Ohio data confirms hunting/child abuse link STRONGER THAN LINK TO RURAL POVERTY
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1994:
TOLEDO, Ohio––The number of hunters in a county more accurately predicts the
level of child abuse than either population density or median income, according to a new
study of Ohio state statistics––and the findings apply to all four standard categories of abuse,
including physical violence, neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment.
Overall, Ohio counties with more than the median number of hunters per 100,000
residents have 51% more reported child abuse, including 15% more physical violence, 82%
more neglect, 33% more sexual abuse, and 14% more emotional maltreatment.
Rural location and poverty are the two traditional predictors of child abuse––but by
contrast, Ohio counties of less than the medi-
an population density have only 46% more
reported child abuse than the state norm.
Counties of less than median per capita
income have just 25% more reported child
abuse than the norm, not even half as much as
the heavy hunting counties. On a statewide
basis, hunting license sales per 100,000 resi-
dents is from a fourth to a third more closely
predictive of both neglect and sexual abuse
than either low population density or low
median income.
The Ohio data, analyzed by A N I-
MAL PEOPLE, using standard statistical
methods, supports the findings of a similar
study of New York state hunting and crime
rates, published by ANIMAL PEOPLE i n
March 1994. The New York study found a
strong association between hunting and child
molesting, also independent of the association
with population density, but did not consider
the association with poverty because adequate
per capita income data was unavailable. In
New York, in 21 of 22 direct comparisons
between counties of almost identical popula-
tion density, the county with the most hunters
also had the most child molesters. Twenty-
eight of the 32 counties with rates of child
molestation above the state median also had
more than the median rate of hunting.
The Ohio and New York data cannot
be directly compared because of major differ-
ences in record-keeping: Ohio tracks verified
incidents involving children, while New
York tracks prosecutions, and the two states
differently categorize many specific offenses.
Cultural differences also require the use of
different measuring tools. While 47 of the 62
counties in New York have fewer than 400
residents per square mile, they still vary
enough in population density that sub-group-
ings at particular plateau densities are easily
extracted for comparative purposes. In Ohio,
77 of 88 counties have fewer than 400 resi-
dents per square mile, and the differences in
population density are often so slight that it is
difficult to tell where sub-groupings should
begin or end. Population plateaus, if there
are any, are not obvious. In consequence,
the distribution of both hunting rates and rates
of child abuse appear superficially to be
almost random.
The Amish factor
Indeed, in Ohio the association of
hunting with sexual abuse in particular
appears to weaken relative to population den-
sity when the comparison is based on aver-
ages rather than medians––but the raw aver-
ages are misleading because of the unusually
low rates of child abuse in several counties
whose relatively high rates of hunting license
sales are offset by the presence of large tradi-
tional Mennonite and Hutterite religious com-
munities. Members of these communities are
known for having large extended families,
with close family bonds and close adherance
to religious beliefs that would inhibit both
child abuse and the reporting of abuse to out-
side authorities. Of the five counties with the
most Mennonites and Hutterites––Holmes,
Tuscarawas, Wayne, Geauga, and
Trumbull––only Tuscarawas even reaches the
median level in reported incidents of child
abuse, no others are remotely close, and only
Wayne reaches the median level in sexual
abuse. Of the eleven counties with the most
hunters per capita, two––Holmes and
Gallia––have such a visibly strong Mennonite
and Hutterite presence that they also have the
lowest overall rates of child abuse, and most
pronouncedly, sexual abuse, of any counties
among the 44 with the most hunting participa-
tion. Subtracting the heavily Mennonite and
Hutterite counties from the averages produces
approximately the same stratification as
appears in the medians.
However, it is not necessary to sub-
tract the counties with a noteworthy
Mennonite and Hutterite presence to achieve
meaningful comparisons. Simply dividing the
88 Ohio counties into eight groups of 11 each
demonstrates that the superficial appearance
of randomness actually conceals important
patterns, which emerge when the counties are
grouped in order of hunter density, in order
of population density, and in order of per
capita income. In each order, rates of both
hunting participation and child abuse rise as
population density and per capita income
decline.
