm or bow (most involved use of legal firearms) and not all of the cases were group activities involving two or more subjects acting together. The definition of thrill killing is further problematic given the many different regulations for hunting: there are no bag limits for certain species that are labeled as nuisance animals, and there are no seasonal restrictions on the hunting of nuisance animals such as blackbirds. Individuals may kill animals on private land that are damaging property, and the control of animal populations may use poisons and other means to kill nuisance animals. In some areas of the state, there are no bag limits for deer, as unlimited hunting in SW counties to deal with CWD in the deer herd. And it appears that incidents involving adults are most likely to be reported as poaching, even when they involve dozens of animals taken out of season for no reason other than bragging rights, as in the recent case reported in Baraboo (DNR Busts Massive Deer Poaching Operation, 2010), while cases involving adolescents and young adults may be labeled as thrill killing.

Public attention has been directed to thrill killing because of a limited number of high-profile cases, such as those involving snowmobilers who ran over dear and waterfowl. (These cases are not included in the DNR data or in the interviews summarized here because the cases are still in court.) These cases would appear to be unambiguous examples of thrill killing, and led to the introduction of a bill in the Wisconsin State Legislature to make it a crime to kill wild animals with a snowmobile. This bill does not provide a definition of thrill killing, however, and it is limited in scope. During the period of our study, two incidents reported in area newspapers included a young man who killed three of his girlfriends cats (suffocating them in a fold-up couch) and an unknown person who shot livestock on farms in Brown County. Neither of these incidents would be reported to the DNR because they occurred within incorporated areas, and neither were reported as incidents of thrill killing. Clearly, a working definition of thrill killing must include the intentional killing not just of wild animals, but of domestic animals as well, and not just in rural areas but also in towns and cities. The investigation of such cases would require cooperation of authorities across these jurisdictions, as the DNR has limited jurisdiction over the wild animal population, and other groups of animals would be dealt with by other forms of law

32

enforcement. At present, the reporting of and prosecution of thrill killing cases appears to weigh heavily on rural youth.

Motivations and Causes of Thrill Killing. As we noted in the beginning sections of this report, while there has been substantial media attention on sensational thrill killing incidents, there is little research on the topic, and discussions of the activity have most often referenced research about animal abuse more generally. Given the problems with defining thrill killing (discussed above), this is not likely to change in the near future. While some studies point to a connection between animal abuse and later criminal behavior (the progression hypothesis), problems of sampling and validity make these results less than definitive. In fact, many studies suggest that the abuse of animals is not unusual and often occurs in childhood; in our surveys, we too discovered that many respondents in the control group reported incidents of harming animals when they were younger, most often being repelled by the act, and not participating in similar activities when they were older (the stage or developmental hypothesis).

Most of the persons identified as participants in thrill killing that we interviewed were clear in stating that they did not intentionally harm animals, and that they had not participated in thrill killing – drawing a clear distinction between hunting activity and thrill killing. Their statements reflect a common reaction to thrill killing incidents among hunters more generally – that these events reflect badly upon their community, and that real hunters would never participate in such activities.

Other explanations have been offered for thrill killing. The 2009 Annual Report of the Nevada Department of Wildlife included the following note from Robert W. Buonamici, the Chief Game Warden:

Along with refocusing our attention on value, this economic turmoil has resulted in other, not-so healthy trends in our state. We are expending more time on wildlife crime investigation, and we believe there is a link to the economic and societal forces that swirl around us. Some would have you believe that people who are hungry are killing animals illegally for food, but our investigations clearly show that this just is not the case. The fact is that the big game animals we find poached are most often left to rot. Their antlers are often removed, but the majority of meat is abandoned to waste. These are not the actions of someone hunting to live, but rather, someone killing animals for fun, ego or profit. I offer an alternative explanation: When people are both frustrated and have more free time—such as from layoffs—they sometimes turn to unhealthy ways to deal with stress, such as shooting game illegally. Whatever the reasons, we take each and every wildlife crime seriously. We want to know why these trends happen, but our end goal is to prevent and prosecute these crimes.

