Two weeks ago, a dog fighting ring was broken up in Cleveland, Ohio. On Monday, the Ashtabula County Animal Protective League took in 14 dogs from a local hoarder and on the same day, was brought a dog that was hit about the head with a shovel and then stabbed with a pitchfork. Wednesday, Stephen Croley, recently convicted of animal cruelty, was found not guilty of harboring 3 dogs that reportedly belong to his new wife. What does one make of these concerns regarding animal welfare? What, if any, changes to local and state law are forthcoming?
Today, the focus will be on animal hoarding. While not a new phenomenon, the problem of animal hoarding is receiving greater attention due, in part, to reality television programming which specifically addresses animal hoarding (e.g. “Animal Hoarders” on cable TV such as A&E). In a previous column, the issue of animal hoarding was raised when a Solon physician and his wife were charged with animal hoarding and animal cruelty. While not necessarily synonymous, it will be shown in this article that hoarding and cruelty are often connected.
What is an animal hoarder? In a publication in the Public Health Reports (1999), Patronek was the first to describe the behavior of animal hoarding. Animal advocates and those working in the animal rescue business had referred to those engaged in this behavior as “animal collectors”. Patronek (1999) says that an animal hoarder is someone who “accumulates a large number of animals”, who “fails to provide minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation and veterinary care”, who “fails to act on the deteriorating condition of the animals” and who “fails to act on the negative effect of the collection on their own health and well-being and that of other household members”. Exactly what constitutes a “large number” has not been clearly defined; rather, the emphasis has historically been placed on the quality of care provided to the animals. For example, the presence of disease, starvation and even dead animals or severe overcrowding would be indicative of deteriorating conditions (Patronek, 1999). The prevalence and incidence rates are difficult to ascertain because much of the behavior is not formally acknowledged. Nonetheless, an estimated quarter million animals are victims of hoarders and there are estimated to be between 30000 and 50000 cases of hoarding every year. Without psychological intervention and treatment, mental health service providers claim that the rate for recidivism is near 100%.
Is there a profile of a hoarder? As a matter of fact, there is! Research shows that 76% of animal hoarders are women, nearly half (46%) are over the age of 60, most are single and most live alone (over 50%). While hoarders do share a number of characteristics different “types” of hoarders have been described. The three types of hoarders identified include: the overwhelmed caregiver, the rescuer hoarder and the exploiter hoarder (Patronek, 1999). The case in Conneaut represents a rescuer hoarder. As charges against the Conneaut hoarder have not been levied, the identification of the individual will be withheld. Suffice it to say that the individual in question fits the profile of a hoarder relative to sex and age.
As is often found with the rescuer caregiver, the acquisition of the animals was both active and passive. The Conneaut caregiver sought out to establish a rescue operation which represented active acquisition. However, the individual was also brought animals and, as is consistent with this category of animal hoarder, felt unable to say “no”. This passive acquisition is largely based on the belief that if the hoarder does not help the animal, the animal’s life may be jeopardized. They fear the animal’s death and come to believe that they are the only person who can save the animal. Rescue turns into a default adoption of the animal when a home cannot be found for the animal. Eventually this behavior devolves from rescue straight to an adoption. The rescuer hoarder often does not have a reality-based awareness and so they are often compelled by outside agencies to reduce the number of animals they are harboring. Oftentimes, an extensive network of “enablers” surrounds the hoarder.
The “overwhelmed caregiver” hoarder differs from the rescuer hoarder because the acquisition of animals is primarily passive. They do not set out to rescue animals; rather, others tend to bring animals to them, whether through “dumping” animals on their property or “guilting” them into taking in pets. Usually a change in circumstances prompts the individual to seek outside assistance as they do have some reality-based social awareness and recognize that they are in over their heads. In this respect, the Conneaut case of animal hoarding shares a characteristic of the overwhelmed caregiver. Namely, the individual involved has come to learn of a debilitating and life-threatening medical condition and sought assistance through the local animal shelter (i.e. the Ashtabula County Animal Protective League).
The “exploiter hoarder” is recognized by their profit motive and their total lack of empathy for the well-being of the animals. Essentially, they share characteristics of sociopaths, having little or no empathy for humans either. They are indifferent to the harm they are causing for the animals, have no guilt or remorse and are often described as being manipulative or cunning. An example of a “puppy mill” operator would best characterize this type of hoarder.
Animals cannot speak for themselves. Dogs cannot say that they don't want to be made to fight. Dogs, or cats, can't complain when they are living in horrendous conditions. And animals can't dial the phone to report cruelty against them. Humans must speak for the animals. However, they must first be willing to speak.
To help the Conneaut dogs on Facebook, click here. To visit the Ashtabula County Animal Protective League’s webpage (or to donate), please go to: www.acapl.org. To become involved in Nitro’s Law (HB 108, formerly HB 70) on Facebook, click here.
Citation: Patronek, G. Hoarding of animals: an unrecognized public health problem in a difficult-to-study population. Public Health Rep 1999; 114-81-87.
Comments