Dinah, ClinkShrink, & Roy produce Shrink Rap: a blog by Psychiatrists for Psychiatrists, interested bystanders are also welcome. A place to talk; no one has to listen.
Friday, March 19, 2010
101 Dalmations (And Chihuahuas…And Cats….And…)
In the New York Times this week we have a story entitled Animal Abuse as Clue to Additional Cruelties. In this article Ian Urbina discusses the problem of people who hoard animals and the connection between animal abuse and violence toward people.
The link between animal cruelty and antisocial behavior is well known and was first studied in the 1960's by a researcher at Washington University by the name of Lee Robins. Dr. Robins followed the outcomes of children referred to a local mental health center for conduct problems, and learned that about one third of them developed antisocial behavior as adults. This is where we get the current conduct disorder criteria for antisocial personality disorder found in DSM-IV: firesetting, theft, running away, truancy and animal cruelty.
States are passing laws to better identify and track people who hoard or abuse animals, with the idea that people who do this are also likely to be abusing or neglect humans in their households. The laws allow for sharing of information between people who investigate domestic violence or child abuse and people who investigate animal neglect cases. Some states are even passing laws to create registries of animal abusers.
Two parts of this story caught my attention: the registry issue and the idea that neglecting an animal becomes a predicate offense for other investigations. Here in Maryland we're big on registries. We have a sex offender registry and child abuse and neglect registry. We have a law requiring child welfare agencies to compare recent birth certificate information to the child abuse registry, to see if any known child abusers are having more kids. Now maybe we should also check to see if they're adopting pets.
The whole idea of registering and tracking people is a bit uncomfortable for me. Registries don't prevent crime but they can prevent people from getting jobs, buying homes and reintegrating into society after they've served their time. Being on a registry (or not being on one) is not truly reflective of the risk that person poses to society. A demented little old lady found with 200 cats in her basement could end up on the Internet, with the implication that she since she has neglected animals she also abuses children. Registries also don't seem to do much for preventing people from getting access to what makes people truly violent: guns and alcohol. Perhaps we should require liquor stores to check registries before any beer transaction. While we're at it, violence is associated with mental illness, untreated mood disorders and personality disorders. Maybe a registry of psychiatric patients?
Please. Enough. I doubt Dr. Robins ever expected this kind of outcome to her work. The purpose of studies like hers was to identify people at risk, for intervention and treatment, not for prosecution and public censure. I think we need to get back to that original idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Although I understand that owning an excessive number of pets can lead to unhealthy living conditions and diminished life quality for the animals, I don't see animal hoarders as people more likely to commit violence against people or violence against animals.
My sister is an animal hoarder and the old lady across the street from her is way worse (and my sister is bad enough). The old lady spends all her available time and money on cats. She even leaves home for hours every night after dark to feed feral cats all over the city of Buffalo. Those she can capture she brings back to her house which is overrun with cats in every room. She's "batty" and antisocial and misguided, but not a violent person.
I agree about not creating endless rosters. People should be allowed to move on with their lives and live in peace. Imagine if the "batty" old lady were to be labeled as violent against animals. How unfair.
I hear that people who set couches on fire also have a propensity for antisocial behavior
I'm with SunnyCA on this one, unless there's a specialized definition of "animal hoarding" being used? Is there some connection between violence and taking in too many stray cats? Animal cruelty is certainly a huge red flag and I think such a registry would certainly be a good idea.. but there would have to be some way to screen for the difference between someone who abuses animals and someone who can't turn an animal away. While never being able to say "no" to an animal might be problematic, and could lead to neglect and health issues when the number became completely overwhelming, just taking in stray animals is not an act of cruelty or violence. If they take them in and torture them, add them to the registry-- if they take them in and can't take care of them, perhaps assigning them to community service with a local ASPCA would be a better idea.
It's a fine line to walk. Pros and cons. No one wants to see an animal abused or neglected, and no one wants over-regulation or a zillion registries.
