Animal hoarding and welfare and stuff

[ZEZOZE]

lol...hoarders. why are they suddenly being talked about so much? i think mandatory spay and neutering should be applied to people who watch crappy television.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

Personally, I think it is healthy and normal for parents to be emotionally attached to their babies and young children. I do not accept any parallel with hoarding pets.

OK, but so what? What do your personal morals clauses have to do with anything?

I only care to the degree that it bothers other people. It bothers other people in two possible ways:
1) disturbing the neighbors as Clutch identified
2) wasting my taxes to handle their absurdity.

1) The animals that got loose were disturbing the neighbors. The rest of them were contained.
2) Taxes were wasted confiscating/housing/killing the animals.

It is just astonishing how serious you folks are in expecting the tax-payers to bend over backwards for what amounts -- in my bold opinion -- to a fucked up woman who killed herself over the death of her pet rock.
Yes, I am making a parallel between her pets and pet rocks.

What are you talking about?

In case this wasn't clear already, the only service that taxes usually pay for is the confiscation and keeping the animals afterward. That's expensive.

Every now and again, various municipalities will assist low income residents with vet care, but it's unlikely that this place is one of them. There are private charities and individual volunteers that do pretty much everything else. They just have to get a heads up and they have to have access. It's as simple as giving people time before taking the drastic and tax-draining measure of confiscating pets and housing them in the municipal shelter, and of putting people in touch with private charities that already exist to help with things like vet care, food, adoptions, etc.

(Oh, and not to begrudge you a response to your extremely dramatic comparison: HOW DARE YOU COMPARE AN ANIMAL TO A ROCK, SIR? I AM TAKEN ABACK BY YOUR EXTREMELY BOLD OPINION!)

I have no problem with that. I am talking about hoarding.
Also, old people get a little more leeway in the crazy department. They have deserve to get away with a little bit of nuttiness.

OK. What is hoarding, then? Where do you draw the line, and what do you do about it? That's a big question you're begging.

And are you really saying the state needs to be the arbiter of who deserves to get away with a little bit of nuttiness? Seriously?

Or are you saying that you should be the arbiter?

Because if it's the latter, I'm going to ask you again: So what? I don't think anyone cares all that much if you're just sitting somewhere thinking uncharitable things about them.

I'm not really interested in woolgathering about third parties' psychological health and moral pronouncements or your moral authority because you have a cat or anything like that, because it's irrelevant. It's just a fact that a lot of people are dependent on their pets for whatever reason, and that it sometimes becomes a matter of public concern. And it's one that taxpayer money ends up addressing if it goes too far.

It's a given that a lot of these people have psychological problems, and that different people have different opinions about what is and is not a problem. The issue is when it's necessary to intervene, and what is the best way to do so, taking the various factors into account, including money, public health and safety, and general well being of the animals and the people involved.

From what I can gather, you don't care about the welfare of the animals at all, and you dismiss the welfare of people you consider morally unsound.

[Gonzo]

I have so many pet rocks in my yard, most of our neighbors have moved elsewhere.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by lisarea

OK, but so what? What do your personal morals clauses have to do with anything?

You do not have to care about my opinion.

Originally Posted by lisarea

1) The animals that got loose were disturbing the neighbors. The rest of them were contained.
2) Taxes were wasted confiscating/housing/killing the animals.

Indeed. I consider all of that to be nonsense.
I do not believe my taxes should have funded any response.

Originally Posted by lisarea

What are you talking about?

I am talking about all of the pleas in this thread for the government to do this or that or whatever.

Originally Posted by lisarea

In case this wasn't clear already, the only service that taxes usually pay for is the confiscation and keeping the animals afterward. That's expensive.

Indeed. I do not believe any of that should have been done.

Originally Posted by lisarea

OK. What is hoarding, then?

Define it any way you want. Nobody else offered an universally accepted criteria. I do not care if you put that entire onus on me as an attack against my opinion of people who love animals to the point where they must suicide without them.

Originally Posted by lisarea

Where do you draw the line, and what do you do about it? That's a big question you're begging.

No. I am saying: do not spend my taxes on solving this problem. Let the neighbors revolt.

Originally Posted by lisarea

And are you really saying the state needs to be the arbiter of who deserves to get away with a little bit of nuttiness? Seriously?

No. I never said that.
I do not believe the state should exist let alone do anything.

