Animal hoarding

Tierhortung (also:. Pet collecting addiction, English animal hoarding ) is the pathological collecting and keeping of animals. As an Animal Hoarder or animal hoarders persons are referred to holding a variety of animals in a confined space without being able to guarantee the minimum requirements for nutrition, hygiene and / or veterinary care. Affected individuals are no longer able to respond to the attitude of defects and the negative impact on the health and well-being of self or of the household members. In the U.S., about 3,000 cases a year are occupied with hundreds of thousands of animals. A survey in German veterinary offices lists over 500 cases with more than 50,000 animals.

After the underlying motivation there are four types of Tierhortern: The exaggerated nurse, the rescuer type, the breeder type and the exploiting type. Apart from the breeder type animal hoarders frequently suffer from mental disorders, but the Tierhortung is no specific fault attributable. The problem is the animal collective addiction especially for the animals kept, which often show disorders, parasites, malnutrition, and behavioral disorders. The prosecution of such violations of animal welfare legislation in Germany is the responsibility of the veterinary offices. Requirements and penalties but are often bypassed or only show short-term effect. The insight of Tierhorters and possibly a psychological support in order to solve such problem cases usually indispensable.

Definition

Tierhortung is the accumulation of animals with four basic characteristics:

The Tierhortung was first described in 1981 on the basis of 31 cases in New York City scientifically. Earlier, the French writer Paul Léautaud (1871-1956) described in his diaries his morbid compassion for animals that ultimately led to that he lived in his house with 38 cats, 22 dogs, a goat and a goose.

Founded in 1997 in Massachusetts, the Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium ( HARC ). This interdisciplinary research group deals with the study of psychological and sociological aspects, the frequency of occurrence and the development of strategies for action. The Animal Welfare Academy of the German Animal Welfare Association in 2008 launched an interdisciplinary working group to Tierhortung to life.

Causes

Patronek and staff undertook in 2006 an attempt to classify the animal hoarders on the underlying motivation into four types:

• Exaggerated nurse ( Overwhelmed Caregiver ): He collects mostly passive animals at first in a manageable number. In most cases these are people who begin by personal problems such as loss of job or life partner or health problems to accumulate animals, which they regard as family members. They tend to psychological disorders of axis 1 according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM -IV). The exaggerated Pfleger is mostly seen in the situation, the starting strain and the resulting problems. The problems tend to be trivialized as ignored. He is usually socially isolated and live in seclusion. Compared to authorities, he is usually reasonable and cooperative.
• Savior type ( Rescuer Hoarder ): He has a missionary urge to rescue animals, for example before a euthanasia, which eventually becomes a compulsive disorder. Savior types gather more actively in animals, first also, so that the minimum required care can not be maintained in a manageable number that grows them later over his head. There usually are people who are not socially isolated. Compared to authorities the rescuer type has a cold and is trying to cover up his actions.
• Breeder type ( Breeder Hoarder ): He initially raise animals for sale or for exhibitions, whose number then increases so that no adequate attitude is more assured. Animals are not usually kept in the home and the living conditions of the person and his family are not affected. Inspection of the resulting problems is mostly moderate available.
• Exploiter type ( Exploiter Hoarder ): He collects animals solely to satisfy their own needs and feels no empathy for animals or humans. The exploiter type of sociopath or suffering from a personality disorder. He feels as an expert and has a strong compulsion to control. Problems of Tierhortung are not recognized or deliberately ignored, against the authorities, he behaves very strongly negative and is therefore the most difficult to manage.

From Patronek and employees of the " incipient hoarders " ( incipient Hoarder ) will be described. With him, there is a minimum level of care of the animals present, he detects defects and tries to actively turn off. However, there is a risk that the livestock suddenly derailed and worsen the conditions dramatically.

This classification shows that various mental disorders, but other causes can lead to animal collective addiction. So it is a symptom rather than a stand-alone mental illness. Therefore, the Tierhortung is not explicitly listed in the illness keys of the DSM-IV and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD -10). Although various psychological models have been used to explain the Tierhortung, puts the research into this phenomenon is still in its infancy. There are parallels for collecting inanimate objects ( Insheeption ) and littering syndrome ( Diogenes syndrome). In up to one third of the Hortungsfälle animals are involved, however, animals have a considerable material value and are considered a part of the animal horter even as family members. This close interaction with the hoarded animals, sometimes paired with a missionary urge savior, and the interactions between hoarders and his animals distinguish it clearly from a " hoarding ". Many animal hoarders take themselves positively as true Samaritan, indicating an I - syntonic disorder. In the recent literature the Tierhortung increasingly accompanying the self-neglect adult (adult self- neglect ) is seen.