Animal hoarding is a substantively different type of animal cruelty, and it is silly to make the leap to a registry of offenders. What would be the purpose? It's my understanding that animal hoarding is a form or expression of obsessive compulsive disorder. I went to a conference on the subject that went into the psychology of the phenomenon. I do think that animal hoarders are very bad for animals. They don't see anything wrong with what they are doing, and, if authorities leave them with "just a few," those will serve as the starters of a new collection. Hoarders need to have all their animals taken away and to be watched by humane authorities, because recidivism is all but inevitable, and the animals suffer greatly. But a registry is ridiculous. Anti-cruelty officers in the community are already well aware of who they are. Further, animal hoarding does not appear to be a "predictor" of future crimes against humanity, so to speak--it's a phenomenon in and of itself.
There's nothing wrong with caring for feral cat colonies, btw. Feeding--when done in conjunction with a Trap-Neuter-Return plan, I must add---is a very successful and humane approach to reducing the number of feral animals.
And yes, this push for writing down peoples' names and branding them as present and future offenders is way too dystopian, IMO. It probably only serves the illusion that something is being done to control the problem.
Animal hoarding is a substantively different type of animal cruelty, and it is silly to make the leap to a registry of offenders. What would be the purpose? It's my understanding that animal hoarding is a form or expression of obsessive compulsive disorder. I went to a conference on the subject that went into the psychology of the phenomenon. I do think that animal hoarders are very bad for animals. They don't see anything wrong with what they are doing, and, if authorities leave them with "just a few," those will serve as the starters of a new collection. Hoarders need to have all their animals taken away and to be watched by humane authorities, because recidivism is all but inevitable, and the animals suffer greatly. But a registry is ridiculous. Anti-cruelty officers in the community are already well aware of who they are. Further, animal hoarding does not appear to be a "predictor" of future crimes against humanity, so to speak--it's a phenomenon in and of itself.
There's nothing wrong with caring for feral cat colonies, btw. Feeding--when done in conjunction with a Trap-Neuter-Return plan, I must add---is a very successful and humane approach to reducing the number of feral animals.
And yes, this push for writing down peoples' names and branding them as present and future offenders is way too dystopian, IMO. It probably only serves the illusion that something is being done to control the problem.
Assigning them to work with the ASPCA is not a great idea, sorry to say. Part of the phenomenon is a distrust of animal-welfare organizations and the belief that one is the only person who can "save" these animals. So they take in more and more animals to save them from the authorities, animals they have no hope of being able to care for. The animals then live warehoused in utter squalor, such as in wire cages or covered boxes without ever (literally ever) seeing the light of day; or they roam "free" in a house or its basement, up to their ankles in waste, in filth and polluted air that chokes the workers who eventually, inevitably, are called in to clear the place out wearing hazmat suits and gas masks. The hoarders don't see the filth. Animal hoarding is evidence of a mental disorder, not a problem of simply having too many pets. It's a mania for acquisition and control, combined with a delusion that everything is okay.
Unfortunately this campaign was developed by the animal rights movement and perpetuated to make neighbors start looking out their windows more and reporting for multiple animal ownership as multiple animals means to them....how could someone possibly take care of 6 dogs or 10 dogs.Many show homes have had dogs confiscated due to the fact of the numbers as hoarders when all they were doing was persuing a hobby and enjoying a sport.
Unfortunately there are no known causes for hoarding things or animals. Some researchers have sited obscessive compulsive disorder. Yet, not recognized in the DSM IV manuel, is, the term animal hoarding and is not recognized as a “disease” and no known treatment as yet, but trial and error, and no magic pill. We do know the “cure rate” is extremely low. I would think certainly more scientific research is called for vs. social research. In many of these cases we can see depression, poor and uneducated. These types of campaigns by the vegan animal rights community help no one. For whatever reason this is not a "social" problem in the UK as it has developed in the USA, nor other countries. One has to wonder if it is the social movement of animal rights USA or something quite different.
Post a Comment