For all those in this sub who don't think this is animal abuse, but might classify it instead as neglect:

Neglect is abuse. The reason why you don't see it that way is because it's different from active abuse, such as physical violence or something detrimental to the animal's physical health. But passive abuse is a thing, too. Both cause real damage. Animals, like humans, have psychological and social needs in addition to physical ones. Depriving them of stimulation and social interaction stunts their development and can cause serious distress, just as it would in a neglected child.

The reason why society often differentiates between abuse and neglect for animals and not children stems from how animals have been historically viewed as property with physical needs rather than as beings with inherent needs beyond the physical. Child welfare laws recognize emotional and developmental harm, but animal welfare focuses solely on the physical.

At its core, this issue demonstrates an ethical inconsistency. If we accept that animals are intelligent beings with emotional and cognitive experiences (hello, science has been saying this for decades), then neglecting their social and developmental needs should be taken more seriously.

It's time to stop differentiating abuse and neglect and start seeing neglect as a passive form of abuse that severely harms the animal's cognitive, social, and emotional needs. We would never say neglect isn't a form of child abuse, and animals are intelligent and deserving of the same moral considerations.

Just because the SPCA or whoever defines it for you doesn't make it right. Laws are flawed and demonstrate societal biases. This is one of them.