Originally Posted by lisarea

Or are you saying that you should be the arbiter?

No. All I said was that hoarders should expect their neighbors to revolt against them. They should govern themselves accordingly.
I am not saying that neighbors SHOULD revolt. I am saying that anybody with half of a brain should EXPECT them to revolt. It is purely an observation of human action. I just do not feel responsible for what the neighbors do just like I am not responsible for protecting a gazelle from an attacking tiger.

Originally Posted by lisarea

Because if it's the latter, I'm going to ask you again: So what? I don't think anyone cares all that much if you're just sitting somewhere thinking uncharitable things about them.

It is the hoarders who should care if their neighbors revolt against them.

Originally Posted by lisarea

It's just a fact that a lot of people are dependent on their pets for whatever reason, and that it sometimes becomes a matter of public concern. And it's one that taxpayer money ends up addressing if it goes too far.

Yeah and I believe that survival of the species is a good enough mechanism to deal with hoarders.

[quote=lisarea;901657]The issue is when it's necessary to intervene, and what is the best way to do so, taking the various factors into account, including money, public health and safety, and general well being of the animals and the people involved./QUOTE] I believe people should respect their neighbors lest their neighbros revolt.

Originally Posted by lisarea

From what I can gather, you don't care about the welfare of the animals at all, and you dismiss the welfare of people you consider morally unsound.

No. I just believe that if they are disturbing their neighbors, they do not deserve tax money to defend themselves against their neighbors.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

I am talking about all of the pleas in this thread for the government to do this or that or whatever.

Where?

I suss that you're being anarchy hammer assuming everything is a government nail. Which is not the case. The only situation in which the government is necessarily involved in this case is in the confiscation and housing of the confiscated animals. Rescues, volunteers, food banks, and discounted vet programs are not government run. (In some rare and limited cases, the government does provide low income assistance for vet care, but that's not a given.) And using such intermediary measures, in this case, would likely save taxes.

I guess it just goes without saying that your solution to this, like your solution to everything, is a Hobbesean state in which people comply with social norms out of fear of vengeful villagers or something?

[livius drusus]

chunks, your ferret is 9 years old and still playful? Is he in good health? My ferrets all died at around 6 years old from insulinoma and adrenal tumors, thank you Marshall Farms. Which, speaking of hoarders, how about breaking up some of the big breeding operations that generate an endless stream of thousands upon thousands of genetically damaged pets? Talk about a public nuisance.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

chunks, your ferret is 9 years old and still playful? Is he in good health? My ferrets all died at around 6 years old from insulinoma and adrenal tumors, thank you Marshall Farms. Which, speaking of hoarders, how about breaking up some of the big breeding operations that generate an endless stream of thousands upon thousands of genetically damaged pets? Talk about a public nuisance.

I don't know if it even applies to other species, but some places have considered and/or implemented puppy mill legislation that regulates them more closely, up to I think outright bans, than current regulations (breeding ops are overseen by the USDA, and they don't do a very thorough job even of enforcing what little regulations they have).

Happily, I haven't had to decide my position on that yet. A lot of people, including me, think that a lot of the problems could be alleviated or even resolved by simply starving the industry.

Again, I am a doggy guy, so I mostly know about this stuff from a doggy perspective, but the things that keep puppy mills in business seem to be largely:

1. You can just march into a business and buy a puppy. Many shelters and most rescues are pretty thorough about interviews and background checks on potential adopters, and they frequently turn people away, for some good reasons but also a lot of bad and silly ones. And a fair subset of those rejected adopters then go to a retailer to get a dog.

2. Shelters are depressing and inaccessible. Some are dirty and hostile to potential adopters (which ties into #1), many have really odd and inaccessible hours and locations, things like that. They don't really attract people.

3. This weirds me the hell out, but there are still a lot of people who seem to think that a purebred dog confers some kind of elevated social standing. Seriously.

4. People are afraid of used dogs. They think they're defective and unstable or something. Also weird.

The last two are societal perceptions, which can best be addressed by pointing and lolling at people, I suppose.

The first two, though, can be addressed in part by adopting a more retail model for sheltering, and by municipal and private shelters being more inclusive both of adopters and volunteers.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by lisarea

3. This weirds me the hell out, but there are still a lot of people who seem to think that a purebred dog confers some kind of elevated social standing. Seriously.

