animal hoarding

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

DO NOT DUPLICATE 197

Chapter 10

Animal Hoarding

Arnold Arluke and Gary Patronek

For much of the twentieth century, unconventional ownership of large numbers ofanimals was considered to be an eccentricity. As part of American folklore, neighborhood“cat ladies” were largely tolerated, although not understood, for their excesses. Considered“strange” or “odd,” their amassing of animals, although not fully revealed to outsiders,was ignored or tolerated and not seen as an expression of a serious problem for peopleor animals. If not called “crazy cat ladies,” these cases were less stereotypically called“animal collectors,” albeit still an imprecise term in need of revision, as we see below.

Beginning with Patronek’s definition of animal hoarding (1999), members of theHoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC) have built a considerable researchbase about this behavior. Patronek (1999) and HARC (2002) were the first to note theconsiderable similarity between the hoarding of objects and the hoarding of animals. Inthe intervening years, members of HARC have published numerous papers further refiningthis concept (http:// vet.tufts.edu/ hoarding/ ), and recently a major review comparingfeatures of object hoarding and animal hoarding (Frost, Patronek, & Rosenfield, 2011).

We have also learned a great deal about animal hoarding cases in recent years becausehumane organizations have been more willing to intervene to stop hoarding and removeanimals from harm, generating anecdotal, but useful, reports about how best to managethese cases. Finally, through increasing media coverage of hoarding on the cable networksAnimal Planet and the Discovery Channel, these formerly hidden deviances have beenbrought out into the open for the general public to see and understand beyond the outdatedstereotypes and myths that have surrounded this practice for years.

Characteristics of Animal Hoarding

Although once considered rare, epidemiological estimates suggest that animal hoardingcommonly occurs in many American communities (Patronek, 1999), a finding paralleledby ethnographic studies of hoarding in other cultures (Svanberg, in press). A survey ofhealth officers in Massachusetts who were queried about reported cases of all types ofhoarding (object and animal) estimated the five- year prevalence rate of 26.3 per 100,000population, or 5.3 per 100,000 per year (Frost, Steketee, & Williams, 2000). The authorsreported that animals were hoarded in roughly a third of these cases, which suggest about1.75 cases per 100,000 per year that involved animals. The authors also indicated thatmethodological problems likely resulted in underreporting during the first three years of

brewster reyes 10 auto cx 5/7/13 1:31 PM 97


DO NOT DUPLICATE

198 10 · ANIMAL HOARDING

1. This chapter draws heavily from Arluke and Killeen’s (2009) detailed case study of the Ericksonhoarding case because it is the most in- depth study of an animal hoarder to date.

the study. Nevertheless, this figure, if extrapolated to the entire U.S. population, wouldindicate a minimum of 5,100 reported cases per year. Presuming an average of 50 animalsper case, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that nearly a quarter million animalsare subjected to this form of abuse each year. Moreover, this rate of 1.75 cases is very un-derreported because the data are just from health officers who responded; not all healthofficers who were sent surveys responded. The basic point is that animal hoarding iscommon and the number of cases appears to climb each year. How much of this is dueto increased reporting and how much is attributable to increased incidence is unknown,but given the severity of so many of these cases, it seems unlikely that they were previouslyunrecognized and that the apparent increase is solely due to increased reporting.

Hoarders keep a variety of animals. Cats and dogs are the most commonly hoardedspecies, but wildlife, dangerous exotic animals, and farm animals have been involved,even in urban situations. One study of 71 animal hoarders (HARC, 2002) found that ap-proximately 82% of the cases involved cats, 55% dogs, 17% birds, 6% reptiles, 11% smallmammals, 6% horses, and 6% cattle, sheep, or goats.

Animal hoarders come from varied backgrounds, contrary to the stereotype of theneighborhood “cat lady” who is pictured as an older, single female, living alone. As withmany stereotypes, however, there is an element of truth to this image. In one study (Worth& Beck, 1981), 70% of the sample were unmarried women who had cats, while in anotherstudy (Patronek, 1999) 76% of the sample were women, 46% were over 60 years of age,most were single, divorced, or widowed, and cats were most commonly involved. Inanother study (HARC, 2002), 83% were women, with a median age of 55 years, andnearly three- quarters of the sample were single, widowed, or divorced. Finally, a searchableonline database containing thousands of cases of various sorts of animal abuse also supportthis gender imbalance (Pet- abuse.com). (See Chapter 6 for more about this database.)

However, it is not uncommon for hoarders to be living with dependents— children, thedisabled, the elderly— as well as husbands, wives, girlfriends, and boyfriends. One suchexample is Barbara Erickson, a hoarder of over 500 dogs1 who lived with a dependent—husband, who she claimed had Alzheimer’s disease. In reality, this behavior cuts across alldemographic and socioeconomic boundaries. As most hoarders are very secretive, many canlead a double life with a successful professional career; hoarding behavior has been discoveredamong doctors, nurses, public officials, college professors, and veterinarians, as well asamong a broad spectrum of socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals (HARC, 2002).

There also is not one type of animal hoarder (Patronek, Loar, & Nathanson, 2006).Although not full- fledged hoarders according to the original law enforcement definition ofanimal hoarding (Patronek, 1999), some people with many animals may be headed in thatdirection. This original definition was based on hoarding cases that came to the attentionof law enforcers because they were extremely severe. But this behavior exists on a spectrumin terms of time and severity. Many people may be hoarders but do not yet fit this law en-forcement definition. These incipient hoarders try to meet minimum standards of animalcare as proscribed by law, and are likely to be aware of problems that develop. However,their ability to provide proper animal care deteriorates, unless their situations change markedly.

brewster reyes 10 auto cx 5/7/13 1:31 PM Page 198


DO NOT DUPLICATE

10 · ANIMAL HOARDING 199

A second type of hoarder, the breeder- hoarder, at first breeds animals for show or sale,but the animals are not kept in the home and human living conditions are good comparedto other types of hoarders. Eventually, it becomes increasingly difficult to provide propercare, but despite deteriorating conditions, the breeder hoarders continue to breed becausethey have little insight into the animals’ condition and their ability to care for them. Theoverwhelmed caregiverminimizes rather than denies animal care problems that result fromeconomic, social, medical, or domestic changes, such as loss of job or health, but cannotremedy these problems. Despite their strong attachment to animals, the overwhelmedcaregivers’ compromised situations gradually lead to a deterioration of animal care.Although socially isolated, they are less secretive and more cooperative with authoritiesthan are most hoarders.

