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.
 |
|
|
 |