Yeah but some people what a specific breed of dog for some other reason, like size or looks or personality. Whether personality is really a breed-specific thing, I dunno, but the other two are valid. The only reasons we were able to get our baby is that we were very lucky and a little patient. For months I searched and put the word out that we were looking for a chihuahua and then finally I got a heads-up from the other lady at the gym that one came available and I sprinted over and snatched her up first thing, while they were still unloading her from the truck. If I hadn't found her soon I would have given up on the humane society and just picked one up at the flea market eventually.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Where?

Here:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Ideally, there needs to be a comprehensive and planned intervention that

seconded here:

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Basically what LadyShea said:

and this, the most laughable:

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Also, and off the top of my head: if an agency takes away someone's pets, it should automatically arrange and pay for counseling and pet care training. Ideally there should also be clear instructions on what training, pledges, and home improvements would be sufficient to get the pets back, or at at least be permitted to get new ones. IOW, the default aim of the process ought to be to give (some of) the pets back. This'd go a long way towards averting a sense of hopelessness.

and add to that all of the people who Thanked those posts.

Originally Posted by lisarea

I guess it just goes without saying that your solution to this, like your solution to everything, is a Hobbesean state in which people comply with social norms out of fear of vengeful villagers or something?

Forgive me but it is not MY solution. It is my observation of how the natural world operates. I am just embracing it.

[Ensign Steve]

You do realize that those posts you quoted are people talking about what the shows should do, not what the government should do, right? At least that's how I read LadyShea's and Gonzo's posts. And Clutch is in Canada (laughable, I know), so his filthy mitts aren't getting anywhere near your money.

[1Samuel8]

Well, then tell those posters to go back and edit their posts to make it evident that I am wrong.

[Ensign Steve]

What am I, the boss of them?

[Sock Puppet]

Yeah, guys! Not only should you edit your posts, you should be more careful in the future not to get Sammy charging into action on his hobbyhorse for a false alarm. For shame.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

Yeah but some people what a specific breed of dog for some other reason, like size or looks or personality. Whether personality is really a breed-specific thing, I dunno, but the other two are valid. The only reasons we were able to get our baby is that we were very lucky and a little patient. For months I searched and put the word out that we were looking for a chihuahua and then finally I got a heads-up from the other lady at the gym that one came available and I sprinted over and snatched her up first thing, while they were still unloading her from the truck. If I hadn't found her soon I would have given up on the humane society and just picked one up at the flea market eventually.

No, that's not what I mean. I mean people who aren't even necessarily breed enthusiasts who just think that having a purebred dog, or having papers, confers some kind of social status. There really are a fair number of people who think like that.

I've even had a couple of people insist that ZZ must be some kind of purebred (of what, they didn't say, because lol), apparently out of some notion that mutts are inferior or ugly or something like that.

[LadyShea]

Well, I used the word "ideally" for a reason. In an ideal world, if government agents are getting sent in anyway (and they already are in the form of law enforcement) that should include social workers or some other professional to make the process as least painful as possible under the circumstances.

Another really neat thing I would like to see is trained volunteers and/or professionals working pro bono for the good of their community doing the interventions.

Hoarding is a mental health issue so real humangs need help. Animal hoarding adds animal welfare and public health and safety concerns as well. I happen to care about those things. Tax dollars are already being spent on unpleasant and counterproductive reactionary law enforcement action, I would rather they be spent on humane and sane intervention and prevention. That's just me.

[Gonzo]

your ferret is 9 years old and still playful? Is he in good health?

He was born January 6th, 2004 according to his birth certificate. My bro says he got him on the 22nd. (Holy shit! Anniversary tomorrow! Ferret party!)

So, I guess he's 7. Yeah he's still very playful, but a bit overweight.

My ferrets all died at around 6 years old from insulinoma and adrenal tumors, thank you Marshall Farms.

[livius drusus]

Damn, your ferret has a birth certificate?! You roll high style yo. Where did you get him? Store? Breeder? Friend?

[LadyShea]

I think my ferrets lived around a decade before getting endocrine disease and were ferrety to the end. They were awesome.

The mean one we fostered (a neighbor found it) seemed pretty young, and was already showing signs when we took him in

[Gonzo]

A local pet store called Pet Place which gets them from a licensed breeder. In Michigan it's illegal to sell fertile ferrets so he came pre-neutered. Thus paperwork.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Another really neat thing I would like to see is trained volunteers and/or professionals working pro bono for the good of their community doing the interventions.