The fourth type of hoarder, the rescuer, has a missionary zeal to save all animals. Notthat socially isolated, rescuers may be part of a network of enablers whose offers of animalsare never declined. They also actively seek to acquire animals because they believe thatonly they can provide adequate care and because they oppose euthanasia. Indeed, thisbehavior can plague organizations as well as individuals. It was recently suggested thatas many as one- quarter of cases now may involve some sort of formal quasi- rescue effortor institutional situation (Manning, 2011).

Finally, the exploiter hoarder is the most challenging type to manage. Considered tobe sociopaths and/ or to have severe personality disorders, exploiter hoarders lack ofempathy for people or animals means that they are indifferent to the harm they causethem. Somewhat charismatic and articulate, they present an appearance that suggestscompetence to the public, officials, and the media.

Although there are different types of animal hoarders, their animals share a similarfate. Those responding to these cases often discover large numbers of animals, sometimesin the hundreds, suffering from malnutrition, various diseases, and untreated physicalimpairments because they have not received food, water, appropriate shelter, and veterinarycare. Furthermore, these cases transcend similar situations of individual animal neglectbecause of the multiplicative consequences of collective neglect— a situation where thewhole indeed becomes much worse than the sum of its parts. Severe crowding compoundswhatever suffering is already present through increased noise, aggressive interactionsbetween animals, restriction of movement, and the inability to escape to a safe, clean,quiet location. It also greatly enhances spread of disease and compounds the difficulty ofrecognizing medical conditions requiring veterinary care.

In some animalhoarding situations, other family members, like minor children, dependentelderly persons, or disabled adults, are present and are also victims of this behavior. Seriousunmet human health needs are commonly observed, and the conditions often meet thecriteria for adult self- neglect, child neglect, or elder abuse (Nathanson, 2009).

For most hoarders, living spaces are often compromised to the extent that they nolonger serve the function for which they were intended. Appliances and basic utilities(heat, plumbing, and electricity) are frequently inoperative. Household functioning isoften so impaired that both food preparation and maintaining basic sanitation areimpossible. From a community health perspective, the clutter can pose a fire hazard. Insome cases, fireplaces and kerosene heaters are used for heat. Rodent and insect infestations,as well as odors, can create a neighborhood nuisance. These are important public healthaspects of animal hoarding that go largely unrecognized and which may provide avenuesfor intervention, such as the health risk from elevated ammonia resulting from an accu-mulation of animal urine (Castrodale et al., 2010).



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Causes of Animal Hoarding

Understanding why people hoard animals is complex and any explanation must betentative. It is complex because it is likely that a number of different psychological, social,and even cultural factors are behind the emergence and recognition of this behavior. Itis tentative because the current state of research knowledge about animal hoarding issomewhat limited and still evolving; social science explanations of this behavior arerelatively recent, replacing the antiquated, but still expressed, view that it is mere eccentricityor uncontrolled, excessive “love” for animals.

Psychological DisorderAnimal hoarding is not yet recognized as indicative of any specific psychological

disorder. Indeed, there is no specific mention of it in the last, fourth version of theDiagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM) used by mental health workers to diagnose variousdisorders. The actual diagnosis (or diagnoses) will remain elusive until hoarding isconsidered in the DSM and evaluations of case studies are published.

However, compelling arguments have been made for inclusion of hoarding as a newdisorder in the upcoming fifth version of DSM (Mataix- Col et al., 2010), and the similaritiesbetween animal hoarding and object hoarding have been noted (Frost et al., 2011). Indeed,the primary difference between the two is that animal hoarding is likely to be more severe.Object hoarding is known to be associated with multiple psychological co- morbidities,and it is likely that animal hoarding is also a complex disorder from a diagnostic perspective.And elements of numerous known disorders have been previously reported among animalhoarders with each model having some diagnostic validity. These different approachesto understanding animal hoarders should not be viewed as competing with each other,but rather as overlapping theories that can share some of the same psychologicalexplanations for this complex behavior.

For example, the delusional aspects of animal hoarding have been noted (HARC,2000). Like people who hoard inanimate objects (Frost, 2000), animal hoarders lackinsight into the problematic nature of their behavior. Most have a persistent and powerfulbelief that they are providing proper animal care, despite obvious and overwhelming con-tradictory evidence. And most are equally unable to grasp the extent to which their homeenvironments have become unfit for any living creature, sometimes to the point of needingto be torn down. Further suggestion of delusional disorder in hoarders is evidenced bytheir paranoia about officials and their belief that they have a special ability to communicatewith animals. The delusional model easily fits what we know about Barbara Erickson’sadult life (Arluke & Killeen, 2009). She claimed to speak with Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) agents, to have graduated with five degrees, and to be a lawyer and a veterinarian.When it came to her animals, she repeatedly turned down offers of help, including takingsome of the dogs and relieving her responsibility, because help was not needed and thedogs’ condition was fine. As Celeste Killeen observes, Barbara not only failed to see thather home and animals were deteriorating, she could not see how these conditions adverselyaffected her husband’s and her own health.

When animal hoarding was first recognized as a problem for the animal welfare com-munity, it was noted that parallels with addiction seemed to fit the thinking and behaviorof many hoarders (Lockwood, 1994). As with substance abusers, hoarders are preoccupied



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Figure 1. Working Model of How Animal Hoarding Develops

Adapted from Nathanson and Patronek (2011) by permission of Oxford University Press, Inc.Source: Pathological Altruism edited by Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan & DavidWilson (2011) Ch. 8 ‘Animal Hoarding’ by Jane N. Nathanson & Gary J. Patronek pp. 107– 115 Figure8.1 from p. 108 (adapted).

with animals, are in denial over their problems, have many excuses for their situation,are socially isolated, claim to be persecuted, and neglect themselves and their surroundings.Other evidence consistent with the addictions model is the similarity of hoarders withpeople suffering from impulse control problems, such as compulsive shopping (Frost,1998) and compulsive gambling (Meagher, Frost, & Riskind, 1999). Some hoarders reportto compulsively collect strays and shelter animals. Flores (2004) has noted how addictionscan be viewed as rooted in attachment problems, a concept which seems to help weavesome of these seemingly disparate features together and overcome some of the issuesassociated with applying overly simplistic diagnostic labels to a complex problem.