Our survey of Wisconsin DNR Wardens produced many thoughtful comments about recent episodes of thrill killing. One of the more detailed comments argued forcefully for what we have identified as the stage or developmental approach concerning animal treatment. We include those comments as the conclusion to this report:

33

I believe that you have to look into the psychology of the individual at that period in their live to understand why they chose to harvest an animal in the manner that they do. Killing an opossum with a golf club for example. Kids are almost exclusively the age group for this type of activity in my experience. In my experience kids don’t continue to do this for a long period of time and it doesn’t lead into other illegal activities. Kids have done this for years. In my experience it is a one time situation with others or they have been in trouble prior to the act and will be in trouble after the act. This is one of a list of illegal activities that they will be involved in for a short time in their lives or they are troubled in other ways and this is a product of the bigger picture of a poor home environment (value system) for example. Children act out in various ways but I have never encountered a child that purely went out for the rush of killing an animal in a way that we consider deviant. Many teenagers try drugs, alcohol, have risky sex, steal a hub cap, drive dangerously fast, jump a snowmobile off a hill, overbag on ducks to get away with it, or other things they are not proud of and are thankful they survived when they are older. The pure act of killing animals in a deviant way because there it clinical need to do it is not thrill killing but a by-product of a psychological disorder. No different than an alcoholic that will drink themselves to death at age 40 and can’t kick the bottle. It fills the need like any other addiction. I have never met anyone like this but I’m sure there are a very few people that repeatedly kill animals in a deviant fashion to fill a need in a way that they have created in their mind or that is a product of another event in their life as a young person. It is disturbing but the act of killing the animal in a deviant fashion is the just that, the act and not cause.

34

References

__________. 2009. Ted Williams tears into prairie dog poisoning, “thrill kill” slobs. The Wilderness Sportsman (November 23, 2009). (http://www.wilderness-sportsman.com/wsblog/2009/11/23/ted-williams-tears-into- prairie-dog-poisoning)

Animal Studies Group. 2006. Killing Animals. University of Illinois Press.

Ascione, F.R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoös 6, 226-247.

Ascione, F.R., ed. (2008). International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Ascione, F.R., Teresa Thompson, and Tracy Black. (1997). Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty dimensions and motivations. Anthrozoös 10(4), 170-177).

Benson, Delwin E. and Shirley White The Status of Advanced Hunter Education Programs in North America Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 4, Changes and Challenges in the Wildlife Profession.

Bickerstaff, G.J. (2003). An exploration of animal abuse and animal abusers. Dissertation submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York.

Dadds, M. R., Whiting, C., Bunn, P., Fraser, J.A., Charlson, J.H., &Pirola-Merlo, A. (2004). Measurement of Cruelty in Children: The Cruelty to Animals Inventory. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.321-334.

DNR Busts Massive Deer Poaching Operation, 4 Sauk County Men Face Charges. (March 9, 2005). (http://www.channel3000.com/news/4267400/detail.html)

Doherty, D., & Hornosty, J. (2007). Exploring the Links: Firearms, Family Violence, and Animal Abuse in Rural Communities. Fredericton, New Brunswick: University of New Brunswick.

Faver, C.A. & Strand, E.B. (2004). Domestic violence and animal cruelty: The web of abuse. In F. Danis & L.L.Lockhart, eds.: Breaking the Silence in Social Work Education: Domestic Violence Modules for Foundation Courses (pp. 93-98). Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Fitzgerald, A. (2005). Animal Abuse and Family Violence: Researching the Interrelationships of Abusive Power. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Flynn, Clifton P. (2000). Why family professionals can no longer ignore violence toward animals. Family Relations, Vol. 49. No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 87-95.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=wildsocibull

35

Jackson, R. and R. Norton. 1980. “Phases”: The Personal Evolution of the Sport Hunter. Wisconsin Sportsman, 9 (November/December): 17-20

Jones, M. (2008). Thrill killers alarm wardens: Suspects say boredom drives them to commit criminal acts against wildlife. Journal Sentinel accessed on line http: //www.printthis. clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Thrill+killers+alaram+warden…

Journal Interactive. (2008). Men Charged in thrill killing: They’re accused of shooting hundreds of animals. JS Online accessed on line March 9, 2009 at http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29590724.html.

Kellert, S.R. & Felhous, A.R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toard animals among criminals and non- criminals. Human Relations, 38, 1113-1129.