One of the main things that people who've worked toward no kill solutions say is that if you let it be known that you need help, and you make it easy and accessible for people to do so, there are plenty of people who do. A lot of organizations make it pretty difficult to volunteer, including most entrenched, old-style animal control type facilities and municipal shelters.

In hoarding cases, there will often be a need for some kind of government intervention, from animal control, adult protective services, the health dept., etc., but in a community that has an existing network of volunteers that can be mobilized quickly, some things like rehabilitation, fostering, vet care, etc., could be taken care of by volunteers rather than by animal control and the city shelters.

Hoarding is a mental health issue so real humangs need help. Animal hoarding adds animal welfare and public health and safety concerns as well. I happen to care about those things. Tax dollars are already being spent on unpleasant and counterproductive reactionary law enforcement action, I would rather they be spent on humane and sane intervention and prevention. That's just me.

That's me, too. I'd add that having an existing network and comprehensive humane policies in place could actually save tax money in a lot of cases.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by lisarea

In hoarding cases, there will often be a need for some kind of government intervention, from animal control, adult protective services, the health dept., etc., but in a community that has an existing network of volunteers that can be mobilized quickly, some things like rehabilitation, fostering, vet care, etc., could be taken care of by volunteers rather than by animal control and the city shelters.

I thought the Pro Bono professionals could include counselors and social workers and organizers to help with the home situation. A holistic approach ya know?

[lisarea]

Nathan Winograd has a pretty good blog post up today:

A Culture of Cruelty : Nathan J Winograd

It's not directly applicable to hoarding itself, and it's not really saying anything he hasn't said all along, but when you take stories like this into account, where local animal welfare authorities are so grossly negligent, hostile to the community, and even outright cruel, it's probably not all that surprising that well-meaning people get in over their heads sometimes. If you lived in a place where animal authorities did things like this, I'd imagine you'd be more inclined to try to save strays yourself, rather than calling someone in. I know I wouldn't call AC about strays or abandoned animals if I lived somewhere where they did things like that.

It seems like most hoarding cases come about either because someone's running a de facto rescue, or because breeding gets out of control and they're afraid to raise suspicions or can't afford the speutering costs. So maybe if communities made a real concerted effort to come up with humane solutions to their problems, rather than leaving animal welfare to angry, disaffected public servants, they'd be able to prevent a lot of problems instead of letting them get out of control.

[LadyShea]

This is the kind of sad ending a holistic approach to hoarding situation intervention might prevent. The humans needed help, the animals needed help, well before the living ones were sleeping amongst corpses.

[Sophia]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I know people are always saying that the animal welfare problem in the south is a cultural thing, but it's a bad, stupid cultural thing that needs to be fixed.

Amen sister!

I've long figured that we should deal with the gun issue while trying to be sensitive as possible regarding rural culture. I mean being awash with guns and giving them to kids is stupid as hell, but that doesn't mean we have to rub that in all the time. Gun fetishists are very misguided, frightened, deluded human beings, but still, they're human beings. And if we seriously want to free their minds from phallocentric hoplophilia and save the lives of kids from gun violence then we better do what is effective. Not just beat up on unfortunate people like some macho asshole might.

Exactly the same is all true with regard to the south's animal welfare problem, too. It's amazing how much more headway you can gain with people if you're not constantly calling them inferior!

[Demimonde]

I meant to get back to this thread, the Winograd blog is good but I think that he is a little overboard in condemning the workers. The Dallas Observer piece that he links to, by Andrea Grimes is very good. It goes into the political and social problems that I think are more problematic. I can't blame wholly an animal welfare agent with three kids at the mercy of such an asshole of a superivsor. Or the folks cleaning cages and dealing with such a depressing work environment. Not in this job market.

Dallas is fucked up, but I am afraid Fort Worth is not much better. At least they are more transparent. I cried buckets when FWAS had the Oprah show in their facility a few years back and saw not only the kill statistics, but garbage bags full of dogs and cats going to MY landfill.

But you are right, lisa, those kinds of practices is what makes Contra and I work so hard to find homes ourselves for pups and kits we find. Only once did I call Animal Services, and that was for a large girl in heat that we could not handle. Also, the owners abandoned her with us and the only way to prosecute them and keep them from getting other dogs to mistreat was to get them involved.