Refining what has been learned, Nathanson and Patronek (2011) and Patronek andNathanson (2011) have woven these disparate models and approaches together, and ratherthan applying diagnostic labels to animal hoarders, have suggested that the problem wouldbe better understood by focusing on the thoughts and actions exhibited by hoarders (seeFigure 1). From this perspective, animal hoarders often manifest axis II traits such as suspi-ciousness, mistrust, fear of abandonment leading to unstable and intense interpersonal re-lationships, feelings of emptiness, difficulty with anger, and occasional paranoia. Thosehaving these traits often come from families where they had a history of unresolved grief dueto tragic, untimely deaths or losses and emotional or physical abuse (Cassidy & Mohr, 2001; Lyons- Ruth, Dutra, Schuder, & Bianchi, 2006). This is consistent with what has been observedin other forms of addictive behavior (Flores, 2004). Absence of nurturing relationships in



DO NOT DUPLICATE


childhood cause these people to have a deep sense of aloneness in adulthood that can neverbe filled. This leads them to seek a “perfect love” to repair their wounded self and make themfeel worthy, only to be constantly disappointed, given the nature of human relationships.

Animals may provide this perfect, unconditional love, as reported by Worth and Beck(1981). However, just as their own need to be loved was not met by their parents, so toodo they neglect the needs of animals dependent on them. As some animals die from lackof care, the hoarder’s sense of unworthiness is confirmed, as is their fear of being abandoned,in this case by the dying animals. Nathanson (2009) has suggested that a primary featureof animal hoarding may be less about love than about animals providing a conflict- freerelationship to the hoarder, and that features such as control and constancy may be moreappropriate ways to characterize the relationship than “love.”

In this way, animal hoarding can be viewed as one manifestation of pathologicalaltruism, or the compulsion to devote as much time as possible to giving rather thanreceiving care (Nathanson & Patronek, 2011). Adult compulsive care- giving has its rootsin traumatic losses that leave children feeling like they need care and help which parentsfail to provide. As these children reach adulthood, they have learned to reverse parentingroles but have lost the ability to express needs or ask for care. They are always trying tohelp others when deep inside they want care and help. Although it can be argued thathoarders are notorious for not providing care, they adopt a care- giving role by claimingto rescue and save many animals from certain death (Patronek & Nathanson, 2009).Results by Steketee et al. (2011) support this model of hoarding animals.

As a case in point, Barbara Erickson (Arluke & Killeen, 2009) appears to have experiencedlittle if any consistent parental affection, or “love,” during her childhood due to significantlosses and abuse. To Killeen, these emotional traumas played out in Barbara’s adult lifeas a “search for love” that could never be satisfied. Presumably, she displaced the needfor these unfulfilled emotions into perpetual accumulation of dogs as both a source andobject of love. Her reluctance to surrender their animals— even to responsible partieswho promised to care for them— reflected how seriously and dearly she played the parentalrole with her animals. This role is also suggested by her emotionality when consideringthe loss of any one of her many dogs, and by the fact that she allegedly lost her own babyand had been unsuccessfully searching for it throughout her life. Indeed, Barbara oftenreferred to her dogs as her “children.” Seeing the dogs this way meant that they couldserve as objects of care and sources of nurturance, allowing her to simultaneously playparent and child roles.

Of course, caution must be exercised when applying these labels or approaches toanyone until individual hoarders are thoroughly examined and more is known about thepsychological causes of this behavior. With this caution in mind, a number of thesedisorders have roots in a chaotic, if not traumatic, childhood characterized by loss of sig-nificant others and abuse. Most hoarders, too, have psychological and social histories be-ginning in childhood that are chaotic and traumatic. Preliminary research (HARC, 2002)suggests that hoarders grew up in households with inconsistent parenting, in whichanimals may have been the only stable feature. The vast majority reports feelings ofinsecurity and disruptive and experiences in early life, including frequent relocations,parental separation and divorce, and isolation from peers. For example, Barbara Ericksonwas reportedly (Arluke & Killian, 2009) raped as a child by her grandfather and father,only to have one of her dogs intervene to stop one rape and another dog to comfort herafter those terrifying moments. Barbara also experienced difficult losses as an adolescent,including being abandoned by her mother and losing her baby after her father allegedlykilled it.



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Although those who directly deal with animal hoarders are often convinced that somemental disorder is present, and that some such psychological approach is warranted, itseems unreasonable to lump together all these cases. While some animal hoarders are nodoubt plagued by very really pathologies, others may not be. The latter subgroup of casesmay represent an entirely different ilk of animal hoarding where the problem is due tosocial breakdown or highly compromised living situations that result from personal,familial, neighborhood, or community social problems.

Social EnablingThose seeking to explain animal hoarding have taken a psychological approach to the

problem that views it as a mental disorder emanating solely from within the individual.While we must continue to explore the psychological roots of animal hoarding, interpersonaland cultural factors must also be considered if our goal is to produce a more completeunderstanding of the nature and origin of this behavior. Family, friends, neighbors, thewider community, and society at large must be factored into our analysis of why and howhoarding starts and continues. By taking a broader and more complex view of the problem,interventions can address the contextual roots of the problem rather than only focusingon the individual’s underlying mental disorder.

For example, some cases of animal hoarding are likely a product of, or at least facilitatedby, a dysfunctional society rather than being due solely to the acts of disturbed individuals.If the finger of blame is to be pointed, in such instances, it must be shared with the largersociety. In many parts of America, abandoned and stray animals remain a big problem,in part due to irresponsible breeding of pets that produces millions of unwanted animals.Euthanasia practiced by open- admission shelters becomes a way to manage thisoverpopulation problem, since not all of these unwanted animals could be adopted orkept indefinitely in their cages.

Animal hoarders, and whatever family and emotional support systems they have,become an expedient and injurious dysfunctional system that responds to this societalproblem. People in the community, knowing the hoarder’s reputation for apparentlywanting so many animals, may drop off unwanted pets at the hoarder’s home, therebyfeeding her ever- growing collection. In this way, the neighborhood “cat lady” or “doglady” serves as a convenient, impromptu shelter where there will be no guilt imparted bystaff members for dropping off unwanted animals (Frommer & Arluke, 1999) and norisk of euthanasia. According to Barbara Erickson (Arluke & Killeen, 2009), she playedthis role in her community when people anonymously left animals at her door ratherthan abandoning them or taking them to a shelter.

