Its the new buzzword in the media for animal abuse, “animal horders” sometimes called “animal collectors” and these terms are currently being written into prospective animal limit legislation across the US. ‘Animal hoarding’ is being labelled a mental illness, often with a reference to the DSM-IV which is the Diagnostic Standards Manual used by certified Psychologists and Psychiatrists across North America. There’s a problem though.
Its a lie.
Animal hoarding is not a recognized diagnosable mental illness with the DSM-IV. Neither is Hoarding, which is the response normally provided when the Animal Hoarding claim is debunked. Hoarding is one, and only one, of many possible symptoms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Hoarding in a clinical context is perhaps more easily described as extreme, obsessed, compulsive collecting. To provide an example, hoarding is not a few boxes of old newspapers, hoarding is stacks of newspapers that prevent one from moving about the house and can crush one to death if toppled. (true example)
Hoarding does not make one OCD, but OCD can make one hoard. Claiming a person is a hoarder of any kind without the accompanying, medical diagnosis of OCD is like claiming someone is schizophrenic for talking to themselves looking at the shelves in the grocery store aisle.
The current body of literature on animal hoarding has not been studied and written by mental health professionals such as psychologists and psychiatrists, it has been predominantly written by veterinarians. The now defunct (1997-2006) Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium is maintained only by veterinarian Dr Gary Patronek. Although 2 psychologists and a psychiatrist were members of the original group, none of their names appear as authors/editors on the research articles hosted on the Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium’s website. Considering that publication is a huge part of any researcher’s career, it is telling that their names are not listed as contributing authors of some kind with the exception of a single paper in which they are listed as participants, not authors or editors. Further factors of concern are the independence of the research.
- Tufts University received 2 donations from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in 2006, $20,000 and $29,000, with the $29,000 donation going to the Department of Veterinary Medicine, Dr. Gary Patronek’s department
- Tufts University Department of Veterinary Medicine received a $31,500 donation from the HSUS in 2007, again Dr. Gary Patronek’s department
- HSUS exectutive members and directors listed as contributing authors and editors of some of the publications, specifically Colin Berry & Randy Lockwood
What makes this even worse is that it reverses the long-time trend of mental illness as a mitigating circumstance towards criminal guilt, not as evidence of criminal guilt. Are we looking at a change in the justice system from ‘not guilty by reason of mental defect’ to ‘guilty by reason of mental defect’. Do we really want to go down this road as a society?
- Do we want the law to be able to classify us as mentally ill and therefore guilty based on an arbitrary number codified into law? Should the law define or diagnose mental illness?
- Should a veterinarian or Animal Control officer be able to label you as mentally ill? Should they have the legal authority? Should they have the authority in court to testify as to your mental state as does a mental health professional?
These are the questions before us and the implications are frightening.
Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved
http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/hoarding/pdfgallery.htm
http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/hoarding/harc_dt.htm
Erica,
GOOD JOB, and thank you! I think you have an excellent grasp of the issue.
PD
This is one more example of AR legislation looking for any reason at all to confiscate someone’s animals. When you disagree with the premise of owning pets in the first place, you will use anything against people as a way of taking pets away.
As a caregiver to someone with mental illness, I find this as a step backward for the mentally ill. Only a Psychiatrist or Psychologist should be able to make the decision on the person’s state of mind. Most people don’t know it, but some states have facilities for the mentally ill who commit crimes. They “do their time” there & receive the treatment that they need. Also, there are many new drugs that help people with OCD & other illnesses.
Animal Control people should only be able to report on the conditions of the animal hoarders/collectors home/facility & let the courts make the decision to send them to a Psychiatrist/Psychologist for an evaluation. Based on that determination, the judge can then decide what to do with the defendant.
Bottom line is, just because you are mentally ill, doesn’t mean that you will “get off” if you commit a crime.
Am I understanding that a vet (a doctor of animal medicine) is diagnosing a non existant condition, since it is not listed in the DSM-IV. Just goes to show you how far 140,000 dollars will go. A hoarder, in the true sense is a person who collects things, like mustard packets, newspapers, keeps all mail received, and the person just does not ever throw away anything. I would think that a vet is not qualified to assume a diagnosis or place a diagnosis on anyone, which, does not, yet exist. Wonder what qualifies this to be perpetuated by a vet? That would be my question.
The most curious thing about the so-called animal hoarding condition is the steady effort by the animal rights movement to turn it into a crime.
The trend in all other areas of mental health is AWAY from criminalization, toward treatment and mitigation. Those mentally ill persons who are a danger to themselves or others can be confined, but mental illness is a defense against criminal charges — not a definition of a crime.
The reason that the ARs are trying to do this is that they want to make a crime out of having more than a small number of animals, and only by making this seem abnormal can they gain traction for this idea. But there’s no reason that the rest of us should go along.
Erica, I find your article thought provoking and wonder if you can shed some light for me. I’m working on a novel based on a true story of a woman who had over 75 dogs living in her home. She was found dead having been partially eaten by them. The medical examiner believes from the physical evidence they could gather that she died from possible heart related problems,and then was eaten,not the other way around. I would have thought having that many dogs living in your home would qualify for the label of “animal hoarder” especially since a number of them weren’t in good physical shape according to the authorities I spoke to. I have had a hard time finding information about animal hoarding and what kind of mental instability/illness exists that propels one to live this way. Are you a psychologist with experience in this area? Could you direct me to any articles regarding this subject? I have read some of the Patronek articles but would very much welcome/prefer ones by more qualified practitioners. Thank you
Hello Jane,
First, what a tragic story even in such limited detail. My heart goes out to the poor woman.
