Whats the difference between having lots of animals and hoarding?

[timberwolf89]

I really want lots of pets (lol) but I dont want to be a hoarder

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

Hoarding is a mental illness, and the key (IMO) is whether or not one keeps animals in spite of one's inability to care for them. So, to me, the key isn't how many animals one has, but whether or not one is able and does take appropriate care of them. Someone can have 20 cats living in reasonable health and comfort and that's OK, but someone having 20 cats who aren't cared for and are living in unclean circumstances is a hoarder.

 

[battie]

The welfare of the animals

 

[killerleaf]

based on the opinion of someone OTHER than the owner. Don't most hoarders believe that they are taking great care of their animals??

 

[that redhead]

The welfare of the animals

I think this is an important part of the hoarding definition but not the entirety.

My husband and I got into an interesting conversation the other day when I told him about Maryland now having mandatory reporting of suspected animal cruelty cases. Our gut reaction is "Well of course you report animal cruelty!" but I think of the pets who come in matted, teeth rotting out, covered in fleas, with some untreated illness(es) that people refuse to do anything for but somehow aren't considered a neglect case. Am I supposed to report them? Are those people hoarders just because their animals are suffering? Can people be defined as hoarders from a psychologic standpoint but still take good care of their pets? I think perhaps, if the underlying reason they have so many is an actual compulsion.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

but I think of the pets who come in matted, teeth rotting out, covered in fleas, with some untreated illness(es) that people refuse to do anything for but somehow aren't considered a neglect case.

If you think they're significantly suffering and the owners are unwilling to do a minimum, then I think they should be reported -- but the key is whether or not you believe they're suffering significantly. Not all untreated illnesses cause suffering. Being pain-free should not be a requirement (hey, I have pain in my right knee most days but I manage just fine if I take it slow on the stairs, and I'm not significantly suffering).

 

[DVMDream]

I'd say quality of life/living conditions. Being able to provide adequate veterinary care (at minimum relieving suffering if the person can't afford treatment). Also, pay attention to county, city and state laws on max number of animals you can legally own...some places have these.

Dealt with a client a few months back who owned over 15 cats...one broke a leg. She paid for amputation then proceeded to bring in every cat she owned for vaccines and to get them all fixed. It took her some time but she did it. Every cat she brought in was clean, no matting, no URI, good BCS, etc. No reason she couldn't keep all 15+ as she provided them with medical care when needed, preventative care and they were all healthy on physical exam.

 

[pp9]

based on the opinion of someone OTHER than the owner. Don't most hoarders believe that they are taking great care of their animals??

I've worked with hoarders who knew their animals were in terrible shape, but would only bring them in as emergencies or severe illness came up. I've had these clients talk about how they've lost all their friends because no one comes over and they can't ever escape the fact that they wreak of feces/urine themselves. Some know exactly the situation they're in but cannot get rid of the animals.

I'm on the fence about whether or not to define a hoarder based on the ability to care for the animals. We've all seen single-pet families bring in an animal in awful condition, and we may know people who have 40 cats who are all in great health. It's the fact that the latter cannot get rid of/keeps adding cats that makes them a hoarder in my eyes.

 

[battie]

Can people be defined as hoarders from a psychologic standpoint but still take good care of their pets? I think perhaps, if the underlying reason they have so many is an actual compulsion.

I don't see why not. I don't feel like hoarding (or a lot of animal laws) should be based off the number of animals alone. As has been said, you have those crazy cat ladies with a million cats, but every single one is well cared for. If someone has a psychological drive for their cat collecting, they should seek treatment for the sake of their mental health; but I don't have a problem with their cat collection if the animals live under a high standard of welfare.

Am I supposed to report them?

I love this can of worms cause you can go down so many rabbit holes. My personal fave is debating why owning an emaciated pet is neglect or cruelty, but owning a morbidly obese pet is not.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

It's the fact that the latter cannot get rid of/keeps adding cats that makes them a hoarder in my eyes.

But we don't know what their motivation is......If housing and caring for whatever stray cat crosses their path is done reasonably well, we aren't in any position to know if they're hoarding or simply running an unofficial charity.

 

[finnickthedog]

Can people be defined as hoarders from a psychologic standpoint but still take good care of their pets? I think perhaps, if the underlying reason they have so many is an actual compulsion.

I don't know. It's possible that would maybe fall under "displaying hoarding behaviors" as opposed to "being a hoarder". I think there's a distinction between those two, but I'm not totally sure.

 

[that redhead]

It's the fact that the latter cannot get rid of/keeps adding cats that makes them a hoarder in my eyes.