Animal hoarding also can be perpetuated— indeed even started— through socialsupport that provides animals to hoarders as well as food, veterinary care, and otheressentials for them. One type of support comes from networks of like- minded orsympathetic people. Friends who identify with the hoarder’s feelings and approach toanimals may deliberately acquire unwanted animals from various sources, such as veterinaryoffices or shelters, and to prevent their euthanasia, give them to the hoarder. In theErickson case (Arluke & Killeen, 2009), after Barbara’s dogs were seized in one intervention,her friends tried to get her animals from the shelter by claiming that they were their own,presumably to return them to her.

Another type of support comes from misguided people who inadvertently enablehoarders to amass many animals. They can sometimes “pass” as normal appearing people



DO NOT DUPLICATE


and conceal their private world with animals. One such hoarder, who masked herself asa legitimate breeder, was protected by friends in her community who did not understandthe depth of her psychological problem or the way she treated her dogs (Stola EducationGroup, 2006). She did not allow anyone to visit her home and was charming at publicdog events.

Finally, there is an interpersonal component to animal hoarding when other peopleknow about the problem but choose to ignore, if not tolerate, it. Neighbors, friends, andrelatives can be aware that hoarding is taking place, but do nothing to intervene or evenreport it to authorities. Understandably, it is difficult to take such action for fear ofalienating personal relationships with the hoarder and for lack of hard evidence to provideauthorities. Nevertheless, such inaction allows hoarding to continue unchallenged.

Interventions

Keeping large numbers of animals in inappropriate, inadequate, and over- crowdedconditions that cause starvation, disease, behavioral problems, or death seriously challengesrelatives, friends, neighbors, and community agencies that want to help hoarders andtheir animals. However, the complex nature of hoarding cases makes them difficult toinvestigate and to resolve. The jurisdiction for these cases cross many state and localagencies and departments, including mental health, police, humane law enforcement,zoning, sanitation, fish and wildlife, child welfare, animal control, public health, buildingsafety, aging, and social services. So it is the rule rather than the exception that they areprocedurally cumbersome, time consuming, and costly to resolve. Although commonsense suggests that the accumulation of large numbers of animals in homes can haveimportant public health implications, including placing neighborhoods at risk due to un-sanitary living conditions, facilitating the spread of zoonotic diseases, and endangeringthe health of vulnerable household members, particularly children or dependent elderly,the potential for these consequences in animal hoarding cases is not widely appreciatedby government agencies.

The absence of joint agreements between agencies over their missions and roles inthese cases may create more conflict than cooperation. And to date, most communitieshave not discovered how to bring together available resources, expertise, and authoritiesto achieve comprehensive solutions. Arluke and Killeen’s (2009) description of the com-munity’s handling of the Erickson case is more the exception than the rule. In this case,veterinarians, shelters, police, volunteers, and journalists worked together rather seamlesslywhen they intervened in this case without any formal agreements between county andstate agencies. They accomplished this by focusing on the problem and how to solve it,rather than on their own jurisdictional issues. This is exemplified in the Idaho HumaneSociety’s offering resources to a case in Oregon, and in the Second Chance Shelter inFruitland, Idaho, which worked closely with an Oregon Sheriff ’s office prior to the rescueby reporting the problem and organizing the rescue, then offering to house and care forover 500 dogs.

Difficult issues of personal freedom, lifestyle choice, mental competency, and privateproperty rights also confound intervening in these cases. For one, to protect people’s civilrights, most laws restrict agencies from intervening unless others are being harmed.Options for intervention are also limited because few hoarders seem to meet the criteria



DO NOT DUPLICATE


for mental incompetence or immediate danger to self or others. Indeed, hoarders arerarely evaluated, which is the first step before declaring danger. One of the questions thatmay be raised in the future is whether the concept of dangerousness should be appliedto animals, and whether a fuller appreciation of the consequences of their actions forpeople and animals by mental health authorities would lead to improved recognition ofthe scope of dangerousness often present.

Cases typically come to the attention of authorities because of complaints fromneighbors. The primary problems reported about hoarders are unsanitary conditions,“strong,” “obnoxious” odors or “stench,” and occasionally nuisance problems such as“barking loudly.” Neglect is seldom the initial complaint because animals are usuallyconcealed inside hoarders’ homes, as occurred in the Erickson case (Arluke & Killeen,2009). There, neighbors complained to the Oregon Health Department about smellscoming from the farm, leading to an investigation, an order to remove the waste, and athreatened 500- dollar fine that was dropped after the Ericksons removed the waste. Sanitaryconditions often deteriorate to the extent that public health authorities condemn dwellingsas unfit for human habitation. By the time these situations have deteriorated to the pointat which they cannot be ignored, expenses for veterinary care and housing of animals,litigation, and cleanup or demolition of premises can run into the tens of thousands ofdollars. Unfortunately, because of ill health, contagious diseases, and the large numbersinvolved, euthanasia is often the only option for many of the animals rescued from suchsituations.

Initial attempts to follow up complaints are usually unsuccessful. Often described as“uncomfortable around people,” or as “quiet and somewhat reclusive,” hoarders sometimesboard up windows, erect tall fences, rarely appear outside, and do not answer phone callsor doorbells, making them notorious for their fortress mentality and hostility toward andsuspicion of outsiders. Arluke and Killeen (2009) point out that the Ericksons had a signposted on the door proclaiming, “This is Private Property. Stay the Hell Out!” If approached,outsiders are almost always turned away before they get into the hoarder’s home. TheEricksons also never allowed anyone inside their home; Barbara would intercept potentialvisitors before they got to the front door. On more than one occasion, she suffered healthproblems requiring an ambulance, but instead of inviting paramedics into the house totreat her, she met them at the street. This isolation makes it difficult, if not impossible,for neighbors to know much about hoarders or their animals. Law enforcement authoritiesare eventually called to the scene, typically discovering many suffering or dead animalsthat are taken away from angry or grieving owners who potentially face charges of crueltyand possible conviction and sentencing.

