Eating pets
Executive summary
Claims that migrants or new arrivals are “eating pets” in U.S. towns are a recurring urban legend that resurfaced in 2024 around Springfield, Ohio, and were amplified by national politicians and social posts despite local officials saying there was no credible evidence of such a pattern [1] [2]. At the same time, the practice of eating dogs and cats does exist in other countries and cultures, which complicates perception and fuels moral panic even when local allegations are false or unproven [3].
1. The modern flashpoint: Springfield and how the rumor spread
In September 2024 a viral narrative that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating residents’ pets was propelled by social media posts and by high-profile amplification from JD Vance and Donald Trump, yet Springfield police and other local officials said there were no credible reports of pets being abducted and eaten in the immigrant community [1] [2]. The story’s online momentum blended local rumor, a separate arrest in Canton, Ohio, and anonymous “daughter’s friend” hearsay in neighborhood Facebook groups — a classic misinformation vector that Sky News and other outlets traced as central to the spike in mentions [4] [5].
2. Why the claim resonated: folklore, history and confirmation bias
The idea that newcomers eat household pets is not new; folklorists and journalists have documented similar urban legends for decades, from claims about Vietnamese refugees in the 1980s to later variations about other immigrant groups — a pattern scholars say feeds on xenophobia and anecdote-driven fear [6]. Forbes highlighted this longer tradition of blaming immigrants for pet-eating, underscoring how old urban legends get repurposed into modern political arguments [6].
3. Facts on the ground: official denials and misattributed evidence
Multiple fact-checks and local statements found no verified incidents linking migrants in Springfield to pet thefts for food, and authorities pointed out that viral video footage being circulated was from a separate case in Canton involving a U.S.-born woman, not Haitian migrants or Springfield residents [2] [7]. Reuters and other reporting documented police statements and city officials’ rebuttals, while also noting that emotionally charged social-media posts and miscaptioned videos did much of the work of turning rumor into perceived reality [2] [8].
4. The global and cultural context: where pet-eating is documented
Eating dogs and cats is documented in parts of the world, notably in China where nonprofit estimates suggest millions of dogs and cats are slaughtered annually — often involving stolen strays according to animal welfare groups — and where the practice has ancient roots though it is declining in many places as pet culture rises and laws change [3]. Reporting that establishes the practice elsewhere is factual and separate from the U.S. urban-legend dynamics; conflating the two can inflate fear and feed a narrative that migrants everywhere share a uniform set of behaviors [3].
5. Who benefits from the narrative — politics, clicks and community stress
The Springfield episode shows how a charged claim can be useful to political actors seeking to dramatize immigration as a threat, and to social-media ecosystems that reward sensational content with rapid spread; outlets from Sky News to Boston 25 documented both the local community stress and the political amplification that followed [4] [9]. Alternative viewpoints exist in reporting: local leaders and some residents stressed strain on services and community adjustment without endorsing lurid allegations, and fact-checkers urged caution and verification before accepting anecdote as proof [9] [2].
6. What reliable reporting can and cannot tell us now
Available reporting and official statements establish that there was no confirmed pattern of migrants in Springfield eating pets and that much of the evidence was misattributed or anecdotal [2] [5]. What the sources cannot establish — and responsibly cannot assert — is whether isolated, unrelated criminal acts involving animals occurred beyond the documented Canton arrest; reporters and police separated those incidents from the immigrant community claims rather than proving or disproving every single allegation made online [7] [5].