U.S. Supreme Court endorses seizure of hoarded animals

[Guest guest]

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, January/February 2006:

 

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court endorses seizure of hoarded animals

 

 

WASHINGTON D.C., Philadelphia--The U.S.

Supreme Court in early December 2005 upheld the

right of humane societies and animal control

agencies to seize animals from alleged hoarders

and charge convicted hoarders for their care, by

refusing to hear the last appeal of Janet Jones,

55, of Hatfield, Pennsylvania.

Jones founded a local animal rescue

organization, Animal Orphans, in 1998,

operating out of her home. In September 2002 the

Montgomery County SPCA seized 96 cats, nine

dogs, several hamsters, rats, and mice, and a

turtle who were found on the premises in

allegedly negligent conditions. Charged in

December 2002 with 105 summary counts of cruelty,

Jones was in November 2003 ordered by the

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas to pay

the SPCA $45,600 for the animals' care during the

year while the case was pending, and to forfeit

the animals.

The sum was within $5,000 of the animal

care costs for 2002 declared on the Animal

Orphans Inc. filing of IRS Form 990. But Jones

appealed. After the Montgomery County Court of

Common Pleas convicted her a second time, the

Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the conviction

in September 2004. The Pennsylvania Supreme

Court in June 2005 refused to hear the case.

Jones then took the case to the U.S. Supreme

Court.

Montgomery County SPCA operations manager

Edward Davies estimated that looking after the

animals throughout the appeals phase of the case

had increased the cost to $267,000, but Jones

will only be billed for the original $45,600.

Only 59 cats and three dogs were still

alive and offered for adoption at the end of the

case. " The animals were not only subjected to

filthy conditions, they were malnourished, and

quite a number of them had to be destroyed, "

Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L.

Castor told Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer

Bonnie L. Cook.

" Happily, we were able to place our

friendly cats and found a rescue group for the

FIV/FeLV cats. Now we are left with the feral

cats, " Montgomery County SPCA humane educator

Kim Bonanni e-mailed to other Philadelphia-area

humane organizations in early January 2006.

" Clearly, we are looking for a suitable

placement. We want to give them a cage-free rest

of their lives. "

Happy endings tend to be few in hoarding cases.

" Officers of the SPCA testified in court in 2003

that they encountered an overwhelming odor of

urine inside the home and said walls were stained

with urine, " summarized the Lansdale Reporter.

" Feces coated other surfaces of the house,

according to prosecutors. Some of the animals

were emaciated and had respiratory infections,

according to testimony. Dead animals were

discovered stored in plastic bags in Jones'

freezer and refrigeratorŠThe carcass of another

animal was discovered under an entertainment

center, testimony revealed. "

A three-judge panel from the 6th U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in June

2005 upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit similar to

the Janet Jones case, resulting from a May 2001

investigation by the Shelbyville-Bedford County

Humane Society, of Shelbyville, Tennessee.

Investigators seized more than 175 dogs, an

unknown number of monkeys, a raccoon, a fox

squirrel, six birds of native species, and a

variety of livestock from Norbert, Regina, Elaine

and Lorraine Roch. The four members of the Roch

family were among them charged with more than 250

counts of cruelty, theft, disorderly conduct,

resisting arrest and illegally keeping wildlife.

" The federal complaint was filed by the

Rochs after the state won orders to protect some

of their animals, " by placing them in the

custody of court-appointed caretakers, " and

orders for euthanasia of others deemed too

debilitated to save, " recalled Clint Confehr of

the Shelbyville Times-Gazette.

" We agree with the district court's

conclusion that the claims are entirely without

merit, " the 6th Circuit panel wrote.

 

Hoarding frequency

 

Hoarding cases have roughly tripled in

frequency since ANIMAL PEOPLE analyzed the data

from 688 cases in January/ February 1999. While

some of the cases were earlier, most surfaced in

1994-1998.

Seven years later, ANIMAL PEOPLE found

423 active cases in 2005 alone: three times as

many as were handled in any one year covered by

the previous abstract.

The tripling case load is not necessarily

bad news. Detailed analysis seems to indicate

that it simply means more hoarders are being

identified and dealt with, sooner.

If there was any actual increase in the

numbers of hoarders in society, one might expect

to see some other changes in the numbers,

indicative of hoarding being more frequent among

a particular growing category of people

recognizable by gender, age, and reason for

having animals. Instead, the gender, age, and

motive distribution of hoarders appears to be

virtually unchanged.

Among the live animals rescued from

hoarders in 2005 were 7,244 dogs, 4,987 cats,

1,890 horses, 494 goats, and 1,253 other

animals including rabbits, rodents, birds,

reptiles, and other livestock.

At least another 2,131 animals were found

dead but intact enough to count at hoarders'

premises.

The total of more than 18,000 animals

involved in hoarding cases equals the typical

annual shelter intake from a city of half a

million people.