Seizing Animals

Because of the severity of animal suffering and need for expediency, a common scenariois for the hoarder’s animals to be removed for their own protection through use of a searchwarrant, with the hoarder subsequently prosecuted under state anti- cruelty laws. (Unlessrelinquishment can be negotiated, the animals must be held as evidence until the case isconcluded). However, seizing animals in hoarding cases is a complicated, expensive, laborintensive, and emotionally upsetting process. The entire financial cost of managing thesecases, including the seizure itself, can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars to



DO NOT DUPLICATE


cover expenses from veterinary care, animal sheltering, staff salaries at different agencies,and legal fees.

Seizing animals typically requires the coordination of many agencies and organizations,let alone friends and family. The last and largest “rescue” of the Ericksons’ dogs requiredcoordination among humane societies in Idaho and Oregon, some of which lackedsufficient funds to pay for all the animal care and staff salaries required in such cases,local veterinarians and animal shelters, law enforcement officials, firefighters, reporters,and volunteers (Arluke & Killeen, 2009). Within the past five years, national animalprotection organizations such as the American Society for the Prevention to Cruelty toAnimals (ASPCA) and Humane Society of the United States, among others, have cometogether to coordinate disaster- type responses to the big cases, bringing in teams of peopleto set up temporary shelters and veterinary teams to evaluate the animals. Some of thebig animal- related charitable foundations sponsored by the pet industry provide tractor- trailers full of supplies to help rescuers’ efforts.

The field of veterinary forensics has also come of age with the establishment of the In-ternational Veterinary Forensics Sciences Association, and is increasingly playing a rolewhen intervention occurs to collect and present the evidence needed to obtain a criminalconviction. As a sign of this rapid growth, the University of Florida School of VeterinaryMedicine recently held a well- attended two- day training session for responding to bigcases. And many more resources and networking for the animals is now an option, allowingmany more animals to be rehabilitated and rehomed instead of being euthanized.

Emotional costs are high as people venture into disturbingly chaotic homes, deal withhoarders who can be extremely sad or very angry, see animals that are dead, emaciated,very sick, and often living in cramped, inhumane conditions, and end up euthanizingsome. Those who intervene often find the experience of carrying out the “rescue” (lessoften called a “seizure” or even “raid”) to be very dramatic and disturbing as they try tohelp animals or people put in danger by hoarders. A law enforcement presence is usuallynecessary to manage hoarders and take aggressive steps needed on behalf of animal victimswho need to be “taken away” with some urgency. Steps may also be taken to monitor andmanage the distress and sadness of hoarders who feel as though their “children” will betaken from them. There have been at least three news reports of people who were beinginvestigated and committed suicide. One woman lit a charcoal grill in her bedroom anddied of carbon monoxide poisoning along with her pets.

A study of hoarding cases reported in the news (Arluke et al., 2002) found thatrescuers often paint each case as the “worst” or “most horrifying” incident, describinganimal neglect in superlative terms. One news article cites a humane official who said,“ ‘You can’t imagine people accumulating that sort of filth and garbage. . . . Frazier saidthat it was the most foul scene he had encountered in his six years on the job.’ ” Anotherofficial maintained that a different case involved the “largest number of neglected animalsever seen.”

Humane society staff and volunteers tirelessly work to clean, feed, and water the manyseized animals. Sometimes, however, many seized animals are so sick, they must be eu-thanized. For example, when shelter workers seized more than 500 dogs kept by theEricksons in Midvale, Oregon, over 100 had to be euthanized because they were too illto be rehabilitated (Arluke & Killeen, 2009). Many of the dogs that were adopted hadsuch entrenched behavioral problems they were returned to local shelters within weeksof the rescue.



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Hoarders predictably protest and resist rescues, claiming unlawful and unnecessaryseizure of their “children.” One is described in a news article as “so belligerent the policewere called to help,” at which point the hoarder wrestled with police, who sprayed himwith pepper spray and finally arrested him. Others have histories of being uncooperativeor hostile. It is common for news reports to describe repeated attempts, sometimesspanning years, to take animals away from hoarders who resist these efforts by authorities(Arluke et al., 2002). In one case, an article features the headline, “Notorious Cat HoarderJailed” and details the exploits of a “wily and elusive foe.” Another article notes that “as istrue of most animal hoarders, Becker had a track record,” listing her history of beingdeceptive and difficult with authorities as she chronically acquired animals.

Rescuers also will be confounded by hoarders’ paradoxical accounts of their ownbehavior, sometimes professing great love for animals. Indeed, Arluke and Killeen’s(2009) take on Barbara Erickson is that she saw herself as one with a “limitless need tolove” that was turned on dogs. Certainly, the thought of losing her dogs seriously disturbedBarbara Erickson and made her cry. It is not clear, however, whether this “love” is agenuine motivation or a dishonest way to appear socially acceptable, if not praiseworthy.Others may claim to be pet rescuers or “no- kill” shelters attempting to help unwantedpets, and some may be professional or hobby animal breeders. All too frequently, theseexcuses may be used as effective ploys for the media or as defenses in court (Vaca- Guzman& Arluke, 2005). Despite these claims of professionalism and good intentions, hoardersare usually oblivious to the extreme suffering, obvious to the casual observer, of theiranimals.

Medico- Legal Options

Every state has statutes that mandate that caretakers provide animals with sufficientfood and water, a sanitary environment, and necessary veterinary care in case of illnessor injury. Therefore, technically speaking, hoarding violates animal cruelty statutes inevery state, making hoarders criminal under the law. It is, however, important to recognizethat animal cruelty statutes were written with the goal of identifying criminal neglect andpunishing offenders, not to ensure optimal or even adequate care for animals. A morerecent concept for assessing quality of life across the entire range of potential situationswhere groups of animals may be kept is to consider the Five Freedoms (Figure 2 on thenext page). This concept stems from an effort in 1965 in the United Kingdom to establishrelevant and appropriate measures of welfare for agricultural animals. More recently thisconcept was applied to the care of populations of companion animals (Newbury et al.,2010).

Those who investigate hoarding cases perhaps should be mindful of theseconsiderations, including freedom from hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, injury, disease,fear, and distress, and freedom to express normal behavior when trying to establish thepresence of suffering and deteriorating animal care. Attitudes towards proper treatmentof animals are evolving, and while in the past, cruelty was typically prosecuted under afairly narrow range of criteria (e.g., frank starvation or failure to provide requiredveterinary care for relief of suffering), it is clear from this diagram that care begins todeteriorate and animals suffer a myriad of detrimental effects to their well- being longbefore this is typically recognized.