This is the bottom line for me, based on the fact that hoarding is a recognized mental illness. I think a person who has 20 cats that are well-kept but are kept because of a compulsion is just a more palatable hoarder than the person with 10 dogs that are all falling apart. I'm OK with people having as many pets as they want so long as they are well-cared for, but I don't think that welfare alone is the defining standard, at least from a human psychiatric standpoint.

I also think that a lot of people with poorly-cared for animals don't realize how bad off their animals are. While I want so badly to believe that common sense is in fact common, we all know that the general public lacks it in the worst way when it comes to animals.

 

[killerleaf]

The people down the road moved in, with 4 horses. They looked good, and pretty. (ok, so I go all mushy over horsies). Anyway, we started noticing that they were adding to the number of horses, and the new additions were not in good shape...skinny as rails. At first, we thought they were the original ones, and were discussing calling the county on them. However, the next day, we noticed the original ones--who were all in good shape. Turns out, they were housing for the county some that had been picked up from a place that was neglecting them. They now are soo pretty! But they have said they need to find homes for them, as it is maxing out what they feel comfortable for on the amount of land they have--my hubby immediately said NO...drats.

all of that to say, sometimes you don't know what is happening just by looking, sometimes you have to get involved, and ask questions.

 

[Standard* Student]

For me, it comes down to the care and attention to each animal. When one is broken down, it becomes disordered.
I know of a cat owner who houses and feeds many stray cats but is able to pay for AND DOES all the recommended vaccines and services every year for each cat. Their medical care is surprisingly good. This is a rare example! But when you have 18+ cats, I feel they aren't getting the attention they deserve. Granted, some of the cats are feral and would rather have the company of other cats. But many of them are friendly and starved for attention.
If you are a stay at home spouse who has all day to pay attention to many animals, go for it! My guidelines:
1 - Can you afford full medical care for each animal (including emergencies, pet insurance is a good option)?
2 - Does each animal get a fair amount of attention (exercise, affection, training, ect), close to the amount they desire?

 

[cowgirla]

Yeah I think it comes down to welfare, cleanliness and medical care.

I have one client who has a ton of cats. They are all fat, sassy and get yearly visits and whatever bloodwork/ health care needed. 20+ cats. No questions asked, whatever is recommended. Yearly dentals, bloodwork, Etc. This owner also “sponsors” pets for seniors and others with limited income, and pays their bill with us.


I have another client with 20+ cats... we see them when they need spay/neuter and not again until they are sick/dying. More frequently they are dead on arrival or quickly euthanized... the owner will commonly call back a few hours later and change the name of the cat because “it’s not the one she thought it was.” She does private cremation on all of them... We’ve offered to put her in touch with rescues and the awesome owner listed above. Nope, no one can care for them like she does.

. That’s hoarding.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[LetItSnow]

I'm on the fence about whether or not to define a hoarder based on the ability to care for the animals. We've all seen single-pet families bring in an animal in awful condition, and we may know people who have 40 cats who are all in great health. It's the fact that the latter cannot get rid of/keeps adding cats that makes them a hoarder in my eyes.

I guess if someone has 40 cats who are in great health, I don't really care. I'm not here on earth to judge how many animals someone should have, and the city/county/municipality/whatever is there to enforce legal limits. My role ends (in my state) with reporting suspected abuse/cruelty. If all the animals are in great health - not my concern.

I mean, I think "hoarding" has multiple factors. At least for me, there's a "number" of animals (just kinda by definition). There's also an aspect of care/welfare. There's also a technical legal angle (in my municipality you aren't allowed to have more than 4 cats/dogs in a house without a special permit). So it's not as simple as just one of those aspects alone?

With regard to single-pet families with pets in awful condition - I think that's a different discussion, right? Those are possible abuse/cruelty cases.

 

[pp9]

I guess if someone has 40 cats who are in great health, I don't really care. I'm not here on earth to judge how many animals someone should have, and the city/county/municipality/whatever is there to enforce legal limits. My role ends (in my state) with reporting suspected abuse/cruelty. If all the animals are in great health - not my concern.

I mean, I think "hoarding" has multiple factors. At least for me, there's a "number" of animals (just kinda by definition). There's also an aspect of care/welfare. There's also a technical legal angle (in my municipality you aren't allowed to have more than 4 cats/dogs in a house without a special permit). So it's not as simple as just one of those aspects alone?

With regard to single-pet families with pets in awful condition - I think that's a different discussion, right? Those are possible abuse/cruelty cases.