The relative importance of hunting,
population density, and per capita income in
predicting child abuse emerges from compar-
ing medians and averages. The difference
between the median or average of counties
above the Ohio norms and below the Ohio
norms is called the differential. The higher
the differential, the greater the predictive
value of the statistic. ANIMAL PEOPLE
used three different means of comparison:
medians of counties above the state medians
were measured against the medians of coun-
ties falling below the state medians; averages
of counties above the state medians were
measured against the averages of counties
below the state medians; and averages of
counties above the state average were stacked
up against the averages of counties falling
below the state averages.
Using the averages/averages com-
parison, hunting appeared to be the best pre-
dictor of all types of child abuse except sexu-
al abuse. This is the least accurate form of
comparison, however, since averages tend to
homogenize data, incorporating the distor-
tions produced by the Mennonite and
Hutterite counties on the one hand and those
produced by the relatively few heavily urban-
ized counties on the other.
Comparing the averages of counties
above and below the state median likewise
incorporates distortion, but the distortion is
reduced somewhat because in this compari-
son there are an equal number of counties on
either side of the baseline. In the
averages/medians comparison, low popula-
tion density seems to be the best predictor for
child abuse in general, and also, by a much
smaller margin over hunting, for predicting
physical abuse and sexual abuse. However,
hunting remains the best predictor of neglect,
and becomes a better predictor of emotional
maltreatment.
The most accurate comparison min-
imizes distortion by comparing medians to
medians. In this comparison the differentials
show hunting as the strongest predictor of all
child abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse. Low
population density appears to be a very slight-
ly stronger predictor of physical abuse, and a
better predictor of emotional malreatment.
Hunting vs. poverty
The clincher comes in examining
which combinations of hunting, income, and
population density produce the strongest
associations with child abuse. One hypothesis
trumpeted by hunters in response to the New
York study is that the association of hunting
with child abuse is merely an artifact of
poverty and rural background. In other
words, both hunting and child abuse might
be related to low income living at a low popu-
lation density, but they might have no intrin-
sic relationship to one another.
If this is the case, the association of
hunting with child abuse should disappear in
counties with high levels of hunting but also
above median income per capita and popula-
tion density. The New York data did in fact
demonstrate that the association between
hunting and sexual abuse of children held up,
even at above median and above average pop-
ulation densities. The Ohio data even more
emphatically the establishes the association,
by weighing the influence of income as well
as that of population density. Of the seven
Ohio counties with both above-median hunt-
ing participation and above-median per capita
income, only the heavily Mennonite county
of Geauga is not significantly above the state
median and average in total child abuse and
every subclassification of child abuse. The
strongest associations are with emotional
maltreatment and sexual abuse.
By contrast, the 12 Ohio counties
with both below-average per capita income
and below-average hunting participation are
only slightly above the Ohio median in most
categories of child abuse, and are actually
below the Ohio average in all categories but
sexual abuse.
Ohio counties with both above aver-
age hunting and above average per capita
income have up to 34% more physical abuse,
12% more neglect, 40% more sexual abuse,
and 70% more emotional maltreatment of
children than counties with below average
hunting and below average per capita income.
Dominionism
One possible explanation for the
association of hunting with child abuse is that
the process of hunting, or learning to hunt,
may somehow produce abusive personalities.
In this event, assuming accurate data collec-
tion, the rates of any crimes associated with
hunting should go up or down parallel to the
rate of hunting itself. While this tendency
appears to some extent in both the New York
and Ohio data, rates of hunting participation
rise at a faster rate in both states than rates of
child abuse. This is more suggestive of the
possibility that crimes against children are
more frequent in areas with high hunting rates
because of a psychological trait called domin-
ionism. Yale researcher and hunting apolo-
gist Stephen J. Kellert in his 1980 study
American Attitudes Toward and Knowledge
of Animals defined the dominionistic person-
ality as one whose “primary satisfactions
[are] derived from mastery and control over
animals” ––a definition he denied writing
when approached by media for comment on
the New York study.