In a survey of German veterinary offices for official veterinarians of the savior type and the type of exaggerated caregiver were each represented by about 40 % most frequently after assessment. The breeder type was assigned in 35% of cases, the exploiter type in 13 % of cases. Here multiple answers were possible, since it is quite possible that an animal hoarders characteristics of several types of shows. In contrast to other forms of animal cruelty, the suffering of animals created when animal hoarding through perception loss against the deteriorating conditions, the primary intention of the Tierhorters is not to inflict harm to the animal.

Nature and extent of problematic animal facilities

Affected species and the degree of Tierhortung have so far been systematically investigated in two studies, which are to be expected with a substantial underreporting, since on the one hand only the authorities can be recorded note reached cases and also privacy concerns on the part of the authorities complicate scientific treatment.

A 2011 study submitted on the basis of surveys of German veterinary offices lists over 500 cases with a total of over 50,000 animals. About half of the cases were attitudes of up to three species, in extreme cases, 20 species were held. The species spectrum included all pets, but also birds, reptiles, amphibians, and wildlife. Particularly common attitudes of domestic cats were striking, followed by domestic dogs. The average herd size was 105 animals, in extreme cases, 3,000 animals. The highest numbers of animals have been identified in populations of rodents that grow quickly due to the high rate of reproduction. In about half the cases had the keeper no knowledge of the exact number of animals and the identity of the animals.

A retrospective study in the United States was able to evaluate 54 cases from the years 1992-1996. The annual number of cases in the United States has been estimated on the basis of the data 700 to 2000. The mean number of animals was 39, only in four cases exceeded the number of animals 100 Even in the United States are cat and dog poses most commonly affected. Recent case reports show a significant increase in Tierhortens. Between 2000 and 2006, an increase of five times was observed in the U.S., about 3,000 people per year are now striking, with hundreds of thousands of animals are affected.

Sociological aspects

The majority of animal hoarders are female in the United States, about three-quarters, in Germany almost two-thirds. The largest numbers of animals were observed in Germany but especially in men, although this mainly affected farm animals, rodents, birds and reptiles.

In most cases belong to the older generation of animal hoarders. In the U.S. study, almost half of the animal hoarders were over 60 years old. In the German study showed tends to be a slightly younger age: The average age was 50 years, the majority of those affected was between 40 and 50 years old. This difference is explained by the fact that the transition from the postwar period to the generation of baby boomers in the U.S. took place about 10 years earlier.

While in the United States lived 72% of animal hoarders alone, there were in Germany only about 45%. In 39 % of the German cases a life partner was present at about a quarter of animal hoarders were living with children in the household. The majority of animal hoarders lived in villages or houses. Three quarters of them did not exert profession (pensioners, unemployed). An association with educational level could not be determined.

Animal health and hygienic conditions

In about 80 % of the reported cases, there are significant health and hygiene deficiencies. Most common defects were in Germany diseases ( 60%), parasites (50%), malnutrition (42% ), injuries ( 28%) and conduct disorder (27 %, mainly Deprivationsstörungen ). In almost a third of the stocks of dead animals were found in the U.S. study, even in 60 % of cases.

With feces and urine polluted soils and odors were in the German study, the most common lack of hygiene, which extended in 45% of cases to the human living space. Partial was, especially in cats attitudes after the eviction a substantial refurbishment or even a building demolition needed. In two thirds of cases the space available for the animals was not sufficient.

Odor and lack of hygiene in the U.S. by far also the most common reason for displaying Tierhortungen with authorities. It takes place in over half the cases by neighbors, in about one-fifth by social services. In Germany it is mainly excessive numbers of animals (52% ), followed by odors ( 35%) and impurity ( 31%), leading to the display. Also in Germany there are more than one third of the cases especially worried neighbors who lodge a complaint. Only rarely come the ads from the closer relatives and friends.

Hazard for animal hoarders and optionally his family are mainly due to transmissible to man (zoonoses ) and parasites as well as the high ammonia pollution in the air.