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Figure 2. Relationship of Presence of the Five Freedoms for Animal Welfare to Quality of Life for Animals

Hoarding cases are often initially investigated and handled by representatives of thelocal animal shelter, humane society, or other animal protection group. In cases wherean animal protection organization does not have jurisdiction, local police officers ormunicipal animal control officers may be the initial agents to investigate a case.

In some jurisdictions, violations of animal cruelty statutes may be summary offensesprosecuted by local humane agents or animal control officers in front of a magistrate,whereas in others, they may be misdemeanors, or in some cases, felonies, requiring pros-ecution by the district attorney’s office. Penalties in the event of a guilty finding can rangefrom a nominal fine to forfeiture of the animals and jail time (Arluke & Luke, 1997).Some state statutes provide for the recovery of the costs of boarding and medical care foranimals in cruelty cases.

Although their actions are clearly a violation of animal cruelty laws in every state,hoarders can be difficult to successfully prosecute. Cases involving many animals are oftenprosecuted as a single case because the expedience of judges discourages multiple countsof cruelty. And in some jurisdictions, cruelty law focuses on the abuser’s intent to harmand torture a comparatively small number of animals rather than the suffering of many.Hence, hoarders are legally viewed as chronically neglecting, rather than purposely abusing,a single animal. The absence of intent, then, can make it difficult for law enforcement toprosecute to the fullest in some jurisdictions, even though hoarders deliberately acquireand keep animals they cannot care for properly. Indeed, the recent attempt by many statesto impose more serious penalties on abusers by classifying the intentional harm of animals



DO NOT DUPLICATE


2. However, not all their animals were that badly neglected; a number of outdoor dogs appearedhealthy and had food and shelter, although they were lethargic, filthy, and needy for attention.

as a felony crime may have unintentionally sidelined equally egregious cases of neglectwith enormous suffering seen in hoarding cases (Patronek et al., 2006).

Portraying the plight of animals as mere neglect seems to diminish the seriousness oftheir mistreatment, downgrading it from more serious abuse. Hoarding outcomes canbe more disturbing than incidents of deliberate cruelty toward or torture of individualanimals. Often, the former affects many animals kept for months or even years underconditions of horrendous deprivation and suffering (Lockwood & Cassidy, 1988). Withoutapparent intent, hoarders cause an enormous amount of suffering and death, far surpassingthe number of animals harmed or the duration of their suffering found in the vast majorityof intentional animal abuse cases. They ignore basic animal care, failing to properly feedand water, if at all, their animals, and to treat veterinary problems that exist or develop.Consequently, these animals can suffer severe emaciation, have serious health and behavioralproblems, or even die as a result of their neglect. Those rescuing the Ericksons’ dogs inthe 2003 case found many of those alive to be starved and dehydrated to the point of im-mobility (Arluke & Killeen, 2009). Those that could be rescued had many health problemssuch as roundworm, Demodectic mange, Cheyletiella mites, coccidiosis, Giardia, opensores, and old bodily injuries.2

In this vein, one article (Colin, 2002, p. 2), entitled “Loving Animals to Death,” describesanimal hoarders as “keeping a light foot in the serial killer camp: Like serial killers theyare pathetic but obsessively thorough and are motivated by a perversion of something thatcould maybe almost make sense.” Further on, the article contains an interview with aCalifornia resident. He stated: “I think that [hoarders] believe they are loving those animals . . .but animal cruelty is just as bad as cruelty to children” (Colin, 2002, pp. 2– 3). Some havenoted the irony in the hoarders’ belief that there is no fate worse than death, given thattheir treatment of animals creates a condition that is worse than death— a living death—ora life of suffering. Because of the scale and degree of suffering in these cases, the termpassive cruelty may be more fitting than neglect (Vaca- Guzman & Arluke, 2005).

The role played by animals in criminal proceedings also encumbers prosecution.Because seized animals are treated as evidence, they must be held in shelters until casesare completed. In complicated cases, protective custody can last for years. According toone study (Berry, 2005), to avoid re- victimizing animals through such extended stays,humane agents may negotiate dropping charges and restricting future ownership of animalsin return for immediate custody.

In the past, news reports of hoarding cases suggested that cruelty charges actually beingfiled were uncommon (Arluke et al., 2002). When charges were filed, they tended to befor other problems like child endangerment or assault and battery of an investigatingpolice officer. Guilty verdicts or no contest pleas were rare. If any sentence were passed,hoarders were ordered to give up animals, not get any more either temporarily orpermanently, and/ or stop breeding them. Occasionally, they were modestly fined or madeto reimburse shelters for the cost of food and veterinary care. Jail time was rarely imposedexcept for contempt of court, fraud, and violation of probation.

National groups are trying to change this situation. The Animal Legal Defense Fund(ALDF) has made a major effort to provide resources for prosecutors on their website.



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Also, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys has created a subsection on animal abusethat is developing strategies for effectively prosecuting these cases (Sylvester & Baranyk,2011a, 2011b). These strategies include, but are not limited to, using the financial aspectsof these cases to provide leverage as a crime (e.g., failure to pay taxes, misuse of funds,fraud).

There are many reasons for this prior leniency in court, although hoarders think it isstern to impose any limit on their animal ownership. Certainly, hoarding— despite thenumbers of animals involved and the extent of their suffering— will be overshadowed incourt by the many serious crimes against humans that officials see, and hoarding isclassified under the law as neglect rather than abuse, calling forth more sympathetic thanpunitive responses. In addition, the prevailing view of hoarders as eccentric, if not mentallyill, makes criminalization seem inappropriate.

Arluke and Killeen (2009) note that the first time Barbara Erickson appeared in courtfor animal neglect, charges were dropped against her after she agreed to stop selling dogs,spay and neuter her animals, and allow a veterinarian to make unannounced visits.However, after the final rescue of 552 dogs, the Ericksons were charged with felony criminalmischief (for destruction of their rental house), 134 counts of misdemeanor animal abuse(the euthanized dogs), and 418 counts of misdemeanor animal neglect (the survivors).Barbara was jailed for several weeks, ordered to pay $15,000 in restitution and obtainpsychological counseling, sentenced to 60 months supervised probation, and limited tono more than two dogs.