Larson, E. 2008. An American Tragedy: Retelling the Leopold-Loeb Story in Popular Culture. American Journal of Legal History, 50, 2, 119-156. Linzey, A., ed. (2009). The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence. Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK: Sussex Academic Press. Mickelberg, K.L. and J. Plautz. 2006. Wisconsin Waterfowl law Enforcement Report, 2005- 2006. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of law Enforcement. (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/enforcement/docs/Warden_Waterfowl_Report.pdf) Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2008. 2008 Annual Report. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Division of Law Enforcement. (http://www.ndow.org/law/an_report/08_le_report.pdf)

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2009. 2009 Annual Report. Nevada Department of Wildlief, Division of Law Enforcement. (http://www.ndow.org/law/an_report/09_le_report.pdf)

Patterson-Kane, E. & Piper, H. (2009). Animal abuse as a sentinel for human violence: A critique. Journal of Social Issues, 65 (3): 589-614.

Riepenhoff, B. (2005). ‘Thrill killing’ on the rise: DNR completes study of young game violators. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (October 26, 2005). http://www.jsonline.com/outdoors/oct05/363167.asp?format=print.

Risley-Curtiss, C. (2010). “Animal Abuse and Family Violence: Connections and Prevention.” The Groves Conference June 15-21, 2010. Seattle, Washington.

Simms, R. 2010. The Fifth Stage of My Hunting Life: A Surprising Revelation. The Chattanoogan.com (January 18, 2010). (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_167012.asp)

Simmons, I.G. (2006). Normative behavior. In Haen, Nora and Richard Wilk (Eds.) The Environment in Anthropology: A Reader in Ecology, Culture, and Sustainable Living. New York: New York University Press. Pp. 53-72.

36

Stokes, B. 1991. The Guns of Autumn – Hunter Fights for Survival in World Increasingly Hostile to His Age-Old Sport. Chicago Tribune (October 13, 1991). (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-10-13/features/9104020743_1_hunters-gun- season-deer)

Tallichet, S.E. & Hensley, C. (2005) Rural and urban differences in the commission of animal cruelty. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49 (6), 711-26.

Whisner, R. 2009. “Thrill kill bill” response to duck, deer slayings.” Daily Union Online (July 23, 2009). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Fish & Wildlife Annual Report, 2005-2006. (Madison, Wisconsin, PUB-CE-259 2007) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Wisconsin’s Fish &Wildlife Annual Report, 2002-2003. (Madison, Wisconsin, PUB-CE-259-2004)

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Monthly Conservation Warden Report.

(http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/enforcement/reports/2010/)

WRN Contributor. 2009. Thrill Kill bill closes loophole in animal cruelty law. Wisconsin Radio Network (July 16, 2009). (http://www.wrn.com/2009/07/thrill-kill-bill-closes-loophole-in-animal-cruelty-law)

37

Appendix One: Animal Treatment Survey

ANIMAL TREATMENT SURVEY

This study is supported by a grant from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The purpose of the study is to identify the extent of thrill killing in Wisconsin and socio‐cultural factors that promote this behavior. The findings will be used to develop prevention measures to reduce this activity.

1. Have you ever hurt an animal on purpose?

Never Hardly ever A few times Several times Frequently 2. How many times have you hurt an animal on purpose? Never Once or twice Three to six times More than six times 3. a.) What types of animals have you hurt in the past? (mark as many boxes as needed) None Wild animals How many _____________ Stray animals How many_____________ Farm animals How many _____________ Pet animals How many _____________ b.) Which of these animals have you been cruel to? None Worms or insects Fish, lizards, frogs etc. Birds or mammals 4. How long did you do this for (on and off)? Never For about 1 month For about 6 months Longer than 6 months

38

5. When was the last time you hurt an animal on purpose? I have never hurt an animal More than a year ago Less than 1 year ago but more than 6 months ago In the last 6 months (half a year) 6. Do you treat animals cruelly in front of others or by yourself? I have never hurt an animal In front of others Alone 7. a.) If you hurt an animal with others, are they adults or friends? I have never hurt an animal Adults who were also hurting the animal Friends who join in With friends who don’t join in b.) If you hurt an animal by yourself, do you try to hide what you have done? I have never hurt an animal No, I don’t try to hide it Sometimes, I try to hide it, not always Yes, I do try to hide it 8. If you purposely hurt an animal, do you feel very sorry for it and feel sad that you hurt it? I have never been cruel to an animal Yes, I feel very sad for the animal Sometimes I feel bad, not always No, I do not feel bad for the animal 9. How do you feel about people hurting animals? Very sad and upset Don’t know They deserve it It is fun

39

ANSWER THIS LAST QUESTION IF YOU HAVE HURT AN ANIMAL ON PURPOSE. 10. Can you tell us what happened when you hurt an animal on purpose or what you usually do if you hurt animals often?__________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