Although I am not a psychologist, there are aspects of your anecdote that I would like to comment on:
- “I would have thought having that many dogs living in your home would qualify for the label of “animal hoarder” especially since a number of them weren’t in good physical shape according to the authorities I spoke to.
-> You refer to the animals not being in good physical shape according to the authorities. I would ask what the criteria was for referring to the animals as not in good shape and who the authorities were. Were these older dogs with the ailments of age? Were the animals simply not well-groomed? Were the authorities in question veterinarians? What was the foundation for the determination of being in ‘not good shape’?
- “I have had a hard time finding information about animal hoarding”
-> The reason you are having a hard time finding information on animal hoarding is that it is not a recognized mental illness. As indicated in my article, ‘animal hoarding’ is not a mental condition as defined in the DSM-IV. Hoarding behavior is known to occur in some individuals diagnosed with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder but there are additional factors that require diagnosis by a mental health professional.
It is entirely possible that the individual in question originally managed the dogs perfectly well, despite the number. It is also entirely possible that the individual in question began to suffer failing health and began to run into difficulties caring in for a number of dogs that were initially managable. Unfortunately, in the current political climate, it has become difficult if not dangerous for individuals to reach out for help. Individuals who have pursued such basic steps as running an ad to hire help to care for their dogs have found themselves subject to raids by over-zealous animal control and branded either ‘puppy-mills’ or ‘animal hoarders’ in the news. I wish this was an exaggeration, but I know of too many current reports where this has happened.
If you wish to pursue a mental illness angle in your story, I would recommend speaking with psychiatrists regarding obsessive-compulsive disorder and the different manifestations of hoarding behavior in association with it. I think you will find this avenue to be a rich source of material with greater depth, possibility and variety. A vast amount of material on Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is available through a wide variety of reputable psychiatric and psychological journals, acessible through most universities, libraries and the internet. Might I recommend the PSYCInfo research database? It is one I access frequently in connection with my own studies.
Thank you for your interest and best of luck with your novel. I hope that this poor poul is treated gently in your writing after so difficult an end to her life.
HI Erica,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will definitely investigate the PSYCInfo database you suggested. I am quite curious as to why someone turns to hoarding or becomes a hoarder. Is it a slow onset process or something that can be triggered by an event?
The implications of criminal guilt that you write about are really fascinating and scary. Especially if as you say it isn’t a qualified mental health professional giving the diagnosis. Currently in our state there is legislation pending that will have direct impacts on legitimate breeders in its broader fight against puppy mills.
However I think Puppy mills and animal hoarding are two different beasts. It appears in a lot of cases where hoarding has occurred the initial intention comes out of good will towards the animals. They want to take of their animals but somehow things go awry. While in a puppy mill it would seem to me that the intention is to make money without necessarily providing adequate care for the animals.
In response to your question about the criteria used or the foundation for determination of ‘not being in good shape’, I have to say I don’t know.
I spoke to the medical examiner and the sheriff after the fact. I don’t know to what extent that a veterinarian was involved.
The sheriff told me that the County had been keeping an eye on the person for some time although he didn’t elaborate what the reasons were.
The medical examiner told me that most of the dogs were destroyed(by a relative of the deceased) because they were in ill health. Also that the house was covered in feces and urine which was another reason I believed the animals might not have been in good shape.
One thing I find interesting is how often Animal Hoarding stories have come up more remote areas of Eastern Oregon, Idaho, and Washington in the recent past. I suppose really in remote or rural areas all over the country.
Thanks again,
jane
Jane
May I point out that it would take a relatively short time for 75 dogs to destroy a house with urine and feces. If the animals were that hungry that they were eating the owner she had to have been dead for quite a while which I would suppose would be more than 5 days. I only have 8 dogs at the present and if they were left loose in my house for 5 days with no way to get outside, it would be a disaster.
The kind of case that you are wondering about where people start out being rescues and then are overwhelmed don't have a mere 75, they have hundreds of animals on their place. Again, a person near me started out as a No-Kill rescue. Not understanding the nature of a no-kill she truly believed that no animals would be killed. In a matter of months she had over a 100 animals on her place. In a few more months it was over 200. By the time she was closed down she was over 300 unwanted dogs with many of them unadoptable due to behavior or health issues and going steadily down hill.
Was she hoarding? According to the definition of hoarding yes she was. Was she mentally ill because she was hoarding? Definitely not. She got in way above her head.
Erica has it bang on the mark. Hoarding itself is not a mental disease. It is a possible symptom of OCD and not everyone that is OCD hoards.
Be very careful about assuming about animals and their care. Many receive daily care and no one understands the amount of time that is required to keep them in shape. Consequently when someone stops this daily care due to sickness/health/income, the animals can go quickly downhill in a matter of days, not weeks or months. Talk to animal caretakers at zoos, kennels, stables, etc. You will soon find out how much time would be required to take care of 75 dogs and how quickly the environment in which they are kept could go downhill.
Good luck
CathyM