Although there are many challenges in prosecuting animal hoarders, prosecution hasan important role to play in how hoarding cases can be approached in the future. Takinga criminal justice approach to these cases may help encourage prosecutors, judges, police,and legislators take them more seriously than they have in the past. Also, a therapeutically- oriented intervention or negotiation may not work with certain types of hoarders whoare very irrational and uncooperative. Aggressive prosecution may be the only effectiveway to deal with hoarders who must be stringently monitored and strictly sanctioned toprevent recidivism. As noted by Patronek et al. (2006), the “broken windows approach”to crime (Wilson & Kelling, 1982) may apply to cases of hoarding as well; in other words,the progression to major offenses can be prevented by aggressively intervening when thereare early warning signs of social breakdown, whether they are small crimes in the neigh-borhood or the first stages of animal hoarding. However, current laws make this type ofproactive approach difficult (Patronek & Weiss, 2012).

Some states mandate psychological counseling of offenders, whereas others make itan option for the court. Although over 30 states have legislation for evaluation ortreatment, no one knows exactly what this involves. However, at least as reflected inpress reports of judges’ actions, courts have not always viewed hoarders as seriouslydisturbed (Arluke et al., 2002). Judges in these news stories rarely suggest or requirecounseling. Indeed, even when they allude to possible mental health problems inhoarders, they may not order or recommend therapy. In one such case, the judge simplycommented, “I think it’s clear you are fixated on animals. In your obsession, you reallyare misguided.” This reticence to recommend psychological help is surprising for threereasons. First, a number of hoarders’ behaviors seemed symptomatic of seriouspsychological disorder based on how badly they neglected their animals, homes, andthemselves. Second, sometimes hoarders’ own attorneys cited their clients’ historieswith mental illness, suggesting chronic and serious problems. And third, sometimesinvestigators specifically asked judges to approach hoarders as irrational or disturbedindividuals.



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Even with court- ordered counseling, there can be several problems implementing it.Hoarders in general are very resistant to treatment and few clinicians are trained to workwith object hoarders let alone animal hoarders, so they are hesitant to take on hoardersas patients. If hoarders are on fixed incomes or are unemployed, they will not have funds.Even if they have health insurance, they may only qualify for a limited number of visitsto mental health providers and reimbursement rates to these providers can be low. Ifproviders are seen on a fee- for-service basis, it is likely that hoarders will pay them slowlyor not all, given their resistance to treatment. Monitoring required counseling, when itcomes to matters such as attendance and responsiveness to a counselor’s recommendations,will fall in the hands of a probation officer who, in all likelihood, will already beoverwhelmed with a very large caseload. Regardless, the probation system is not designedfor long- term monitoring of chronic offenders.

Occasionally, there may be prohibitions on future pet ownership, or limitations imposedon the number of animals, along with a requirement of periodic monitoring of thesituation by authorities. Supervised probation has been recommended over court probationas a better way to ensure compliance. Prohibitions against future pet ownership are effectiveonly to the extent that monitoring is practical.

Some communities attempt to either prevent or remedy hoarding situations by passingordinances that limit the number of pets a person can own. There were no laws in Oregonthat restricted the number of dogs one could have, although some states do have suchregulations in place. There are no data to indicate whether these measures are effective,but what is known is that they are wildly unpopular and difficult to enforce, and likelyto be opposed by a broad coalition of pet fanciers, breeders, rescue groups, and animalprotection organizations. This is a harsh and probably ineffective remedy that needlesslypenalizes responsible pet owners.

The worst situations may be avoided through regulations that stipulate housing densities,sanitation requirements, and veterinary care, and which provide for regular inspectionsof licensed facilities. For example, Colorado has developed licensing requirements andcomprehensive standards for the operation of an animal shelter or pet rescue organization.Such criteria also could help the media and the public, as well as the courts, distinguishbetween legitimate sheltering efforts and hoarding. Because of the Erickson case discussedthroughout this chapter, Oregon’s Malheur County enacted a law requiring a shelterlicense for anyone with 10 or more pets. The license allows for periodic inspections insidethe home by officials who could then report neglect or abuse.

Managing these cases is complicated by the fact that hoarders not only have a high re-cidivism rate, often continuing their behavior after seizures leave them without animals,but also sometimes move to different towns or states where they are unknown and underthe radar of local humane and law enforcement authorities. In a typical example, two 50- year-old women and their 73- year-old mother were discovered living with 82 live, and108 dead, cats. They fled from the investigation, rented a new apartment nearby, andhad seven cats and a dog two days later. A hoarder can escape enforcement, even whenmonitoring is practical, by moving to a new jurisdiction, often only across town or countylines. Indeed, Barbara Erickson abandoned many dogs at her prior rental house in Midvale,Idaho, when moving to another home in Council, Idaho, although she returned to feedthem after her eviction (Arluke & Killeen, 2009). After a complaint was filed againstErickson for 50 dogs kept in her Council, Idaho, home she moved to Oregon.



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Conclusion

We are learning a lot more about mental health issues involved in animal hoarding.With increased knowledge and understanding of this behavior, mental health professionalswill be better prepared to intervene in these cases. Further enhancing the effectiveness ofthese interventions are new efforts to engage in interdisciplinary cooperation to bringtogether a broad array of resources and expertise to resolve these cases in a humane andtimely fashion. Moreover, if the forthcoming volume of the DSM- 5 recognizes hoardingas a specific disorder, doing so will change the territory considerably by engaging moremental health professionals and researchers in the care and study of this complex disorder.Engagement of forensic psychologists and psychiatrists could also be a consequence ofsuch a designation.

At the same time, advances are underway that will increase the efficacy of interventionsby law enforcement and criminal justice authorities in animal hoarding cases. Professionaland advocacy organizations like the National District Attorneys Association and theAnimal Legal Defense Fund in combination with veterinary forensics are acceleratingour ability to successfully prosecute crimes like hoarding once they have occurred. Despitesuch progress, intervention could be even more effective were it possible to intervene inhoarding cases before they become so severe that a prosecutable crime has occurred andvictims have suffered. At present, humane law enforcement officers are limited in theiroptions to preventively help animals when hoarding behavior is recognized but thesituation has not deteriorated sufficiently that successful prosecution is yet likely. Inputand collaboration between mental health authorities, members of the criminal justicesystem, animal advocates, and legislators will be required to bring animal cruelty lawsdeveloped in the nineteenth century into alignment with twenty- first century crimesagainst animals.

References

Arluke, A. (2004). Brute force: Animal police and the challenge of cruelty. Lafayette, IN:Purdue University Press.