True, but there can be mental illness involved that leads to poor care of a single animal too. I just think it's less black and white than "A hoarder does not care for animals properly."

 

[battie]

True, but there can be mental illness involved that leads to poor care of a single animal too. I just think it's less black and white than "A hoarder does not care for animals properly."

I guess it depends on what you as a clinician care about in regards to hoarding. For me, I'm going to draw the line at the welfare of the animal because that's what I feel is important to my scope of the situation.

But if you're concerned with both the welfare of the pet and the owner, then it does go beyond the scope of the pet's welfare. But I feel like that's outside my scope in that situation.

 

[LetItSnow]

True, but there can be mental illness involved that leads to poor care of a single animal too. I just think it's less black and white than "A hoarder does not care for animals properly."

I guess I don't understand the point about a single animal.

Yes, people can abuse or be cruel to single animals. But hoarders are, by definition, people with multiple animals. A person with one animal who does not take care of it properly is not a hoarder - they are committing animal abuse or neglect or cruelty, depending on the situation. A hoarder also may be doing those things - depending on your definition. 🙂

 

[pp9]

I guess it depends on what you as a clinician care about in regards to hoarding. For me, I'm going to draw the line at the welfare of the animal because that's what I feel is important to my scope of the situation.

But if you're concerned with both the welfare of the pet and the owner, then it does go beyond the scope of the pet's welfare. But I feel like that's outside my scope in that situation.

You make a good point actually...none of us are technically qualified to assess a fellow person's mental status and diagnose a hoarding disorder. We all know the signs and we can have a pretty good idea, but we're not mental health professionals.

I guess I don't understand the point about a single animal.

Yes, people can abuse or be cruel to single animals. But hoarders are, by definition, people with multiple animals. A person with one animal who does not take care of it properly is not a hoarder - they are committing animal abuse or neglect or cruelty, depending on the situation. A hoarder also may be doing those things - depending on your definition. 🙂

My original point was that I personally think hoarders can take care of their animals and still have the compulsion to add more/keep them all.

 

[ziggyandjazzy]

For me, it comes down to the care and attention to each animal. When one is broken down, it becomes disordered.
I know of a cat owner who houses and feeds many stray cats but is able to pay for AND DOES all the recommended vaccines and services every year for each cat. Their medical care is surprisingly good. This is a rare example! But when you have 18+ cats, I feel they aren't getting the attention they deserve. Granted, some of the cats are feral and would rather have the company of other cats. But many of them are friendly and starved for attention.
If you are a stay at home spouse who has all day to pay attention to many animals, go for it! My guidelines:
1 - Can you afford full medical care for each animal (including emergencies, pet insurance is a good option)?
2 - Does each animal get a fair amount of attention (exercise, affection, training, ect), close to the amount they desire?

I agree with some of this! The owner of the clinic I work at has a lot of cats. I mean a lot. Like 50+. I've gone over there to feed the cats and scoop litter boxes and there is a cat who will literally climb up my pant legs for attention. They do not get enough personal attention, which a lot of animals need imo. I am unsure if she would be considered a hoarder and I have actually thought about it. She gets defensive and doesn't try adopting out any of the cats, only adds more. The place is reasonably kept up and I wouldn't consider any of the cats in a neglect situation, although their care could be better. But if you aren't meeting the psychological demands of an animal, why is that not considered abuse? Because others can't see it? Sorry if none of that made sense.

 

[battie]

But if you aren't meeting the psychological demands of an animal, why is that not considered abuse? Because others can't see it?

Where would you draw the line, though? I think it could easily be argued that the majority of dogs owned by working class people don't get a lot of psychological consideration because their owners work all day. I would bet my dogs at home sleep at least 33% of their time, if not more. That's because my dad works 120 hours/week and my mom is taking care of errands and her own side work. That's not the most enriching of scenarios, and it's probably close to the norm.

 

[ziggyandjazzy]

Where would you draw the line, though? I think it could easily be argued that the majority of dogs owned by working class people don't get a lot of psychological consideration because their owners work all day. I would bet my dogs at home sleep at least 33% of their time, if not more. That's because my dad works 120 hours/week and my mom is taking care of errands and her own side work. That's not the most enriching of scenarios, and it's probably close to the norm.

Drawing a line is not easy in this scenario, nor is it in physical abuse situations a lot of times. I think there is a different between one dog not getting enough attention and 50+ cats,~15 dogs, and a scattering of other animals not getting enough. Your two parents' attention is spread between a few animals, hers is spread between dozens. Some of those cats rarely get interaction besides someone scooping their box every couple days.