YOUR BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Where did you live when you were growing up? City Town Suburb Country Farm 2. Where do you live now? City Town Suburb Country Farm 3. Did you have pets when you were younger? No Yes If yes, what types of animals? ___________________________________________________ 4. Do you have pets now? No Yes If yes, what types of animals? ___________________________________________________

40

5. Were you responsible for the care of animals when you were younger?? No Yes If yes, did you enjoy it? ________________________________________________________ 6. Did anyone ever teach you anything about animals? No Yes If yes, who was this? __________________________________________________________ What did they teach you? ______________________________________________________ 7. Are you employed? No Yes If yes: Full‐time Part‐time Seasonal What is your occupation? ___________________________________________________ 8. What do you usually do in your spare time? _____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 9. What is your age? _________________________________________________________ 10. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? Some high school High school Some college Technical school College Graduate school

41

42

Appendix Two: Interview Schedule for Thrill Kill Participants

43

DNR ANIMAL TREATMENT STUDY (Open ended questions conducted in personal interview)

1) You have been contacted for this interview because of your involvement with the DNR. They have identified you as a participant in a “thrill kill activity”. What was your involvement in the activity?

a) How did you come up with participating in this activity? How often do you participate? b) What do you usually do in your spare time? School? Hobbies? Friends? Pets?

c) Where did you grow up? Were you around animals?

d) How did you know what to do?

e) Were there certain animals? Which ones?

f) If you did this before, was it the same animal? Did the animals change? Why?

g) Why did you do it?

h) What stopped it?

2) Did you ever do this before? Did anything influence your actions? Drugs? Alcohol? Friends?

a) Anything close to it? (Prompts: Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, Video Games)

b) Is this different from hunting, trapping, fishing, video games? How?

c) Who introduced you to this activity or activities?

3) If you hunt, trap, fish, legally, do you use the animals for eating or something else? a) Who taught you to hunt, trap, fish? What was that experience like? b) Do these people hunt, fish, trap with you now? Why or why not?

c) What did these people think about your involvement in the thrill kill activity?

d) How did they explain your involvement to others?

4) Would anything have prevented you from doing this? What?

a) If you had not been stopped, do you think you would still be doing it? Why?

44

b) What was the consequence for your behavior? Fine? Jail? Other?

c) Who paid the fine? Did you have a lawyer? Who paid for it?

d) If you hunt, fish, trap, were those privileges revoked?

e) Do you miss this activity? Why or Why not? Any special times?

45

Appendix Three: Survey of Wisconsin DNR Wardens

46

DNR Warden Survey

We have been asked to study thrill‐killing in Wisconsin by the Department of Natural Resources. To help us better understand how specific cases of thrill‐killing are identified, we would like to ask you to complete this short survey. For each of the scenarios listed below, please indicate whether the activity described would be considered to be a case of thrill‐killing. 1. A young man has been shooting mink on public lands so that he can sell the pelts to purchase a new gun. He has harvested more than 25 pelts out of season. Is this an example of thrill‐killing? Why or why not? 2. Several friends have been hunting for several days without seeing any deer. On the way back to their hotel they see a large buck running toward the road and they speed up to kill it with their truck. They call the police so that they can take the 12 point deer. Is this an example of thrill‐killing? Why or why not? 3. A group of friends decide to go “road hunting.” They each have an assigned role: one drives, one looks for deer, and another is the shooter. After killing the deer, they tag it and bring it home to be butchered. Is this an example of thrill‐killing? Why or why not? 4. Some friends are driving around looking for something to do after school. They swerve to hit a group of turkeys by the side of the road, killing one. Over the next few weeks, they kill several more. Is this an example of thrill‐killing? Why or why not? 5. A group of teenagers has gone critter hunting several times during the spring, shining raccoons with a spotlight. When they located the raccoons, they beat them a bat or golf club and kill them. Is this an example of thrill‐killing? Why or why not? 6. During the summer a group of friends discover an isolated wetlands with many groups of waterfowl. Over the course of the afternoon they are able to harvest several dozen ducks as well as several dozen geese. Is this an example of thrill‐killing? Why or why not? 7. How many thrill‐kill incidents have you had over the last year? 8. How many thrill‐kill incidents would you estimate that you have had over the last 5 years? 9. What is the definition of thrill‐killing that you use when deciding that incidents such as those listed above are or are not thrill‐killing?

Documents

Thrill Killing in Wisconsin