Arluke, A., Frost, R., Steketee, G., Patronek, G., Luke, C., Messner, E., . . . Papazian, M.(2002). Press reports of animal hoarding. Society & Animals, 10, 113– 135.

Arluke, A., & Killeen, C. (2009). Inside animal hoarding: The case of Barbara Erickson andher 552 dogs. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Arluke, A., & Luke, C. (1997). Physical cruelty toward animals in Massachusetts, 1975– 1996. Society & Animals, 5,195– 204.

Berry, C. (2005). Long- term outcomes in animal cases, Animal Law, 11, 167– 194.

Cassidy J., & Mohr J. (2001). Unsolvable fear, trauma, psychopathology: Theory, research,and clinical considerations related to disorganized attachment across the lifespan.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 275–298.

Castrodale, L., Bellay, Y., Brown, C., Cantor, F., Gibbins, J., Headrick, M., . . . Yu, D. (2010).

General public health considerations for responding to animal hoarding cases. Journal ofEnvironmental Health, 72, 14– 18.



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Colin, C. (2002). Loving animals to death. [Electronic version]. Salon.com. Retrieved June6, 2002, from http: // www.salon.com/ people/ feature/ 2002/ 03/ 08/ hoarders/ index.html.

Flores, P. (2004). Addiction as an attachment disorder. Jason Aronson: Lanham, MD.

Franklin, A. (1999). Animals and modern cultures: A sociology of human- animal relationsin modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frommer, S., & Arluke, A. (1999). Loving them to death: The blame- displacing strategiesof animal shelter workers and surrenderers. Society & Animals, 7, 1– 16.

Frost, R. (1998). Hoarding, compulsive buying and reasons for saving. Behavioral Researchand Therapy, 36, 657– 664.

Frost, R. (2000). People who hoard animals. Psychiatric Times, 17(4), 25– 29.

Frost, R., Hartl, T., Christian, R., & Williams, N. (1995). The value of possessions incompulsive hoarding: Patterns of use and attachment. Behavioral Research and Therapy,33, 897– 902.

Frost, R., Patronek, G., & Rosenfield, E. (2011). Comparison of object and animalhoarding. Depression and Anxiety, 28, 885– 891.

HARC. (2002). Health implications of animal hoarding. Health and Social Work, 27, 125– 131.

Lockwood, R. (1994). The psychology of animal collectors. American Animal HospitalAssociation Trends Magazine, 9, 18– 21.

Lockwood, R., & Cassidy, B. (1988). Killing with kindness? The Humane Society News,Summer, 1– 5.

Lyons- Ruth K., Dutra, L., Schuder, M., & Bianchi, I. (2006). From infant attachmentdisorganization to adult dissociation: Relational adaptations or traumatic experiences?Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 29, 63–86.

Manning S. (2011). When animal rescuers become animal hoarders. Retrieved January26, 2011, from http:// www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/ 38978396/ ns/ health- pet_health/ .

Mataix- Cols, D., Frost, R., Pertusa, A., Clark, L., Saxena, S., Leckman, J., . . . Wilhelm,S. (2010). Hoarding disorder: A new diagnosis for DSM- V? Depression and Anxiety,27, 556– 572.

Meagher, E., Frost, R., & Riskind, J. (1999). Compulsive lottery, scratch ticket, and kenogambling: Its relation to OCD, hoarding, impulsivity, and the urge to buy. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of BehaviorTherapy, Toronto, November.

Nathanson, J. (2009). Animal hoarding: Slipping into the darkness of comorbid animaland self- neglect. Journal of Elder Abuse, 21, 307– 324.

Nathanson, J., & Patronek, G. (2011). Animal hoarding: How the semblance of a benevolentmission becomes actualized as egoism and cruelty. In B. Oakley, A. Knafo, G.Madhavan, & D. Wilson (Eds.), Pathological Altruism, (pp. 107– 115). New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Newbury, S., Blinn, M. K., Bushby, P. A., Cox, C. B., Dinnage, J. D., Griffin, B. . . .Spindel, M. (2010). Guidelines for standards of care in animal shelters. Association ofShelter Veterinarians.

Patronek, G. (1999). Hoarding of animals: An under- recognized public health problemin a difficult to study population. Public Health Reports, 114, 82– 87.



DO NOT DUPLICATE


Patronek, G. (2001). The problem of animal hoarding. Municipal Lawyer, 42, 6– 19.

Patronek, G., Loar, L., & Nathnason, J. (Eds.) (2006). Animal hoarding: Structuring in-terdisciplinary responses to help people, animals and communities at risk. Hoarding ofAnimals Research Consortium.

Patronek, G., & Nathanson, J. (2009). A theoretical perspective to inform assessment andtreatment strategies for animal hoarders. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 274– 281.

Patronek G., & Weiss K. (2012). Animal hoarding: a Neglected Problem at the intersectionof psychiatry, veterinary medicine, and law. Findings from the Henderson HouseWorkgroup. Poster 117– 64; American Psychology Law Conference, San Juan, March17, 2012. Retrieved from: http:// www.tufts.edu/ vet/ hoarding/ index.html.

Steketee, G., Gibson, A., Frost, R., Alabiso, J., Arluke, A., & Patronek, G. (2011). Char-acteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparativeinterview study. Review of General Psychology, 15,114– 124.

Stola Education Group. (2006). Animal hoarding: A hidden danger in the sport of purebredbreeding? IG Times, Spring.

Sylvester, S., & Baranyk, C. (2011a). When animal hoarding is warehousing for profit/part 1. Tales of Justice, 1(2), 1– 3. National Center for Prosecution of Animal Abuse.

Sylvester, S., & Baranyk, C. (2011b). When animal hoarding is warehousing for profit/part 2. Tales of Justice, 1(3), 1– 4. National Center for Prosecution of Animal Abuse.

Svanberg, I. (in press). The social construction of the swan lady: A case of animal hoardingin Sweden? Society & Animals.

Vaca- Guzman, M., & Arluke, A. (2005). Normalizing passive cruelty: The excuses andjustifications of animal hoarders. Anthrozoös, 18, 338– 357.

Wilson, J., & Kelling, G. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety.The Atlantic Monthly, March, 29– 38.

Worth, C., & Beck, A. (1981). Multiple ownership of animals in New York City.Transactionsand Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 3, 280– 300.


animal hoarding

Documents