Because the animals seized in hoarding

cases are usually victims of severe neglect,

requiring extra care to rehabilitate, and

because hoarding cases often result in protracted

legal action, the drain on humane resources from

hoarding cases may be the equivalent of the cost

of providing animal care-and-control service to a

city of two or three million people.

Indeed, hoarding cases cost the humane

community about as much each year as the

emergency evacuation of New Orleans after

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and

September 2005, with comparable inputs of both

volunteer and professional labor.

 

" Witches "

 

Animal hoarding appears to have attracted

notice at least as far back as the Middle Ages.

While many accounts of " witch " persecution were

fairly obviously just pretexts for seizing

widows' land, in at least some cases whole

houses and the animals in them were burned,

along with the " witches, " to rid communities of

accumulations of excrement, carcasses, and

vermin, which had become a noxious nuisance even

by the standards of the notoriously unsanitary

times.

The stereotypical witch was an aging

widow or spinster who furtively kept many

non-working animals in conditions of filth,

mumbling " incantations " to herself and cursing

neighbors. Her behavior might today be

recognized as depressive or schizophrenic.

The " witch " stereotype persists as the stereotypical animal hoarder.

Superficially, there is truth in it.

Perdue University professor of animal

ecology Alan Beck and colleague Dooley Worth

found in a 1981 study of 31 cases handled by the

American SPCA and the New York City Bureau of

Animal Affairs that 23 of the 34 people involved

were female, and 24 were unmarried.

Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium founder

Gary Patronek has reported similar findings from

studies of about 50 hoarding cases, mostly in

the U.S. Northeast.

Randy Lockwood, who has investigated

hoarding for both the Humane Society of the U.S.

and the American SPCA, guesses that two-thirds

of hoarders are female.

However, each of these investigators

focused on neglect of dogs and cats, excluding

mass neglect of animals kept for economic

purposes, such as breeding, farming, and

operating pet stores.

Looking only at mass neglect, without

prejudice as to motive for having animals,

ANIMAL PEOPLE in 1999 found that females were the

alleged perpetrators of 450 incidents (59%),

and males of 338 (41%). Responsibility was

shared between genders in exactly 100 cases

(15%). Nearly two-thirds of the alleged

perpetrators lived alone.

Proportionately, the 2005 findings were

almost identical. Among the 409 alleged hoarders

who were identified by gender, 239 (58%) were

female; 170 (42%) were male. Just over

two-thirds--68%--lived alone.

Among 156 hoarders in the 1999 abstract

who claimed to be animal rescuers, 77% were

female. ANIMAL PEOPLE evaluated the 2005 data

somewhat differently, but found that among 248

hoarders without a visible economic motive for

keeping animals, 66% were female.

Among 158 hoarders in the 1999 abstract

who were identified as pet breeders, 55% were

female. This too changed little. Among 54

breeders in the 2005 abstract, 54% were female.

Among 125 hoarders in the 1999 abstract

who claimed to be farmers or who kept horses

other than as rescuers, 65% were male. Among

81 farmers or non-rescue horse keepers in the

2005 abstract, 54% were male, including 56% of

the horse keepers.

The gender split among pet store owners

charged with hoarding was even in both years.

Of 307 hoarders in the 1999 abstract who kept

animals for an economic purpose, 173 (55%) were

male. Of 161 hoarders in the 2005 abstract who

kept animals for an economic purpose, 85 (53%)

were male.

In short, there was no significant change in the

gender patterns of hoarding from 1994-1999 to

2005.

Virtually all of the alleged hoarders

included in both abstracts became responsible for

large numbers of animals many years before

running into trouble, typically soon after a

death in their immediate family.

Hoarding thus appears to associated with

acute depression, afflicting someone who has

intensive involvement with animals. Other people

might merely neglect themselves and their

physical surroundings. People with animals

neglect them, too.

The proportions of rescuers, breeders,

farmers, and pet store owners, their gender

balance, and their age stratification all appear

to reflect nothing more noteworthy than their

relative proportions in society.

Male hoarders in both abstracts appeared

to be more likely than women to get into trouble

for mass neglect early in life:

 

 

Ages of alleged animal hoarders

Female Male

1999 2005 1999 2005

Under 30 8% 11% 15% 13%

30 to 39 12% 13% 14% 15%

40 to 49 27% 39% 27% 34%

50 to 59 26% 19% 16% 21%

60 to 69 15% 14% 16% 14%

70 and up 16% 11% 12% 3%

 

However, above age 59, the differing

age skews by gender are chiefly suggestive of the

earlier average male age of death, especially

among single people and depressive personalities.

Probably fewer men are caught hoarding animals

after age 50 only because fewer of those who

might hoard are still alive.

The most meaningful change in the age

stratification of hoarders is that middle-aged

female hoarders seem to be running into trouble

sooner. This may reflect increased public

recognition of hoarding behavior.

 

Convictions

 

Of the hoarding cases known to ANIMAL

PEOPLE that were before the courts in 2005, at

least 22% brought a conviction. The actual

conviction rate may be much higher because of

non-reported plea bargains.