Most people have some dominionis-
tic feelings, but through interviewing 3,107
randomly selected Americans, Kellert found
that on a scale of 18, members of humane
groups rated 0.9 for dominionism; anti-
hunters rated 1.2; the general public 2.0; and
hunters from 3.3 to 4.1, with the highest
score belonging to trophy hunters. Thus
hunters are on average twice as dominionistic
as the average American. While the hunting
culture may encourage the development and
expression of dominionism, dominionistic
individuals apparently also feel a more com-
pelling urge to hunt than those who hunt pri-
marily for other reasons, such as to spend
time with buddies and to get outdoors.
As the New York study preface
explained, “One effect of the decline in hunt-
ing and trapping participation (since 1980, as
the U.S. hunting population has dropped from
more than 20 million to circa 14 million) may
have been to lower the number of hunters and
trappers with other motivations, while
increasing the percentage who are driven by
dominionism among the remainder.”
According to the dominionism
hypothesis, at high rates of hunting participa-
tion, the majority of hunters may be involved
mainly for social reasons. As the rate of
hunting participation drops, and hunting
becomes less socially acceptable, those
involved for social reasons are the first to quit,
while dominionistic hunters are likely to hunt
the most and longest.
Plateau of abuse
If dominionism is the common link
between hunting and child abuse, one might
expect to find a plateau level of abuse reflec-
tive of the percentage of dominionistic men in
the hunting population, existing independent
of rates of overall hunting participation in the
counties with the most hunters per capita,
where large numbers of hunters may still be
involved mainly for social reasons. As hunt-
ing rates drop, and hunting becomes less
socially acceptable, the level of child abuse
might remain close to the plateau, reflecting
the continued activity of dominionists, even
as non-dominionistic hunters put aside their
weapons. Child abuse would decrease only as
dominionism decreases, which might occur in
part because of decrease in the amount of
hunter training in a given county, in part
because of a general rejection of the values of
hunting, and partly too because dominionistic
hunters might be motivated to leave counties
where increasing amounts of land are posted
off limits. An exodus of dominionistic
hunters into counties whose cultures welcome
hunting could gradually concentrate both high
levels of hunting and high levels of child
abuse into the same counties––as may already
be happening.
ANIMAL PEOPLE is now at work
on analyses of the relationship between hunt-
ing and child abuse statistics in several other
states. A still more definitive study would
check the identities of convicted child abusers
against recent rosters of licensed hunters, but
since the identities of hunters are kept confi-
dential, this study could only be done through
the cooperation of fish and wildlife depart-
ments with the justice departments of the
same states––an unlikely prospect given that
most fish and wildlife departments are funded
largely by hunting license sales and are direct-
ed by hunting advocates.
––Merritt Clifton
(with archival research by June Miller)
Ohio counties by hunters, population, and income
Counties by Pop. per %- Income Hunters All child Phys. Neglect Sex Emot.
# of hunters sq. mile 18 per capita 100,000 abuse abuse abuse maltr.
1st 11 80 27.6 $ 9,922 20,805 1,072 325 545 178 37
2nd 11 92 28.7 $10,378 16,279 1,199 416 547 257 36
TOP 25% 86 28.2 $10,150 18,542 1,136 371 546 218
37
3rd 11 81 26.1 $10,782 13,273 1,345 393 534 237 74
4th 11 121 26.9 $11,703 11,190 907 294 369 204 37
SECOND 25% 101 26.5 $11,243 12,232 1,126 344 452 221
56
5th 11 100 28.6 $12,599 10,353 867 312 319 194 31
6th 11 246 27.0 $12,384 8,893 930 317 362 214 30
THIRD 25% 173 27.8 $12,492 9,623 899 325 341 204
33
7th 11 205 26.9 $13,196 7,298 761 277 258 191 32
8th 11 1,172 25.4 $14,002 4,225 708 278 279 137 15
BOTTOM 25% 678 26.2 $13,599 5,486 719 271 264 160
23
Counties by Pop. per %- Income Hunters All child Phys. Neglect Sex Emot.
population sq. mile 18 per capita 100,000 abuse abuse abuse maltr.