Regulatory measures

Legal bases

The keeping of pets is subject in most countries legal provisions, especially the animal protection law. The keeping of farm animals also is also subject also to the animal health legislation. According to § 2 of the German animal protection law ( Animal Welfare Act ) and Article 6 of the federal Animal Welfare Act, every pet owner has to feed, care for and accommodate his animal properly. Similarly, the Austrian Federal Law on the Protection of Animals in § 5 prohibits any form of animal cruelty, including lack of housing, food and care. In addition, in Germany, various federal and state regulations apply with specific provisions for the keeping and breeding of animals. These include, for example, animal welfare animals ordinance and the animal protection dog regulations. Violations of the Animal Welfare Act are to follow in each case to the veterinary authorities. The competent authority shall remedy according to § 16a of the Animal Welfare the right livestock violations by arrangements or measures, and to take the necessary measures to prevent future violations. Each livestock farming has to be registered in Germany in the Tierseuchenkasse the respective province.

Officially introduced measures and success rates

In the German study was granted official veterinarians only in 54 % of cases, voluntary access to the appropriate locations, a quarter of animal hoarders only allowed access to some areas. The remaining cases could only be visited with a court order.

In almost 87% of written orders or requirements pursuant to § 16a of the Animal Welfare issued. In two thirds of cases the maximum number of animals was limited, placed in 41.5 % of cases, usually temporary animal holding prohibition pursuant to § 20a, Section 1 of the Animal Welfare Act for the time being or judicial. Further conditions were dispensing a portion of the livestock, measures to improve the care, nutrition and hygiene status, veterinary treatments, the disposal of animal carcasses, pest control measures and quarantine requirements. In nearly 44 % of cases a court procedure had to be initiated, but of which only one fifth ended with a verdict. Here were fines imposed in severe custodial sentences of up to eight months with a suspension on probation, in repeat cases, prison sentences of up to eleven months without parole. In half of the cases the animal population was secured or seized.

Only in 45% of cases resulted in actions taken at least a temporary improvement of the conditions. One fifth of animal hoarders took despite obligations to other animals. Animal holding prohibitions have been partially undermined by the hoarding of other animal species. A quarter of animal hoarders eluded the conditions and controls by moving to another office area, at a fifth of the new residence could not even identify. About 43% of animal hoarders were previously made ​​at least once conspicuous, so that assume a great risk of relapse.

A similar repertoire of requirements and procedures practiced in the United States. About a quarter of animal hoarders was placed under official supervision, 17 % were convicted in court, 24 % were evaluated psychiatrically. Temporary attitude prohibitions or restrictions to limit the number of animals are often pronounced, but cleverly circumvented in the United States by many animal hoarders. In severe cases, custodial sentences are imposed. This looks Patronek but rather critical, because a really social or mental problem is criminalized and an adhesive not only expensive but also is still inefficient to solve the problem.

These results show that coercion and punitive measures achieve only limited success. Although coercive effect rapid improvement for the animals, but not eliminate the mental causes the animal hoarders still bend it in front of a relapse. Pumping of self-knowledge, one facing consequences - ie accepting the personality of Tierhorters, but the non- toleration of animal welfare violations - regular monitoring, individual approach and the cooperation of veterinary services with other authorities, social organizations and animal welfare organizations are required to solve problem cases permanently.

Costs

The cost of Tierhortungsfällen can usually only be roughly estimated. In addition to the expenses of the veterinary offices often more authorities must ( in almost 40 % of the German cases, the police ) are turned on. In the resolution of such animal facilities beyond cost of housing and the cost of veterinary treatment, pest control, court proceedings are in shelters that want their capacity to absorb larger numbers of animals but rarely sufficient, etc. added. In the German study, 8,863 euros was spent per process on average. The total costs in Germany are estimated at a double-digit million amount. In the United States may for uncomplicated cases already cost several thousand dollars incurred for complicated procedures than 100,000 U.S. dollars.

Psychosocial care

The lack of association of the Animal hoardings to one of the recognized mental health disorders often leads to a delay in the integration of social, psychotherapeutic or psychiatric facilities. Due to the high slope to the animals, it is difficult to cause an immediate removal of the animals.

However, the introduction of care and treatment measures requires the consent and will of the Tierhorters. In the German study in 88 % of cases at least a willingness to talk was to be recognized. In about one third of cases a mental disorder was suspected by the official veterinarian. The support by the social psychiatric service but was rejected by most Tierhortern, only in 18 % of cases, the parties involved are declared to be such a measure ready.

The complexity of the causes of difficult care and problem solving and is responsible for the high rates of relapse. First, the presence of any mental or psychiatric underlying diseases must be recognized and treated if necessary. The Motivational interviewing is one of the ways of solving Tierhortungsfällen. However, each case must be analyzed individually and impartially, special means of intervention and treatment of Tierhortung have not yet been published.