This is a big improvement from 1999 and

earlier, when ANIMAL PEOPLE found that people

who were convicted of neglecting individual

animals typically drew stiffer sentences than

people who neglected many. The conviction rate

then, in reported cases, appeared to be under

10%.

Conviction rates vary markedly with the

reasons why hoarders have animals. Convicted in

2005 were 57% of the pet store owners, 41% of

the breeders, 30% of the rescuers who had formed

humane organizations, 25% of the horse keepers,

17% of the hoarders who " rescued " or otherwise

kept dogs and cats without institutional

arrangements, 16% of the hoarders whose victims

included children, elderly people, or disabled

people, and 16% of the hoarders who specifically

hoarded pit bull terriers, an emerging

phenomenon that was not even visible in 1999.

Of the 19 pit bull hoarders identified by

gender, 13 were male; 11 were under age 40.

Breeding, rescuing, and fighting were often all

mentioned as motives by the suspects. Several

appeared to be doing all three, by their own

definitions, having " rescued " fighting dogs for

stud use, with intent to use some of the

offspring to fight.

A further indication that hoarding is now

better recognized, bringing earlier

intervention, is that the percentages of

hoarders collecting dogs and cats are down,

along with the numbers of animals found in their

custody.

What this suggests is that people who

start out with large numbers of dogs or cats seem

to be getting less time to diversify into

hoarding other species.

Hoarders caught with dogs were 54% of the

1999 sample, but only 50% of the 2005 sample.

Hoarders who kept dogs had an average of 54 in

1994-1999, but only 35 in 2005, a 54%

improvement.

Hoarders caught with cats were 33% of the

1999 sample, but only 30% of the 2005 sample.

Hoarders who kept cats had an average of 48 in

1994-1999, but only 39 in 2005, a 23%

improvement.

Among the remaining hoarders in the 2005

abstract, 27% kept horses, averaging 18 apiece,

virtually unchanged from the 1994-1999 average of

19 apiece.

Nine percent hoarded birds, averaging 31

each, while 14% hoarded other species,

averaging 19 each.

Dead animals were found in 22% of

hoarding situations, up from 17% in 1994-1999.

This difference may also reflect earlier

intervention, giving starving animals less time

to consume each other's remains.

 

Human victims

 

ANIMAL PEOPLE found that in 1994-1999,

28 alleged hoarders, including about a third of

the women under age 40, kept a total of 44

children in approximately the same conditions as

the animals in their custody-often caged,

starved, in filth, suffering from untreated

illness and injury.

Eleven alleged hoarders kept a total of

12 senior citizens in such conditions. The human

victim was in nine cases a parent.

In 2005, 24 alleged hoarders in 12 households kept 44 human victims.

The alleged people-hoarders included

seven men and 17 women: 55% of the women under

age 40. The victims were 41 minor children,

two senior citizens, and one mentally

handicapped 47-year-old man.

In two more cases teenagers were charged

as accessory offenders even though they had

barely reached the age of majority, to remove

the teenagers from situations that they seemed to

have had little to do with creating, but had

been unable to escape.

The number of cases involving human

victims surged fivefold over the 1994-1999 rate

of discovery. This might indicate either a

general decline in the state of U.S. social

services, or the outcome of cross-training,

which has enabled many more humane workers and

animal control officers to respond effectively

when they see neglected humans at a hoarding

scene.

 

" Rescuers "

 

ANIMAL PEOPLE in 1994-1999 made no effort

to distinguish individual self-defined " rescuers "

who were caught hoarding from hoarders who had

established nonprofit organizations, opened

" shelters " and " sanctuaries, " set up web sites,

and/or took other measures to institutionally

define themselves.

Yet many of the most prolific hoarders in

the 1994-1999 abstract fit that definition.

Since ANIMAL PEOPLE did not separately

count " institutional " hoarders then, we cannot

say definitively whether there are more of them

now, or whether they now hoard more animals.

Anecdotally, our impression is that

there are more " institutional " hoarders.

Yet the total number of animals suffering

at their hands appears to be down. All 37

" institutional " hoarders in the 2005 survey had

fewer animals, combined, than just the most

memorable half dozen had among those who were

caught in 1994-1999.

However, puppy mill operators, caught

with an average of 84 dogs apiece, were the only

hoarder category to keep more dogs, cats, or

horses than " institutional " rescuers turned

hoarder.

Seventeen institutional dog-and-cat

" rescue " hoarding situations, involving eight

male and 19 female perpetrators, kept an average

of 71 dogs and 56 cats (about half again as many

as the average for individual dog and cat

hoarders), plus one bird, with 32 dead animals

found on their premises.

Ten institutional horse " rescue " hoarding

situations kept an average of 39 horses--and

surrendered 23% of all the horses who were

rescued from mass neglect during 2005.

--Merritt Clifton

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent

newspaper providing original investigative

coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded

in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes

the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal

protection organizations. We have no alignment

or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent

newspaper providing original investigative

coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded

in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes

the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal

protection organizations. We have no alignment

or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]