1st 11 44 28.6 $ 9,480 17,102 1,340 376 551 210 60
2nd 11 68 27.9 $10,998 12,547 936 336 358 214 27
First 25% 56 28.3 $10,239 14,824 1,138 356 405 212
44
3rd 11 82 28.6 $11,065 14,704 1,290 425 553 258 48
4th 11 99 27.2 $11,690 12,976 1,108 360 460 243 44
Second 25% 91 27.9 $11,378 13,840 1,199 393 507 251
46
5th 11 127 26.4 $10,940 13,621 981 335 444 210 36
6th 11 180 26.6 $13,371 10,530 817 285 304 197 26
Third 25% 154 26.5 $12,156 12,076 899 310 374 204
31
7th 11 301 26.6 $13,365 7,686 738 275 261 171 30
8th 11 1,290 25.4 $14,061 4,353 804 294 342 146 24
Fourth 25% 796 26.0 $13,713 6,020 771 285 302 159
27
Counties by Pop. per %- Income Hunters All child Phys. Neglect Sex Emot.
per capita $ sq. mile 18 per capita 100,000 abuse abuse abuse maltr.
1st 11 58 28.6 $ 8,995 17,820 1,221 352 588 218 45
2nd 11 95 26.9 $9,946 15,138 1,030 325 532 199 – Poorest 25%
77 278 $9,471 16,479 1,126 339 560 209 39
3rd 11 107 26.6 $10,841 13,650 1,066 342 437 227 50
4th 11 147 27.3 $11,490 12,257 1,033 328 388 192 35
2nd 25% 127 27.0 $11,166 12,954 1,050 335 412 210
43
5th 11 140 27.8 $11,985 9,580 1,029 357 382 239 42
6th 11 251 27.1 $12,631 9,342 936 325 337 223 40
Third 25% 196 27.5 $12,308 9,461 983 339 360 231
41
7th 11 334 26.8 $13,767 8,315 833 313 299 191 22
8th 11 1,058 26.0 $15,311 6,083 833 264 308 135 22
Hunting predicts child abuse
Counties above median in both $ per capita and resident hunting license sales
(Italicized counties are also above average in both $ per capita and hunting license sales.)
Counties by Pop. per %- Income Hunters All child Phys. Neglect Sex Emot.
# of hunters sq. mile 18 per capita 100,000 abuse abuse abuse maltr.
Fairfield 205 27.0 $13,609 17,904 1,031 421 328 248 36
Williams 88 28.5 $12,473 14,709 1,380 511 528 285 54
Clinton 86 27.6 $11,736 12,322 1,840 537 834 294 180
Logan 92 27.6 $11,741 11,978 1,229 419 481 283 45
Defiance 95 28.5 $12,545 11,009 1,215 385 456 346 28
Geauga 199 28.7 $17,587 10,985 311 124 53 82 53
Licking 187 26.3 $12,864 10,737 1,055 365 415 247 28
Median 95 27.6 $12,545 13,516 1,215 419 456 283
53
Above state -7% 3% 7% 27% 30% 30% 19% 43%
77%
Average 136 27.7 $13,222 12,806 1,152 395 442 255
61
Above state -52% 2% 4% 12% 19% 21% 10% 72%
65%
Counties above average in both $ per capita and resident hunting license sales
Median 90 27.7 $12,107 13,516 1,305 466 505 284
50
Above state -12 3% 4% 27% 40% 45% 32% 43%
67%
Average 118 27.6 $12,390 14,228 1,370 472 543 278
79
Above state -55 2% 4% 24% 70% 68% 71% 72%
47%
Counties below average in both $ per capita and resident hunting license sales
(Italicized counties are also below median in both $ per capita and hunting license sales.)
Counties by Pop. per %- Income Hunters All child Phys. Neglect Sex Emot.
