Search www.satyamag.com

Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

To learn more about the upcoming Special Edition of Satya and Call for Submissions, click here.

back issues

 

January/February 2004
Killing With Kindness: Into the Mind of an Animal Hoarder

By Kymberlie Adams Matthews


Over 600 animals were found in the home of a Warwick Valley resident. All of the animals were severely malnourished and very ill. Over a dozen animals were found decaying on a compost pile in her back yard and dozens of carcasses were stacked neatly in a closet. She insisted the animals were well cared for, regardless of physical evidence to the contrary and refused to voluntarily surrender the animals to animal control (www.petabuse.com).

They consider themselves “rescuers,” but they are really suffering from a serious mental illness. The animal “hoarder” is a person who obsessively collects more animals than they can tend, sometimes resulting in scenes of gross neglect. Hoarders, sometimes known as “collectors,” often claim that any quality of life a home can provide for a nonhuman animal is better than letting that animal die; and that they care for animals better than anyone else and refuse to find the animals adoptive homes. Hoarders might begin with helpful intentions, but gradually the animals lose their identities, and become objects to be collected.

According to animal hoarding expert Gary Patronek, history has shown that removing the animals is not enough; unless the hoarder receives professional help, they often will simply move to a new location and begin all over again. A few people want to change that. They argue that animal hoarding represents a vastly misunderstood problem, one that goes far deeper than a few animal cruelty charges invite us to imagine.

In Denial
Chi Luu Linville is no stranger to animal investigators. Finally, after her 15-year run of keeping filthy dogs, dying calves, starving pigs and sickly goats, animal control officers want Chi Luu Linville barred from keeping pets or livestock.

Linville is furious. The 55 year-old sees nothing wrong with the care she is giving her animals. She says animal control officers have targeted her out of spite and have violated her civil rights while searching her property and seizing her critters in the past (www.petabuse.com).


The hoarder justifies the conditions that the animals live in by remaining in denial—denial that extreme overcrowding causes severe emotional and health problems for the animals. A collector will begin to claim that animals confined to small cages are quite comfortable. The denial remains even if the hoarder is discovered. An extreme example appears in a case that was being tried by DA Irene Holmes in Redwood City, California: when confronted at trial with a photograph taken at the time of the rescue showing a dog that was so emaciated it was shedding the rectum and intestines and died within hours of being photographed, the hoarder finally commented, “I guess it did seem a little ill” (Metro Active News and Issues).

Avoidance
According to psychologists such as Randy Frost, who has studied hoarding behavior extensively, collectors often manage their behavioral deficits by avoiding them as much as possible; and likewise, avoid uncomfortable decisions about turning away strays or treating sick animals by ignoring the problem or convincing themselves the animal is well, even in stacked cages or on the brink of death.

Hoarders and the Law
Because these cases are so difficult to resolve, professionals have been known to literally tell hoarders to go away: police in at least four different states chose to respond to one woman who kept 115 dogs in a school bus by simply telling her to move elsewhere (www.petabuse.com).

Animal hoarding is covered generally under every state’s cruelty to animals statute, which typically require a caretaker to provide sufficient food and water, veterinary care to relieve suffering, and a sanitary environment. By definition, most or all of these are lacking in a hoarding situation. Even when cases are successfully prosecuted, the punishment is seldom severe—very few collectors are punished beyond paying a fine. Within the past few years, one state (Illinois) has formally defined animal hoarding as a specific offense in its cruelty statute. Other states have introduced legislation, but to date, none has passed.

Some say prosecution isn’t the answer, anyway, because hoarders are often emotionally troubled rather than criminally inclined. (To date, no research has addressed strategies for resolving cases of animal hoarding.) Others say judges can impose conditions that help hoarders. They can require counseling, for instance, or ban the person from having animals.

What is clear is that adjudication of cases rarely alters the behavior. Like many psychological conditions, the causes of animal hoarding are probably multiple and, therefore, assessment of emotions, behavior and thoughts must be multifaceted to point the way toward successful treatment.

The Animal Victims
It has been estimated that there are 700 to 2,000 new cases every year in the U.S. As it stands, animals rescued from hoarding situations are often too ill, too old, too debilitated, or too unsocial to place through legitimate adoption avenues. And even if adoptable, a large arrival of confiscated animals will overwhelm most rescue organizations, as they must remain at the shelter unless the owner relinquishes all rights, or the court orders that they can be processed for adoption. If the battle is lengthy, the animals will be impounded by mandatory court order until the case is settled in court. That may be weeks, months, or even years.

For the animals, euthanasia is most often the sad end to the suffering.

 

 


© STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC.
All contents are copyrighted. Click here to learn about reprinting text or images that appear on this site.