Let's talk about these so-called "citations". These internet articles are not independent research, nor are they in any way scholarly. These are not legitimate citations, but you should know that.

The PETA article suggests there have been instances where "free to home" animals have been abused, and I don't doubt that. But it also fairly accounts for instances of abuse against "purchased" animals. This concedes that the fee does nothing independently to protect animals -- it shows there is no causality. If a purchased animal is abused, then what good did the fee do?

The helpingoutanimals article concedes that even a modest fee should be insufficient to protect an animal. I thought you said fees protect animals?

The baytown article is garbage. It's not even trying to cite to anything authoritative.

The spectrum article is one instance where a free animal was abused, but it doesn't have any information or data about how fees can protect animals.

In conclusion, all these silly little internet articles are not in any way independent investigations into the salient issue: whether an adoption fee prevents harm to animals. It does not. There is no causality that has been proven. If anyone purchases an animal and does harm to it, which the PETA and helpingoutnanimals articles literally concede, then that's proof that a fee offers no meaningful protection. These are not legitimate sources.

Finally, you have posted one, just one, legitimate study from a scholarly source. This article, however, has literally nothing to do with the salient point here (again, whether an adoption fee is meaningfully preventative of abuse. This article is not about that at all. Did you even read it? It's about, inter alia, "how exposure to animal cruelty can be a traumatic experience, with cascading negative consequences for child witnesses." This isn't even relevant to the discussion we are having.

Pathetic attempt, really