# of hunters sq. mile 18 per capita 100,000 abuse abuse abuse maltr.
Jefferson 196 23.6 $11,001 11,401 800 190 480 106 23
Carroll 68 27.6 $10,693 11,390 1,237 385 444 348 67
Noble 28 28.4 $ 9,028 11,336 1,023 299 494 194 35
Hocking 60 26.7 $10,265 10,935 1,342 446 581 208 104
Coshocton 65 27.6 $10,685 10,915 1,049 374 374 231 40
Mercer 86 30.9 $11,673 10,608 651 269 267 100 15
Seneca 108 28.4 $11,226 10,517 973 244 375 218 39
Columbiana 203 26.8 $10,567 9,655 688 226 262 202 19
Brown 71 28.6 $10,498 8,840 780 240 283 209 20
Marion 160 26.8 $11,547 8,706 1,392 494 572 291 28
Crawford 119 26.6 $11,401 8,519 1,073 329 448 256 38
Mahoning 635 24.6 $11,668 4,516 542 306 199 110 9
Median 97 27.0 $10,847 10,563 998 308 410 209
32
Above state -5% – -8% -1% 7% -4% 7% 6% 7%
Average 150 27.2 $10,854 9,778 963 317 398 206
36
Above state -42% – -8% -15% -1% -3% -1% 3% -2%
Counties below both median & average in $/capita and res. hunt. license sales
Median 114 26.8 $11,401 8,840 780 269 283 209 20
Above state 12% – -2% -17% -17% -16% -26% 6% -33%
Average 197 27.5 $11,226 8,766 871 301 344 198 24
Above state -25% 1% -5% -23% -10% -7% -14% -1% -35%
Hunting is a leading predictor by medians
Counties Pop. per %- Income Hunters All child Phys. Neglect Sex Emot.
sq. mile 18 per capita 100,000 abuse abuse abuse maltr.
Medians of counties above/below Ohio median in resident hunting license sales:
med. hntrs + 86 27.4 $10,636 14,469 1,231 345 518 236 32
med. hntrs – 307 26.8 $12,527 8,153 818 300 284 177 28
Differential 280% 2% 18% 92% 51% 15% 82% 33%
14%
Medians of counties above/below Ohio median in population per square mile:
med. hntrs + 74 27.6 $10,268 12,316 1,139 350 450 219 37
med. hntrs – 216 26.5 $12,707 8,235 783 298 284 182 28
Differential 291% 4% 24% 50% 46% 18% 59% 20%
32%
Medians of counties above/below Ohio median in per capita income:
– med. $$ 81 27.1 $11,574 14,013 1,036 326 476 209 32
+ med. $$ 230 26.8 $12,891 8,153 832 317 286 190 28
Differential 291% 1% 10% 72% 25% 3% 66% 20%
14%
averages above and below medians
Counties Pop. per %- Income Hunters All child Phys. Neglect Sex Emot.
sq. mile 18 per capita 100,000 abuse abuse abuse maltr.
Averages of counties above/below Ohio median in resident hunting license sales:
+avg. # hntrs 94 27.4 $10,697 15,387 1,131 358 499 220 47
-avg. # hntrs 426 27.0 $13,046 7,554 809 298 303 182 28
Differential 453% 2% 18% 104% 40% 20% 65% 21%
68%
Averages of counties above/below Ohio median in population per square mile:
-avg. pop. 74 28.1 $10,809 14,332 1,169 375 456 232 45
+avg. pop. 475 26.3 $12,935 9,048 835 298 338 182 29
Differential 642% 7% 20% 58% 52% 26% 35% 28%
55%
Averages of counties above /below Ohio median in per capita income:
– med. $$ 102 27.4 $10,319 14,717 1,088 337 486 210 41
+ med. $$ 446 27.0 $13,424 8,330 908 314 332 197 32
Differential 437% 2% 30% 77% 20% 7% 46% 7%
28%
and by averages
Counties Pop. per %- Income Hunters All child Phys. Neglect Sex Emot.
sq. mile 18 per capita 100,000 abuse abuse abuse maltr.
Averages of counties above/below Ohio average in resident hunting license sales:
+avg. # hntrs 88 27.4 $10,478 16,497 1,159 365 516 219 47
-avg. # hntrs 377 27.0 $12,791 8,266 809 301 326 190 30
Differential 428% 2% 22% 100% 43% 21% 58% 15%
